Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"

assigning terms like "naturalness of timbre" that are factually untrue does not change that.

The timbre of an instrument will be recorded in a specific studio room with his peculiarities...And he will be listen to in a specific audiophile room...

The recreation of this event , the timbre of a piano, will be relative not only to the mic but also the the geometry, and to the topology and content of the recording studio...

Digital or analog will transport in their own way these signals, but their recreation in my room will be better or worst, not only because i use digital or analog, nevermind my choices,but because the acoustical embeddings of my room, and the machanical embeddings of my system, and the electrical noise floor of my house will give me better or worst conditions for the CONCRETE experience of listening the piano timbre...

I dont think that there is an absolute superiority between analog or digital, only advantages or inconveniences for the listening Room/brain....

I maybe wrong, but i dont understand how.... 😁



Appendix:
Timbre is complex phenomenon not reducible to frequencies only....

Wikipedia:

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
   
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration

Then when a Company like TACET use analog tubes only recording method it is because the analog recording method will be able to seize or grasp in a DIFFERENT way some aspect of the complex phenomena of timbre... They dont say that analog is absolutely better, they say it is absolutely different to record timbre with or without analog method...

By the way "timbre" is not only a sums of frequencies it is an event in a SPECIFIC room not reducible to a mix of frequencies...Timbre is accurate not only by exact summation of the reproduced frequencies but also with some timing of mutiple events in the recording room... Then using analog recording method or digital one will make some aspect easier to be recorded and other aspect not so easier...."Real-time-timing-events" (point three and five mainly in the wiki definition of timbre) are not recreated in the same way with analog or digital recordings methods, because each one will analyze the timing events by focusing on different characteristics in the complex timbre phenomena.... NONE are superior......I repeat NONE are superior...

My point is the same than you....Digital is in no way inferior.... But i add....Analog is in no way inferior too....

No, it will create distortions and coloring that many find pleasing. No more. No less.  It also gives them a niche that lets them charge more.

Then when a Company like TACET use analog tubes only recording method it is because the analog recording method will be able to seize or grasp in a DIFFERENT way some aspect of the complex phenomena of timbre... They dont say that analog is absolutely better, they say it is absolutely different to record timbre with or without analog method...

"Real-time-timing-events" (point three and five mainly in the wiki definition of timbre) are not recreated in the same way with analog or digital recordings methods, because each one will analyze the timing events by focusing on different characteristics in the complex timbre phenomena.... NONE are superior......I repeat NONE are superior...

This is just a flight of fancy and no attachment to reality. No wow and flutter, no tape stretch, no print through, absolutely perfect timing accuracy .... there is in no way anything superior about current analog audio recording technology that can compete with digital on any aspect.  Analog recording methods and playback will mush the timing information. Digital will capture and recreate it perfectly.

In your dogmatic rant you conflate 2 different concepts of timing, the timing of bits flows, and the acoustical timing events linked to the definition of "musical timbre"...

And i never ever said that analog is superior to digital, you confuse me with some others audiophiles you seems to despise...

I am an audiophile myself but i dont think that analog/vinyl is superior at all...

I think that analog method for recording studio or for rendition in our room are different with their own advantages compared to digital... They are on par with different results...

Timbre is first an acoustical phenomena between room/instrument/ and ears, NOT at all  an information process phenomena, being it analog or digital....

And some aspects of the complex acoustical timing events that are linked to the formation of timbre are well served on some aspect by digital recording method and differently by analog recording method, and also in the acoustic of the listening room, by a dac or a turntable and also by a tube or by a S.S. amplifier... It is not a question of subjective prefered colors taste, it is a question about the way the acoustical timing of the recording room making the timbre of the instrument will be listen more or less rightly so in the acoustical conditions of the listening room...

The timbre of an instrument is always evaluated by human ears in a specific acoustical room, never can be measured .... Then i dont speak about "COLORS" i speak about "TIMBRE" and timbre is not a set of complex   phenomena reducible to frequencies ONLY.... This is why we speak about complex timing and the points number 3 and 5 in the wiki definition of timbre...

Try to be logical and less dogmatic....

OUF !

No, I most certain don’t conflate the two. Digital perfectly preserves timing in the analog time domain with well sub nanosecond accuracy, down even into 10's of picoseconds. Analog recording formats by virtue of their significant mechanical flaws, introduce huge variations in timing.

In your dogmatic rant you conflate 2 different concepts of timing, the timing of bits flows, and the acoustical timing events linked to the definition of "musical timbre"...

Digital perfectly preserves timing in the analog time domain

The timing we speak about in the formation of timbre is an acoustical concrete perceived phenomenon in a room first with ears in the room, not first a sound phenomenon in analog format or digital format....

The acoustic of a room is not an analog format... The speakers/room analog waves timing needs the Fourier analysis of the ears/brain to become a perceived phenomenon..... Real sound phenomenon are not analog nor digital, they are the 2 at the same time....And none is superior to the other except in your head ....

You look like the shaman in amazonia who shrink heads, you shrink sound phenomena in 2 competitive formats, analog OR digital, and declare one superior to the other....



😊
OUf!