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

I have a question, on a 1/4" tape moving at 15 or 30 inches per SECOND, how much information is stored? If we were to translate ALL the noise on the tape, how many GIGs, (more like TERABYTES) do you think it would digitally be converted to? in ONE SECOND? I can answer part of this... As much as the software was programmed to look for, SO there is a programming issue too... Is it a problem? YES....

I've had to patch a LOT of peoples messed up programming... These guys/girls were suppose to be the BEST...
You have to have an understanding of music, it is NOT.. 0 and 1s. or on and offs... IT'S MUSIC....

IS the guy/gal writing the code, JO SMO at the local University of WHATEVER? or Working with Carlos Santana to understand, HOW to write the code because he/she is a musician at HEART, but writes code for a living.... BIG difference... Just like below...

Don’t let a language barrier, be the undoing of understanding..

I see EXACTLY that, here... I understand both positions, yet one cannot understand the other... Simple, need to work in the real world where the language of RESPECT is always universal... I’ve worked on job sites with 5 different languages, and 10 different dialects, were spoken. NEVER any misunderstandings.. EVER... the problem here, we can’t use hand signals...

Gentleman RESTART your engines... Your talking about two different things...

Regards...

@audio2design doesn't believe in timbre nor the difference between analog/infinity vs discrete/digital! Analog instruments don't sample...analog/infinite - very simple concept; granted within the bounds of manufacturing and human hearing but nothing is "discarded" or "sampled' like in digital.

I wish my more expensive digital system could sound like the less expensive vinyl setup, even using regular pressings, but it just doesn't - while mind you my DAC is one of the 10 best on the planet... I guess you can't contribute anything to explain this from your digital biased perspective so don't really care what you have to say anymore. In the face of numerous A vs D comparisons, I can't get the digital to compete...at twice the cost; maybe with DSD512... These are my explanations to understand why. 

Without noise reduction best you will ever get out of tape is about 90db, with 80db more realistic. I will give you 90 for interests sake. Bandwidth at full SNR is likely about 20KHz, but I will give you 30KHz.  Can't use noise reduction or any other emphasis-de-emphasis for this calc.

Bits in stereo max about 1.25 megabits/second equivalent data.


I do agree, there appear to be two races going on. One of us though is moving forward, and one just appears to be going in circles.  This little diddy pretty much illustrates that:

Seven: Nyquist theorem is about coding and decoding signals and also the implicit limitations and not only the power to do so.... This theorem has nothing to do directly with TIMBRE, which is the cornerstone of musical perception but more than that the cornerstone for evaluation of audio system in their acoustical controlled or uncontrolled embeddings...

At some point perhaps the links will be made that all audio is stored as simple 2 dimensional signals, time and value, whether done in the analog domain or digital domain, and that that eventually gets out to the speakers, and then your ear perceives a complex set of frequencies and intermixed timings as something described as timbre (but is still just a set of frequencies and timing), and hence how accurately it is possible to recreate the original "timbre" of the instrument comes down to how accurately one can recreate those frequencies and timings. One can reproduce them very accurately. One cannot. One can do everything the other one can do. The other cannot. This has nothing to do with what you like better, it is just a simple factual discussion.  Want to hear exactly what the microphone picked up, use digital. Want to hear a euphonic presentation that you (and others) may or may not prefer? Use analog.  Want the option? Use digital and explore the plug-ins available to add colorations and distortions and noise.

Some people want the world to be full of magic. Others simple roll up their sleeves and get things done.

It appears simple if you have a simplistic understanding of how things work. There is nothing "infinite" about analog recordings. Not even remotely. That you assign an infinite to them shows lack of understanding. That you think digital discards things, while analog recordings do not just shows more lack of understanding. Attacking me for holes in your knowledge is not a good look.  I seem to know exactly what timbre is, I just don't feel a need to attach special qualities to it beyond what it is.

Analog instruments don't sample...analog/infinite - very simple concept; granted within the bounds of manufacturing and human hearing but nothing is "discarded" or "sampled' like in digital.

Timbre perception implied "timing" of bundle of micro events, that are simultaneous and successive at the same time or synchronized in a 4 dimension of a concrete acoustical-neurological space and it is a phenomena perceived and interpreted only for human ears... Something is lost then in the reductive 2 dimensions of signals theory...Timbre is not first an information set, it is first a dynamical event....

This is why many human ears vouch for analog... Their timbre learning recognition process is their witness...

Myself i own digital and in the beginning was very distress by his limitations... But for the last 2 years my embeddings controls devices and my choice of dac( Nos +minimalistic design ) make me smile again...

I dont pretend that my system now is better than any turntables but on par with many of them.... The parameters in plays are way too complex to speaking in the absolute sprouting some dogma...