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

Whatever floats your boat.
‘Both digital and analog can deliver the message.
Whichever does it better is of no consequence to me.
 Otherwise it would drive me bananas.

Wise advice....

My best to you....

More on the subject:

https://www.musictech.net/features/opinion-analysis/why-vinyl-sounds-better/

Placebo effect is integral part of ALL perceptions...

That does not means that the perception is unreal or only deceptive... Save for simplistic mind interpretations....

That means that what you think about some phenomenon participate to the exprerience of this phenomenon in a constitutive and creative way for the good and/or for the worst....

Man perceive the themperature of a room being "warm" or "cold", but the thermodynamic behind thermometer numbers is only a scale of numbers about billions of atoms WITHOUT these qualities...

The quality are "projected"/interpreted, onto/into "disordered molecules" sensation by consciousness and by the body organization which because of his finite limitation is POLARIZED between  these 2 opposites qualities which are only  reflecting the boundaries of the human organization itself....

Man lives in the cosmos like in himself and he lives in himself like in the cosmos.... This is the the basic polarity and participation ....But being unconscious  of his freedom and of his participation to the world, man spontaneously externalize this polarity of his being into an external duality....An habit..... Only meditation reintegrate man in himself and in the cosmos...

Then perceiving a difference between vinyl and digital is not an illusion nor a reality, it is different experiences motivated by personal histories....It is an illusion which could be a reality, or a reality which could be an illusion....It is an interpretation after an act of translation....

The price and the cost  to pay for meaning is freedom .....

It is a pleasure to be read by a gentleman and commented by an intelligent and experienced listener...

My best to you.....

Excellent post Mahgister. Recording engineers, musicians and vocalists choose mics like we choose phono cartridges.

You dont read my posts anymore remember?

My point is that CHOOSING a mic type and the LOCATION for recording an instrument timbre is a trade off then no recording is a perfect reproduction only a TRADE-OFF ...

Then if we want to stay with facts no recording mic reproduce perfectly a timbre only partially and differently in relation between his particular type and all his possible locations....Nevermind them if you choose a dac or a vinyl format.... The situation is the SAME....It is a RECREATION from the start....Then all the argument about mathematical superiority of the digital is beside the essential point....

By the way choosing mic and location is an art based science.... Some sound engineers EARS are famous, most are not....





Is your vocation to be the Sancho Panza behind Quixote digital war against turntable and tweeakers the essential fact of your audio life?


« The composer Philippe Manoury (1991) observed that “One of the most striking paradoxes concerning timbre is that when we knew less about it, it didn’t pose much of a problem. »

We can make digital relatively on par with some analog system....The truth is there is no perfect conditions to conclude the debate...


The true microdynamic of timbre playing by a pianist to be perceived by the listener in the theater and in his room alike need more than the choice of a turntable or of a dac...

There is NO perfect recording of the timbre event by a microphone to begin with....What is lacking must be recreated by compensation in the acoustic conditions of the listener room...

There exist a partial recreation, a partial translation, in the listener room of the acoustic conditions where the instrument were imperfectly recorded... This is the fundamental factor, with a dac or with a turntable...

How my actual system and room, whatever digital or analog, will let me perceive at the best possible level the timbre of the instrument playing ?

Most dont seems to understand that, in the turntable camp or in the dac boat....

There is no reproduction in the act of recording ONLY a translation with a loss.... The recreation in your room  is not the original lived event with a digital files or with a vinyl but only a translation.....


The microphone choices and locations are the limitation imposed, not the analog recording method or the digital recording method....The microphone is like a speaker in reverse function.....

The recording microphones impose a trade-off....This imposition of limitation by the type chosen and his locations is ABSOLUTE for analog or vinyl.....The source of the recording are not the musician playing in the theater it is the recording microphone itself....

I’ve been spending a lot of time and money on the digital end of my system lately to the exclusion of records completely.
I just put on a record.

WOW!

IF you read this thread you will be suggested to study Nyquist theorem, if not, you risk  apparently to be deluded they say...



Myself tough  i only advise you to enjoy what your ears gives to your heart/brain....

My best to you.....

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

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...

I never argued except for personal convenience  for a supposedly absolute superiority of the analog or digital format....

I argued against the dogmatic affirmation by the power of numbers of absolute digital superiority.... Precisely because the human ears experience decide first.....

I use digital myself but understand those who chose analog....No conditions of the experience are the same....

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.

Scientism is the superstition or fetichism of the reality of material object absolutely outside of consciousness...

Someone posess by that materialist metaphysic cannot understand qualitative essential dimensions of experience otherwise than negating  them or reducing them to "subjective" nothingness...

Music is only bits for them....

Tomorrow A. I. will play piano better they said...




Then when you used your own ears experience you commit for the scientism the sin of deluding yourself....

Who can forgive you?




Goethe corrected Newton about his corpuscular metaphysical theory of colors but the lesson was never learned... Goethe succeed in describing colors phenomena and grounding his theory in the first physiologycal explanation of the experience...

But Goethe is a bit hard to chew for most....


Ansermet is the Goethe of music..... 😊

My best to you....


«Musical nuances are not made of bits, like the colors are not made by the Newton corpuscules» Anonymus Smith




« Do you dare to say that 2 equivalent mathematical objects can anyway differ ?» In real life yes.....

« I am sure now that you dont know the Fourier analysis translation of these 2 objects....» 😁

The only thing you can record is what reaches the microphone. All else is periphery and deflection.

In a LIVE theather when someone listen to a violin what he hears cannot be exactly reproduced PRECISELY because each chosen different TYPES of microphones, the list is here,

https://www.gearank.com/articles/types-of-mics

All types of microphone will register a different perspective, a different sounding timbre dynamic, not only because also the sound will be different in different theater or studio acoustic, but because the locations of the one or many mic will give a different experience....

Timbre dynamic emerging from a specific room and embodied in a musician gesture CANNOT be perfectly recorded....mic choices are always trade-off.... simple....

What you call" periphery and deflection" participate of the essential dynamic of the timbre flowing toward the mic chosen in a positive and sometimes negative way.... Recording in a church is not recording in a studio or in a room ...These acoustic choices participate to the goal...

Then analog or digital format being equal, the only question is how can i recreate a musical event in my room ?

The analog format or the digital format being equivalent mathematically speaking, it is the ACOUSTIC controls in the listener room like the acoustical control in the player studio that are the essential factor...

Not the choice of a format at all....Save the fact i dont contest that some prefer analog....

Then denigrating turntable lover for their choice has no sense at all....

I discuss 4 days, none of my arguments were answered at all...

Timbre concept was dimiss being an euphonic "taste" or a subjective superficial color on top of the "accurate" objective "sound". 


For example : no microphone choices is perfect, it is a trade-off and the possible locations are numerous...

Then no recording process could be a PERFECT timbre musical dynamic reproduction....( i will not count for a loss the mixing works but there is a loss also there)

Then a musician or an audiophile will evaluate positively his instrumental timbre experience with his chosen format, ONLY in the optimal acoustical conditions of his listening room... His experience is not a reproduction but an always more or less successful recreation of a timbre experience and dynamics, phrase, from a chosen format in a SPECIFIC acoustical listening room and specific hi-fi system with his specific right embeddings dimensions or the lack of........

My point is the installation of the electrical, mechanical and acoustical treatment and controls are more important to the recreation of the live event for an audiophile in his listening room than the choice of the digital format recording under ONLY the pretext of his mathematical " accurate" translation from the microphones to the speakers... Accurate in bits does not equal automatically accurate for the ears in a concrete room...More than that any audio system work optimally ONLY if its mechanical and electrical embeddings and the acoustical dimension are well under control....




The reason why i argued with him was his judgement about all turntable owners to be deluded by their illusory "taste" or only ignorant, all that by virtue of a very well known theorem that assure us that the translation from the analog microphone to the digital format and his retranslation to the speakers are "accurate" mathematically( a reverse microphone) All that forgetting about the right conditions necessary to live or recreate the musical concrete timbre experience...

A dynamical timbre living event in the acoustical space in his own timing dimension resemble more to a cell than to a mass of bits, even accurate....

Music need sound but is not only sound, it is an embodied sound...A conscious historical event ( said Ernest Ansermet mathematician and one of the greatest maestro writer of the most important book about music in the last century, by the way, i read it try this 1000 pages book 😊). Is Ansermet lying? 😁

My point was that musical timbre dynamic of a playing musician CANNOT be totally perfectly recorded...Then no format can reproduce PURELY the original... But it seems to many people that perhaps analog format is more robust than digital with this lost of information at the recording moment by microphone choices and locations...I dont know that for sure...You are in a better place than me to know that frogman....

