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

He does not have the culture and deep philosophical understanding necessary to even pose the problem...

He think that measured "accuracy" always rules over ears accuracy, without being conscious of the implicit epistemological fallacy : a circle of measured numbers without human interpreters means nothing....


He essentially accuse you of lying, he accuse even a mathematician, who wrote in simple terms for general public about his own experience between digital and analog without condemning the turntable, to be unable to understand Nyquist theorem... Which is a ridiculous accusation against any mathematician...

He accuse me of ignorance in audio but that is relatively true then i will not object, but it is certainly also his case in many aspects of audio unbeknownst to him....


I dont know why i was arguing with him, except i miss my job, counselling students and discussing about their readings...Mathematics included .... 😊 i remember that i argued with him the first time because i dont like condemnation of ignorance about all turntable lovers...

All his posts demonstrate that he does not have a clue about the modelling timbre concept ( he call this euphonic subjective then unreal colors 😄) and microphones then what could we say ?.... If myself ignorant in acoustic can spot these holes, his knowledge is not what he think it is........

Anyway....

I will not ask you which is your musical instrument by discretion but 😋i guess it is piano.... 

My deepest salutations...

To me its like a porn DVD as opposed to the real thing.  Digital plays music for you; vinyl immerses you in the musical experience.  Digital will give you a 3 d sonic hologram if its set up right but vinyl brings you into that hologram (if its set up right).  Its really not close.  

Universe was created and is maintain by a sound .... Even the prime numbers series is a sound pattern, in music conscious ears rules equations not the reverse....

Then i cannot contest your experience even if i am happy with my digital implementation....




«At the end acoustic is consciousness itself»-Anonymus Smith

My own experience is that audio S.Q. is proportional to the rightfully embeddings controls and treatment in the mechanical, electrical, amd acoustical dimensions way more than solely the choice of an electronic

component....

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...

Dear Mahgister, we all know it is a pain to set up analog. I am not able to get all the vta , sra etc. right. Listing again and again to small changes makes me start to hate analog :-). All I do is roughtly to get the setup work o.k.. But still at the end I always prefer analog over the years - mainly in terms of tiring free listening. Although I had several equipments which played in serveral rooms during the years.

You are saying that analog is more robust, if the system is not acoustically embebbded good enough, which in my case has been always true. For example the place for my speaker has always been the place where the speakers have to be placed from a visial point of view.Additional I assume that most people like me do not have the skills to set up a system perfectly and let the system work with the room and not against. Because of this would one not expect more people prefer analog? And why you believe an analog system is more robust.

Dear frogman,

I trust my ears and they tell me that ON BALANCE, well implemented analog gets closer to the sound of real than does digital. Not always by a lot, but enough for it to matter to me based on my sonic and musical priorities

Summarizes my feeling what I believe too. And this although digital has so many advantages. All that all I come up is that it does not help to compare single parameters. In this respect digital wins always hands down.
But there might be at least one criteria which lets down the superity of digital. But fortunate for the industry it effect less people. Whatever they might be, still has been overlooked in their performance or they are still unknown. All I can express are some words which I used to explain why I still prefer analog over digital, words which I did use in earlier posts. But whatever describing words be they "ambience" or "drirectness" I come up with the digital community will tell me immediately that digital is also better in this respect now by a large margin. I am lost for (describing) words. :-)