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

People are no longer afraid in the audiophile community to say they prefer digital, or even to say they prefer vinyl, but realize it is a personal preference, nothing to do with accuracy of recreation.

I am sorry but in the beginning you said that turntable people were ignorant of Nyquist theorem... You have changed your tune...

Second you distort my view...I never speak of accuracy save for the ears ....There is a mathematical accuracy by Nyquist theorem between the microphone and the digital format yes rightly so, but no microphones can perfectly record the original live timbre event... Then my point was not "accuracy" in the measured sense, it is accuracy of timbre perception in a theater for the ears of the violonist or mine listening him in my room... I spoke of recreation because PERFECT reproduction is impossible...Then a prefered format is a matter of convenience for each of us...Not an ignorant choice.... There is no superior format in the absolute, only more practical one....

A precision: A produced timbre is not "accurate", it is the note produced by the structural and material properties of the violin which is "accurate" for the ears...The musical and acoustical physionomy of timbre is not a frequency or even a bunch of frequencies, it is more complex acoustically than that....Confusing the 2 is not understanding what timbre is and why it is nearly impossible to record or reproduce it perfectly artificially, it takes a room with some ears .... Microphones cannot perfectly reproduced it because of all the trade-off at stake in the process ....

If you dont want to discuss more , it is OK, but dont erase casually the point you begin with in this discussion and distort my own argument after that... 😊

Ok then i will let the matter here....

I am a bit passionate but i try to be truthful to the point in discussion, and i am able to recognize when i am demonstrated to be wrong....I hope so...

My best to you....

**** People are no longer afraid in the audiophile community to say they prefer digital, or even to say they prefer vinyl,.......****

True.

****....... but realize it is a personal preference, ......****

Also true.


****....... nothing to do with accuracy of recreation. ****

Absolutely not true.

It has everything to do with accuracy of recreation.....,,for me. However, I am not the least bit interested in trying to convince you or anyone that I am right and that you are wrong. Just don’t waste your energy trying to convince me that I am wrong. Please!

To me, good analog simply sounds closer to the sound of live unamplified unprocessed acoustic musical instruments and voice than even the best digital. It is a fundamental difference that is there no matter how good the equipment is. Of course, with the best equipment of both ilks the difference is subtle, but it is still there. I hear it and it is obvious to me. I base this, not on unfounded “preference”, but on countless hours of being around the sound of live acoustic instruments.  So, The most interesting question for me is why it is that some are so hellbent on trying to convince me that I don’t hear what I do hear.

You cannot argue if someone think that a timbre can be characterized in essence by being "accurate" or "euphonic"....Or a "taste"... Timbre is a scientific acoustical concept, not a "colorful" or colorless more accurate taste....

The violonist playing a pitch note can play it more or less accurately, more or less euphonically, but the timbre of the violin is NOT the note played by the instrument...It is a precise sound complex physionomy coming from a complex structured vibrational materials like a voice....The timbre of a voice is not the note....
And the acoustic of the theater or the studio where the violin or the voice sing is critical for the timbre experience....


The same note played by a saxophone can also be more or less accurate or euphonically played, but the timbre of the sax is not defined by accuracy or colored euphony...

How to discuss the always imperfect recording of timbre, by microphones, which are always a trade-off tree of possible choices, and the imperfect but anyway partially successful recreation of the timbre in the listener room, if someone confuse it with the way the violonist plays it or with what the designed format gives ? Discussion impossible...

It is not at all the same thing when the audio system gives it before OR after the rightful installation of embeddings controls, especially an acoustical one ?



Because the audio system need especially an acoustical setting to give a truthful timbre, nevermind the format chosen....( but like i already said even if the 2 formats are equal and they are , in a bad embeddings i think analog is sometimes more robust for the recreation of the timbre experience)But the choice at the end is subjective and convenient, relative to too much factors in play to condem a format for another....

If someone dont know that all discussion is condemned to nil....

True. An instrument may have certain timbre characteristics that are inherent and manifest themselves, to one degree or another, no matter the musician playing it. However, the sound (timbre) we hear is primarily the personal sound that the player coaxes out of the instrument. IOW, two different players playing the same instrument will produce very different timbres. We are not talking about the timbre of the instrument, but of the timbre of the musician....his unique timbre signature.

More importantly, and this is probably the main problem with these debates, timbre is only one of the ways in how the two technologies differ fundamentally. Issues of dynamic rendering of the music...what some refer to as level of “emotional involvement” are even more important.  We tend to focus primarily on issues of and differences in timbre and overlook issues that manifest themselves in how the two technologies and the playback equipment reproduce micro dynamic nuance. There is where most of the music can be found. Not in the sound (timbre) of the performance, but the feeling in the performance.

Don't leave us in suspense, which has more "micronuance"?