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

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.

It is already difficult to discuss about only ONE concept ....😁

Your remark about the way each player use the timbre potential of an instrument differently is very right.... You are a musician no doubt... 😊You are unmasked....

You are right that the feeling of the music is ALL in the way of the specific micro gestures of the musician controlling the note and the timbre...But this signature is easy to hear even in bad recording conditions in some measure... I listen to very bad recording of the great russian pianist Sofronitsky and his playing. badly recorded is unmistakeable in Scriabin...

 For sure when i was speaking about timbre, i was speaking of the instrument playing in some specific hands, no instument produce a timbre without a musician playing it in his OWN specific way.... In this sense the instrument timbre vary and change, not only because of the acoustical setting of a room, but also because of the musician body dynamics.... 

There exist a definition of the many  factors in play in the mathematical  modeling of the timbre, and the way timbre is perceived differently in different acoustical settings also....But no one can explain why Moravec produce his own colors hues on the same piano than another pianist which will give another interpretation of the basic timbre of the instrument...Body and instrument are one wedding here....

The analog format for me is equal not superior to vinyl, but here it is not a truth only my opinion but based on simple mathematical equivalence and my own experience....An opinion only anyway...

On the other hand with an ordinary system not rightfully acoustically embedded, i think analog is more robust and able to give a more truthful experience of timbre than digital in the same quality level system and conditions... But for superior system and very good embeddings i dont think so.... But here it is also my limited opinion...

My best to you....

audio2design, I think I made it pretty obvious. First, it is not a question of which has more or less, but of which renders micro dynamic nuance (not “micro nuance”) in a more natural way. This is what many refer to as simply micro dynamics. Micro dynamics is what gives music the sense of aliveness and what, more so than timbre, conveys the musical expression of the performer.

Obviously, both technologies can sound very good and the differences between the best of both are very subtle. However, the differences are still there. If compare we must, for me, good analog still gets closer to the sound of real. That is what my ears tell me. Yours may not. I’m cool with that. Why does this bother some?

Micro dynamics is what gives music the sense of aliveness and what, more so than timbre, conveys the musical expression of the performer.

You are right about that, but for me it is through the specific way the musician produce his specific timbre from the instrument that reveal the microdynamic which is the aliveness of the musical interpretation like you rightly said....I dont want to contradict here just to express my perception....

Timbre is always a lived concrete specfic event....Never totally perfectly recorded... Because of these choices in microphones properties and locations....

It is the reason why some great conductor, like Celibidache hated recording sessions, because of this lost... But some great other one  conscious of the miraculous power of the diffusion loved the recording like Karajan... The 2 were right .... 😊