My main point is controlling the mechanical and electrical and acoustical dimensions of the audio system are more important for me than the format even if it is a digital one...This i know for sure....

No speakers can beat the room, no microphones can perfectly digest an instrument, no audio system can work great without being rightfully embedded in these 3 dimensions where it work.....

A lived event can be recreated more or less perfectly not perfectly reproduced....I use the term recreatebecause there ia always something that will be added and substracted from the live original event...Our best hope are then a relative recreation not a perfect reproduction ....

Raspberries taste better than strawberries.

No, strawberries taste better than raspberries.

You need more concentration when reading posts...

Some argue about raspberries or strawberries.... It has never been my point by the way...


My point is lost because people understand thing only if we speak in binary alternatives...

Anyway i miss my work it seems..... 😁

Arguing with ghosts.....

But twoleftears i wish you the best and thanks for your last musical recommendation....

It never occur to your mind that frogman is first a musician and for a musician the microdynamic he speak about first, is not the properties added or substracted in the studio but the REAL acoustic and musical phenomena linked to the act of playing, a resonant synchronisation between the gesture/body and the body of the instrument....

Not only you demonstrate that you dont know what timbre is or his importance but you reduce any sound living experience to bits and electro units...

Nothing else to say....

I will go out before you accuse me of lying like the other fellow who dare to enter and discuss .....

"You are lying" 




Digital is absolutely superior....

Microphone are perfect to record all details...

Timbre is only an illusion...A color... A taste...

Accurate for the ears has no meaning save illusory....Accurate in bits is the truth...Or in electro units...

I feel stupid discussing with you....😊 Sorry....



There is a good thing tough for me, i know i have the tendency to be arrogant sometimes....I am not perfect at all.... But with you i feel that you beat me.... This is the good news.... The bad news is that it did not change my character....
😊


By the way these elusive microdynanics is always part of the interaction of the musician with his instrument, it is a variation in time of the sound hues, a concept in acoustic...But no for some it is in invented word....

Microdynamics is in the flowing sounding timbre playing and very audible even if it is subtle , but this is erased in any bad embedded audio system being it analog or digital...

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 .... 😊

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....

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....

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....

Mahgister has used the word timbre in 50 posts since Dec. 30. Time to find a new hammer.

i really apologize to disturb you another time, but why dont you stick to logical sound argument?

You  know perfectly well now why i used the complex concept of timbre ...

I could say that you hammered  the word digital accuracy 50 times... I prefer to stick to argument...

Arguing about the superiority of one vs the other is rather pointless. There is no accounting for personal taste.

You are right about your first affirmation. But timbre natural perception is not a "taste" it is the result of a training musician learning experience, but there is no "taste" related to the natural perception of a stradivarius timbre and a cheap violin... Prefering one to the other dont reveal taste, but the presence of experience or the lack of experience...

The evaluation of any format performance at the end has nothing to do with "taste".....

And no digital processing can solve ALL the mechanical, electrical and acoustical problems in an audio system... A tool is a tool, not the solution by itself....

Although I do accept the superiority of digital by paper - I am a programmer - I wonder myself sometimes why I cannot get more involved in digital produced music.

The RECREATION of musical natural timbre perception in our listening room is critical...Especially with digital format...Analog rendition of timbre is more robust to adverse effects and more natural than digital in a non well embedded audio system....In a well embedded environment, with the right implementation of digital tech. they may subsist no perceived  difference between digital and analog...

If digital is defenitely superior, why than there are so many different solutions? Like using a chip form a manufacturer versus programming your own chip. NOS versus DAC with Filter. PCM versus DSD. Upsampling vs No Upsampling etc

Here you point to one of the reason why especially with digital format it is difficult to recreate natural timbre experience in a room, add to it the mechanical, electrical and acoustical lack of treatment and lack of controls problems and you have the reason why many people are disappointed by digital format...

With NO standard well established for a universally tested and recognized unique digital implementation, coupled with the wrong or bad embeddings of most audio system, it is not surprizing there is a war of "tastes" that has nothing to do in fact with "taste", save for the fact that all humans prefer natural timbre experience ; and then lacking adequate vocabulary to understand timbre and describe it, most use some limited frequencies dependant gross vocabulary, speaking of more "warm" or "harsh", or "cool" and "more detailed" or too much "distorted" and "colored" or "inaccurate", entering in a ridiculous war of tastes and vocabulary, all that with a complete misunderstanding of the conditions that make possible instrumental TIMBRE perception in a listening room...

