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

I prefer analog vinyl.

First anybody can have a personal experience...This woman mathematician is not an expert in music, she like music and gives only his opinion...It is for general reader in a non musical review about elementary fact in analog and digital tech.

Second It is not a UNIVERSAL fact that all people has the same opinion than you...

This article does a disservice to that preference, as the writer knows little about how the technologies of each format works, and therefore most if not all of his (redundant, I may add) assertions are not grounded in any reality.

Here you write without thinking that this article is only an opinion and vulgarisation for general public from someone who KNOWS enough mathematics to at least understand what is digital technology...

Then she explain why in PRINCIPLE by Fourier analysis there is not supposed to be a difference in the comparison between digital and analog, BUT it seems anyway that, perhaps she says, there is one difference even if the theory of signals said the contrary...She only wanted to know by herself... It is vulgarisation +anecdotal personal experience like yours or mine...Not more not less...

Then your affirmation that "she does a disservice to that preference" (analog vinyl) is wrong...She never pretended to be a pro reviewers in music or an expert in sound...But your affirmation that she knows " little about how the technologies of each format works" is if not plainly wrong at least misleading: all digital technology are based on a sophisticated mathematics and she knows about this mathematics because this level of maths is complex for most people but simple for a professional mathematician...

And you add to your distorted interpretation of this simple article :" his assertions are not grounded in any reality" which is saying nothing at all except a bad interpretation of this article and the writer knowledge... It is your opinion of this article that is grounded nowhere except in your dogmatic interpretation of the validity your own experience... She speak with modesty about his own experience in the same way that you speak about your own experience with less modesty tough... 😁

I must add that even if myself i use digital tech with success, i am not, in this war, in the same boat that those who attack vinyl afficionados because of ignorance of Nyquist theorem, neither i am in the boat of those who vouch only for vinyl like a universal evidence...

Then this simple experience of someone who know the digital signal theory and vulgarise some of these notions here, BUT conclude that she finally could not take any boat...This article is interesting... Except for dogmatics from the 2 boats that will speak of her as incompetent because she does not chose a boat...

I am with her because myself i know that not only the format but many other factors play together and for MOST of us it is IMPOSSIBLE to cut this knot with absolute certitude....Too much variable are implied by the comparison...Not the least one is the subjective link of each one of us with timbre perception...And our own rightful or wrongful embeddings of these 2 format...

I myself prefer MY digital embedded dac and my opinion is grounded in MY experience and in MY reality....Nobody can propose this experience of mine or yours to be a UNIVERSAL fact demonstrated once and for all by ..... (write a name).

I did not say that your have written a bad post....😊



Happy new Year....

It was a rather weak "paper" not based in any verified reality. There is nothing at all scientific about the paper nor really mathematical for that matter. She is not at all a subject matter expert.

note: no there is is no explanation of the Nyquist theorem there, only allusion, but she know what it is, then his conclusion cannot be attributed to his ignorance of simple maths... 😁


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/which-sounds-better-analog-or-digital-music/

It was a rather weak "paper" not based in any verified reality. There is nothing at all scientific about the paper nor really mathematical for that matter. She is not at all a subject matter expert.

Bad faith exist when someone misrepresent the intention of someone else to attack him after this distortion...

First -You cannot accuse her, like you blame me of ignorance about the Nyquist Theorem, which is small game mathematically speaking for a mathematician...

Second- This CANNOT be a "weak paper" this a general public article... Then faulting her for a piece of vulgarization and anecdotal subjective experience demonstrate your vindicative dogmatism and volontary distortion of objective fact...

Third I myself use this article for the general public here, and for his opinion that float none of the 2 boats in war, nor yours (digital) nor the other boat (turntable fanatics). She trust his ears and have some doubt without faulting no one, nor the digital camp nor the turntable one...( She is modest and intelligent)


I am in the third boat with her and real science, the human Brain/ ears evaluation of timbre experience cannot be reduced to a theorem of signal theory... She said it but with caution like an interrogation: why if mathematically speaking digital and analog are on par , and why if mathematically digital CAN DO anything that analog can do, why then, so much humans are judging it inferior?

My own point which is alluded to in this article, is that from the only accuracy that count, the human ears judgement of accuracy, there remain a debate and this debate pose the question of what is a phenomenon...It is not a measured number, if we said so we destruct science...

My other point, which is not alluded to in this article, is  about the powerful difference that embeddings controls can have on turntable or dac and then on our judsgment about the experience... 

I myself use digital, i will repeat myself, but unlike dogmatics of one boat or  the other, i refuse to solve this Gordian knot by idiosyncrasic arbitrary decision or by some theorem... I am with those who with reason, like this mathematician, interrogate herself: why if mathematically there is no possible difference, why so many human perceive one?

My experience is it is impossible to cut simply that problem assuming only ONE experience, mine or some other experience, nor decide because a theorem of the theory of signals said so...

Accuracy is a human experience first, not a microphone experience translated in digital sequences first ... If you dont understand that, you will understand nothing to the universe or about yourself... Sorry for you...

I repeat , i am not on the turntable boat, and especially not on your boat especially for the reason(Nyquist theorem) you are there, even if i consider digital on par with analog in my experience for reasons i will not repeat here and anyway reason you will be unable or not interested to understand...

By the way last time you depart for a beer with myjostyn leaving ignorant dude like me alone, then why coming back with no new arguments to answer a post that was not directed toward you?

You cannot accuse her to not understand Nyquist theorem do you? You can play this game with ordinary people but not with me and certainly not with her....






« Autocritic hability and good faith are the ONLY gist of Intelligence, nothing else is»-Anonymus Smith

«But if some Nobel prize have not and never had autocritic capacity or good faith then what about his intelligence?»- Anonymus friend

«Guess what?»-Myself

Magister,

Come on bud. There is literally no information in that article. Nothing. Some hand waving with 0 attachment to the real world at all. None. And given just a PhD candidate, not in signal processing, there is more than a small chance that her practical understanding of Nyquist and real world systems is very weak. Right now you just come across as clutching at straws and taking 6-8 paragraphs to do it. Please learn some brevity. Any point you may have is lost in the noise.

Ok i will be short...

Humans are not reducible to numbers....Or apparatus...

Perception of timbre is a subjerctive/objective complex problem...

Reducing it to Nyquist theorem is ridiculous...

She also think so...



His article was not INTENDED to be for specialist then repeating that there is no new information there is bad faith...

His own human experience is speaking in the article intended for ordinary people and it is interesting and well put... and i cite his article because being a mathematician she knows about Nyquist theorem which only imply elementary mathematic for a mathematician by the way and ordinary people here who dont embark in any boat may be interested to read that....

By the way you quit the last time why are you coming back?

To critic for incompetence a general public article?

If someone is incompetent it is me by the way, not her.... Then be direct and candide and said so... Do not zig zag and said untruthful thing about someone who is not only competent but humanly modest in an intended  GENERAL public article..... I am not fond of distorted argument...