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

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!

This is just trying to paint a fantasy brush onto reality. You don’t store sound, you store a signal, either analog of digital. The analog signal will mash up timing, frequency information, timbre, anything at all you want to use to describe said signal. Digital does not. I do declare one format superior because I was involved in recording for decades, all through the format transition, initially squeezing what we could out of analog, and have sat listening to the live feed from the microphone, tape loops, and digital loops, and can state, as would almost all my colleagues over the years, that modern digital is effectively exactly what is coming off the microphone, while analog tape, and any subsequently any analog playback after much processing, is a colored version of what was picked up.


I don’t think you understand digital well enough to understand that "timing" as it applies to analog audio signals can be perfectly captured by digital, whereas analog formats are seriously flawed.

You my prefer the colorations introduced by an analog format, and perhaps you will equate those colorations to be more natural or real because you like them, but liking something is not the same as accurate reproduction.

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