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

What is truly funny is you don’t understand Nyquist theory. If you did, you would understand that within the framework of audio and the SNR of the recording, and the sample rate that digital can capture in full detail all waveforms within 1/2 the sampling rate (minus filtering of course).

sin(x)/x is purely a linear multiplication function and easily corrected, and if you understood signal processing, you would know it does not in practice result in rounding errors even on Redbook playback, but of course, since virtually all audio is also sampled well beyond audio rates these days (and bit depths), it does not come much into play .... which is why in any review of a DAC, you will see nearly perfectly flat response across the audio band and SNR, THD, etc. pretty much flat as well with good quality DACs. Maybe you should read science based audio information instead of parroting people who know as little as you do?

dover1,306 posts12-29-2020 10:32pm

The analog signal will mash up timing, frequency information, timbre, anything at all you want to use to describe said signal. Digital does not.

Thats the funniest thing I’ve ever seen on this forum.
If you understood nyquist theory and how d/a converters work, you would know that digital is a little bit out all of the time - rounding errors from the sine x/x in red book CD, endemic in every calculation, are just the tip of the problem.

The original phenomenon is not a signal, or if it is one, it is a complex one with digital and analog aspect link to acoustic of room and ears relation...

The acoustical timing of many events in the room constituting the "timbre" instrument for the brain analog and digital "computer" to speak metaphorically, cannot be reduced totally to only "digital timing" signals , the digital signals are also a timing approximation...They create a kind of noise of their own...

Digital and analog are necessary at the same time to understand the phenomenon.... It is the reason why digital or analog are on par and able to give each one something the other one cannot give...

You can call the analog way a "colored" taste, completely useless but it is not so simple....Ears are not replaceable by  computers... It will be someday in some way, but it is not the actual matter of the thread to discuss the limits of this replacement...

If you are going to make stuff up to suit your view of the world, I don't see how we can have an intelligent discussion on this topic.


And no they are not on par.  A digitizing and playback system can capture the output of a vinyl playback system and recreate it such that you cannot tell which is directly coming from vinyl, and which is the digital system.  There is no current analog system in audio which can accomplish the same with digital.

If you are going to make stuff up to suit your view of the world,

When i said that they are on par, i was not speaking about the technological possiblities, but of their different qualities contributing to the perceived phenomenon...

You also make stuff up to suit your technological view of the world...

I only say from the beginning that analog is not superior to digital in audio design, but i oppose the affirmation that all there is in sound is captured only and completely by digital cooking recipe....The brain is NOT a digital computer and the ears are not an analog mechanical engine....

in my experience, digital was the best thing that could happen to us working-class types that previously could only barely afford crappy entry-level analog whose welter of blatant distortions both ruins the software [records] as well as irritates the ears of all listeners within earshot. cheap digital sounds glarey and borderline harsh but at least there is no inner groove distortion, mistracking on challenging passages, poor pressings with molded-in distortion, crackle and hiss and groove roar and rumble.