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


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

I am sharing this for those with an interest. I no longer have vinyl, but I find the issues involved in the debates to be interesting. This piece raises interesting issues and relates them to philosophy, which I know is not everyone's bag. So, you've been warned. I think the philosophical ideas here are pretty well explained -- this is not a journal article. I'm not advocating these ideas, and am not staked in the issues -- so I won't be debating things here. But it's fodder for anyone with an interest, I think. So, discuss away!

https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2019/11/25/spin-me-round-why-vinyl-is-better-than-digital/amp/?fbclid...
128x128hilde45
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...


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...


No, this is what she says.


But the limitations of math in replicating reality may factor in to the difference in listening experiences reported by so many vinyl lovers.

And guess what. She is NOT qualified to say that. The limitations of math have nothing to do with the problem. It is purely implementation which she appears quite ingnorant about.  She shows virtually no practical knowledge on the subject (not even a good theoretical understanding).

When it comes to storing sound as a digital file, however, the limited capacity of computers is a problem. Sound waves contain an infinite number of points. Computers cannot store infinite amounts of information.


And in this statement she just shows herself to be yet another academic trying to look smart outside her area of expertise.



Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge. It's not standard curriculum for mathematics. Ditto likely ignorant w.r.t Shannon's theorem.



You are interpretating what you want to and assigning expertise where no actual evidence of it exists.






But the limitations of math in replicating reality may factor in to the difference in listening experiences reported by so many vinyl lovers.
This intelligent woman know that the map is not the territory...
Is it difficult to understand?

And in this statement she just shows herself to be yet another academic trying to look smart outside her area of expertise.


You attibute to her something that describe your attitude....It is yourself reducing human timbre perception to a mathematical theorem taken like an absolute...Acoustic is NOT signal theory....

It is also the fallacy of accuracy, meaning that in no way we can attribute an absolute signification to numbers out of any human experience in the first and last place...

Elementary epistemology....




She speak here about the mathematical translation of ANYTHING analog in digital, using Nyquist theorem , that is to say using a FINITE amount of information to store ANY infinite continuous sound wave... This is the same thing that you already said from the beginning, not surprizing because this is linked to the content of the Nyquist theorem, then how can you accuse her of incompetence?
because humans only hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, we can get rid of any other frequencies that may show up in a sound wave’s decomposition and still get back the original sound. So the sampling theorem explains how to use a finite amount of information to store any sound wave.

This is what she really said about fourier and Nyquist, and you think that i am stupid or what ?

This is the gibberish you attribute to her in place of what she just said in the citation i just use:

Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge