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

On that score @Mahgister links to a much better article than the original one that started the thread. I suppose @Audio2Design didn’t actually read it before he dismissed it. I’m talking about the one in Scientific American. It’s clear, concise, uncontroversial, and contains a key point right at the end: digital uses math to reproduce the signal, while analog doesn’t.

I read it completely. Difference between me and you is understood it. Likely understand the math as well as the author, probably way more experience with it, and far far more understanding of the practical aspects of it. It was a crap article like so many other crap articles by supposed intellectuals not realizing what they don’t know.

If you understood the math and practical implications you would realize that your beloved "analog" is not remotely the "real" thing and is a far poorer representation of reality than digital. You simply love the high crosstalk (centers image especially in acoustically poor setups), you like the surface noise (gives a sense of space), you like the softened transients (easy old the ears) and perhaps you like all the inaccuracies in your setup that warm the sound or brighten it for older ears. You probably like the higher distortion too which again can create an artificial but false sense of space. Given the typically poor acoustics most "audiophiles" live with I can see the attraction.

But ... Some of us choose not to delude ourselves that vinyl or tape is superior for accurate recreation. You may like it. I often do. But I am quite aware of why and it is not remotely because it is realistic or true to the source. It is not.

@madavid0 got it spot on with the first post he did as did @millercarbon 
this is regrettably a vacuous snake oil set of reasons and has no basis at all. Digital is actually wide bandwidth so where they got compression from I do not know. The truth was very eloquently explained by the editor of Stereo magazine at the high end audio show in Windsor a few years ago and he was quoting a recording engineer whose name I have unfortunately lost. Imagine a cartridge in a groove as a pen on a seismograph at the top and bottom of the movement - at always creates a curve over a square shape. He demonstrated to the audience identical recordings in both formats in similar systems ie all Nagra save for the turntable which was an SME- same price. Some liked the vinyl and some the digital. As humans we are organic/analogue - digital is not that. I just accept the advantages of each format although I was in the larger group that preferred vinyl

jollytinker175 posts01-10-2021 9:40am

@audio2design:

It was a crap article like so many other crap articles by supposed intellectuals not realizing what they don’t know.

Look, this is utter nonsense as anyone can see if they feel like reading through the article. It’s also nonsense (but funny) that you can hear my system through my own ears and describe its problems.

Anyone who reads the article with any actual experience will quickly realize the author does not have any other than a cursory understanding of the math and little understanding of the technology. It's a puff piece.   That the article "impresses" you only substantiates my statement.  Throw around credentials (weak at best), avoid any practical discussion (since you have no actual experience), suggest conclusions (without backing it up). It's formulaic.