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

**** .....you are making up a property and then assigning it to a particular technology that you like. That is your choice.  

Am I pretty certain you have never spent time in a recording studio with access to both tape and moderately good digital to know that the qualities you assign to "analog" simply do not exist? Yes. ****

With all due respect, as concerns the above comments, you don’t know what you are talking about. 

I generally don’t like to talk about my professional experiences on an Internet forum; in part because I understand that we all have different experiences and it is pointless, not to mention disrespectful, to try and convince someone that his experience is ill founded.  I prefer to simply put my observations, based on my experiences, out there and anyone can make of them what they will.  Having said all that, make of this what you will and for whatever it may be worth:

First, as I wrote previously, both formats can sound excellent.  The differences being discussed are certainly subtle; but they are very real nonetheless.  So, for me, this is not about putting down one format or the other; both excel in particular ways.  It should also be pointed out that, as any good audiophile knows 😊, one man’s “subtle” is another man’s deal breaker.

I have been a professional musician my entire working life (45 yrs).  I have performed in both acoustic (probably mostly) and sound-reinforced settings hundreds (if not thousands) of times.  I  have also spent  hundreds of hours in recording studios and in control booths  where I have, on several occasions, been able to listen to playback from both analog tape and digital formats.  My opinion and that of many colleagues (not all) has been that ON BALANCE analog tape (and good vinyl playback) gets closer to the sound of real.  So, yes, this may be about “preference”....preference for what sounds closer to real.  It should come as no surprise that all this is particularly obvious in acoustic settings where most if not all instruments being played and recorded are acoustic instruments and not amplified or electronically processed in any way.

Anyone who has not had any experience listening to playback of a performance in a control booth would be shocked at just how much degradation of musical nuance the performance suffers by the time it reaches the consumer, no matter the format or record/playback technology used.  In my experience the most damage is done in the area of the sense of aliveness or micro dynamics.  It is mostly in this area of the total sonic experience that we can hear most of a performer’s expressive qualities; subtle phrasing details and overall musical intent.  

Some of us are very sensitive to and so very focused on issues of timbre as the deciding factor of what is “accurate” or not.  There is no doubt that timbre is related to and impacts our perception of dynamic nuance.  However, in my experience it does so only to a degree.  Playback equipment can sound fairly truthful timbre wise, but sound dynamically dead.  Conversely, some can err on the side of timbral euphony and  still sound dynamically alive. 

Neither format nor playback gear is perfect and we are all sensitive to particular areas of the complete sonic picture of a musical performance more so than others.  Given the excellence of both formats and gear available today it seems silly to argue about any of this.  However, for me, and whatever technical reasons there may be for this, ON BALANCE, analog simply has more of that “thing” that can sometimes almost fool me into thinking that I am listening to the real thing.  Digital simply doesn’t do it nearly as often.  

Happy listening.

wuwulf, Re “ambience”:

I hope it is ok to take the liberty of quoting another poster:

Schubert 12-23-2020 11:28am

All that matters is what YOUR brain thinks .
Mine thinks vinyl is in a airy room.
It thinks CD is playing in a room with no air in it .

 My opinion and that of many colleagues (not all) has been that ON BALANCE analog tape gets closer to the sound of real. 

You see now I know you are lying. Why because I am quite open about my experience having developed, modified, optimized, world class studio equipment much of my life and spent too much time listening to live feeds and recording feeds from just before digital when analog was at its peak (I optimized many a tape machine) all the way through the digital revolution.  I started my career with tape optimization. I spent 100s of hours listening to what was being played and recorded live. 


I would have a very hard time finding a recording engineer with the relevant experience, and I have dealt with 100s, who would claim that the analog recording was more "real" or true to the source. Ones that work with high end professional gear and have experience with both just don't say that because it is not true. You won't be able to tell the difference between a live feed and the digital studio recording. They are indistinguishable.  With tape you always knew ... Always. The artifacts are readily noticable.


Recording engineers don't use terms like dynamic micro nuance or whatever made up term you created.

Now many engineers and artists preferred the euphonic colorations of tape. Took some of the edge off perhaps, fattened the bass, etc.  That is why we have digital plug ins to simulate those effects.

I don't expect people to believe me. Do a search for highly experienced engineers who worked from the 80s -2000s. Some have written articles. All will say digital is what accurately recreates the source (warts and all).  Many will also say that tape presented a more pleasing recreation, but not more accurate.  Now they just recreate that in software and get the best of both worlds.

Low Level.Listening to digital I hear every insrument beautiful rendered, often betters analog. There is enough of everything, but still somehow it is presented as it is recorded in space. Where on analog the music is more like craftet.

Remember helping out on a recording of a three piece trio with one singer.  Very simple music, absolute dark background done in a studio environment.  The result was not good. The quiet was unnatural and the brain just does not like that. It was fixed by adding in some environmental noise.   Ever noticed how hearing chairs move in an orchestral recording isn't distracting and adds a more real quality?

There are lots of tools now for adding pleasant (to most) euphonic colorations. It's an interesting area.   For me personally i prefer the dark background on orchestral music, likely because their is so much going on and digital allows me to pick out all the nuance including that chair moving.  Rock and Pop I often prefer vinyl but modern releases are changing that.

“Lying”

Nice! Way to go. I have no idea what exactly your experience has been, or what genre(s) you have worked with. I could also point out and expound on the fact that recording engineers and musicians are often at odds as to what sounds closer to real (one reason so many recordings sound subpar), but that would surely not lead to anything positive here. Obviously, we have had very different experiences. It is also obvious that it is not possible to have a discussion with you. Perhaps our paths will cross some day? I tend to doubt it.