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

Yes on reflection the article is much weaker than I originally thought and if I knew how to delete it I probably should. Still the comments here are better and more interesting and I'm learning from them.

FWIW, a major flaw in article regards sonics -- the author's exclusion of lossless digital.

From the article: "And while there are distinctions within digital formats, I use the term to cover MP3s and other digital lossy files and streaming services....It’s key to note that the sound limitations in digital formats almost always concern the compression at their nature....Because digital formats are compressed lossy files and are not played by a physical instrument upon a physical format in the same sense that a record is by the needle on the stylus, on the arm of the turntable, through a receiver and speaker set, then this quality of warmth is absent in digital formats."

My experience is that high resolution, lossless digital produces many of the qualities the author celebrates in vinyl. That said, I don't have the two in my system to compare. Other comparisons between vinyl/albums and the immaterial digital files of streaming/hard drives is interesting, too.

@millercarbon

If you want to get philosophical about it, I believe this is because records recreate a connection with the original performance that cannot be matched any other way simply because it is indeed a connection. The performer caused the air to vibrate, then the microphone, then the wire, on and on to the speaker, the air in the room and then finally all the way to you.

This makes sense on an immediate, intuitive level. I do wonder two things. First, why the "connection" involved here -- which is a complicated, electrified, highly technological process of amplification and translation -- more "natural." Don’t those added transmutations to the initial sound deprive us of the right to call it a "natural" or even special connection?

Second question I have is why we cannot call digital "natural" also. It works in a different way, but it is still artifactual. Why might we think that "digital" is as natural? Because while it does convert a sound vibration to symbols, that’s the same process we use to communicate. We turn arbitrary sounds into words. (In both cases there is a representation involved.) And when we do it with words, we call it "natural language." On this line of reasoning, language and digital music both involve a move from the physical to the symbolic -- and so there’s something "natural" and "organic" about digital sound, too.

In neither case are we guaranteed good sound or pleasing sound. But the article’s author wants to separate them on this "natural" vs. "non-natural" basis, and I suspect that cannot fly.

Benjamin would say, "One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced."

@mahgister I enjoyed your post about how the many factors combine to incline us one way or another, depending on variables that are not usually taken into account -- especially the room. And, we can agree that a good comparison should try to exclude using magic words like "physical" (or "analog" or "natural") and it should also avoid the "fetishism" of touch. (Though some might argue that since music is a total experience, why should we exclude any other senses participating in the experience?)

Yet despite all that you said, I’d only point out there are people here who have tried both formats *in their rooms, keeping variables constant and avoiding the prejudices of magic words and fetishes* -- and yet they still testify to a difference. As much as you want to direct us to the many factors which are in common and to create "peace" between the "camps," there is a difference here which is not borne of obstinacy or anger, but of listening experiences. Personally, I have not had these experiences -- but that’s because I don’t have a turntable now.

@madavid0 Thank you for your excellent post. I think you push toward at least a plausible answer as to what the difference is. In some of the better videos by P.S. Audio’s Paul McGowan (and other folks), I’ve hear discussions about timing that make this seem to be a key element. And you’re right that we don’t have very firm answers to these questions, as far as I understand it.

@stringreen I like your analogy with shaving. It’s a good point about whether "the process" can ever really be separated into "pure listening" and the "overall experience of listening," which is broader. When I listen critically, am I listening in the same way as when I just sink into the music -- as Steve Guttenberg continually urges us to do in his videos? (cf. Is a job interview like any other conversation?)

@lastperfectdaymusic I recommend to everyone here a short piece by former Librarian of Congress entitled "Making Experience Repeatable," the second half deals with the conversion of music as a unique and unrepeatable experience into one which could be switched on at will. See: https://erenow.net/modern/the-democratic-experience/42.php

Have a good new year. And if you could write shorter posts, well...that would be a kindness. (No offense, just so many words!)

@mahgister -- you're telling us about your system again. Can we confine conversations a bit to the topic? It really does get long...

Ok, well, I'm out.

@mijostyn There are options....

exclamation: oy INFORMAL•BRITISH
used to attract someone's attention, especially in a rough or angry way.

noun: oy
a type of harsh, aggressive punk music originally popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

oy vey
exclamation: oy YIDDISH
indicating dismay or grief.

Was my OP a "Pandora's Box" or a "Sorcerer's Apprentice"? Oy.
Whatever the right metaphor, Happy New Year, everyone.

@mahgister I'm not IN the argument, brother. I'm not putting anything on anyone's back. Chill and Happy New Year. May all your embeddings be harmonious.