Speaking of "tastes" in this case is revealing our own ignorance about TIMBRE musical and acoustical concept and evaluation...( do not confuse musical and acoustical timbre concept)


Understand me correctly tough, i prefer digital myself, i work with it in NOS implementation, with a minimal design and a low noise floor but, and it is the main factor, my audio system is relatively rightfully embedded in the 3 dimensions, and the result is totally analog-like with a natural timbre for all instruments.

At the end, an undecision can and may subsist caused mainly by the different choices of the digital possible solutions versus the different analog tools possibles to compare to, but this residual minimal differences, that may subsist between the 2 format in very high end acoustic environment, with well embedded system, is also linked to the structural way that our ears will process timbre evaluation in a SPECIFIC conditions...It is not "tastes " here either, it is the impossibility to create the PERFECT analog system to compare with the PERFECT digital one with the PERFECT ears to compared them.... 😁

Some of us like Vinyl, some of us like Digital, some of us like both. There is no crime here.

if there is no crime, why calling turntable ignorant of some theorem and deluded in the first place? That is the "messenger" opinions....

I think that you are are right,nobody can proclaim superiority of a format on another one at this moment because timbre is a human ears evaluation experience not a microphone translated digitally experience first....



«The situation resembles a painter depicting a landscape, who discovers instead the nature of his paints and brushes»-Shai Haran "the real prime" p.3

Are you aware of any DACs that output "digital". Last time I checked they all outputted analog. They just happen to output analog far better than the vinyl. Funny that huh?

Dont mock him....

You confused the multiple possible and relative choices of a set of recording analog microphones with the real TIMBRE analog event in the live performance...No microphone restitute the original timbre event...This complete event lived before Nyquist theorem can apply to translation technology, from the microphone waveform incomplete translation of the initial event to the digital domain by the engineer inevitable trade-off choices before and during the translation....Simple acoustic science...

All analog events are not equal, the ears is not a microphone.... Is it surprizing?

There is no pure reproduction of an original event witout lost of information...There exist only a recreation...An analog one and/or a digital one.

Accuracy of the digital format has nothing to do with the accurate perception of timbre by the ears...

What some call subjective, almost useless, or inessential delusion, or at best only "pleasant coloration", is a specific mathematical acoustical concept and a definite concrete event in the acoustic domain and in the musical domain ; timbre. and timbre can be judged only by the human ears for the time being.... 😁

Perhaps then some people prefering vinyl live through an experience that is not so much a delusion, or even a taste, but a better timbre evaluation with the right audio system rightfully embedded...

Generalization about group of people are not always enlightening...Sometimes divisive...

From a mathematical standpoint(Nyquist) it is a universal facts that there is no mathematical difference between the translation digital/ analog or analog/digital....Nobody can argue against that...But anybody can interrogate himself about this fascinating fact indeed...(Fourier analysis is one of the crowning jewel of mathematic)Like the mathematician woman in the article i cited above....

But from the recording engineer making a set series of choices alternatives linked to the choices and location of many kind of microphones which are different analog complex devices with different properties, and the engineer that makes his own choices in mixing, trying to create and compensate for what is the "artistic" perspective of the artist, the information of the instrumental timbre from the "live" original event is lost partially...

Then the perceived differences coming from vinyl or digital format are linked not so much to these mathematically equivalent medium itself but way more to the implementation of their specific format in specific gear of variable qualities and not only that, but in specific audio system which are diversely embedded, more rightfully or more wrongfully in their mechanical , electrical, and acoustical dimensions...

Then a comparison cannot UNIVERSALLY validate the superiority of any format...

And arguing the superiority of digital by Nyquist is ignoring the initial lost of the information about timbre perception because of the 2 sets of choices at the recording(microphones) and at the mixing moment...If someone understand what timbre is it is clear that it is a complex acoustical event easy to distort...

Musical timbre concrete perception is the BEST way to assess the quality of a hi-fi system, and is related not only to a source but to the mechanical, electrical and acoustical conditions pertaining to the listeners room and to the chosen qualities of his audio system for the RECREATION, and not only a reproduction, of the original timbre event in the listener room....

Nobody is in error claiming that he prefer vinyl or digital.... The only one in error are those who promote their obsession or ignorance as universal claims ....

Sorry but he lectures just like you do,

I dont lecture people....I will remind you of my posts ... It seems you dont remember...

I use digital by the way and favor it...BUT i dont condemn like idiots all those who dont...

I dont think that there is an ABSOLUTE frontier that makes digital superior or analog superior...

It is all up to the wise choices of electronic components...

It is all up to the wise choices of the way each one electronic components is embedded mechanically electrically and acoustically in the Room/house.... THIS IS MY POINT.....




Then when you come LECTURING anyone here about your theorem and ACCUSING vinyl people to be a bunch of IGNORANT...Because they prefer "colored" tone to accuracy... I have seen RED....like a bull... I dont like someone accusing anybody to be ignorant if he dont understand Nyquist theorem.... You dont know with who you speak here...

I posted then my opinions about the fact that TIMBRE is an acoustical human perceived experience and a musical one which cannot be reduced to NUMBERS...It is the human EARS who perceive,..Science create models of this perception and try to understand it.... Only robotic try to reduce it.... Pure science is NOT robotic....Robotic is part of science not PURE science...

Then you rant about my ignorance of the Nyquist Shannon theorem...And suddenly you depart for a beer with Mijostyn...





The matter from hot became cold...Then...

THEN i put a non polemical article for general reader here by a mathematician from Scientific American that is cool ,simple to read, and you came back from nowhere, after quitting the discussion with myjostyn, who by the way said he will not read my post anymore(very comical gesture Children like) I dont give a dam...

In the meantime a vinyl fad post after reading this article and distorting his content, said that it is a bad article, she is incompetent... Because she dont endorse vinyl absolute incontestable superiority for sure😛

Then from nowhere audiodesign come and distorting also the article, accuse a mathematician about his understanding of Fourier series which is elementary Maths by the way, said she is incompetent...and affirm also that the article is bad...Because she dont conclude against turntable lover that digital is absolutely superior 😛

Irony supreme, the vinyl head and the digital head after their distorted reading condemn TOGETHER the mathematician for incompetence... 😎🤪😁



The problem is that Fourier series is chid play for a mathematician...Nyquist theorem also...

The irony is also that even if she said in his article the SAME THING that you said for the same reason. the Nyquist theorem: there is no mathematical reason to pretend analog containing more information than digital... Digital she said is able to reproduce any analog set of information in conformity with Nyquist theorem...

You distort anyway his standing knowledge and his article to bash me because i used this article ...You lied...You know that she cannot be incompetent in Fourier series analysis...All mathematician knows these things even me...If you dont lied you are stupid...Chose one...

The reason for your bashing of the article is not his competence it is the fact that this mathematician woman UNLIKE you dont condemn vinyl people to ignorance and i said the samething for my own reasons in this thread...

She knows that in philosophy of science human perception is the last and first station of any measuring apparatus...If someone said the contrary it is called the accuracy fallacy in philosophy of science...

And then UNLIKE you she condemn NO ONE to be ignorant, she suspend wisely his judgment...Like a TRUE scientist...

This is a wise woman, but you are not wise my friend...


By the way giving his opinion like i do his not lecturing people, but accusing an entire group of people to be ignorant is not always wise, especially if it is a group of people liking music with their own experience and ears...And condemning human perception for the sake of some theorem used in a distorted way is not science ... It is ideology or obsession... technological hubris perhaps? It is you that lecture people not me...

They dont understand Nyquist Theorem, who give a dam... The ears evaluate musical timbre not robot .... For the time being....

When arguments lose touch with reality they always end up far into the deep end. Me 2021.

« Atheist and hard religious believers are like identical sausage burned on the fire of blind faith»-Anonymus Smith

My friend is it all you have to say after my post?

If so this is a pathetic reply sorry...

After distorting the fact of the article to assert the supposed incompetence of a mathematician to understand the Nyquist theorm, which she proved she understand, modulo my citation of this same article versus you false rendition of his formulation...( By the way Fourier Theory and Nyquist theorem is simple matter for ANY mathematician)

You affirm she only said that:
"Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise." But she never said that like it was his thinking at all...

But she said this: " because humans only hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, we can get rid of any other frequencies that may show up in a sound wave’s decomposition and still get back the original sound. So the sampling theorem explains how to use a finite amount of information to store any sound wave. "

Which is also the beginning matter of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem itself....

Then you distorted the fact for the sake of your childish dogma in a discussion with me and to win against me, you distorted the content of what she said......

For sure you think i am an idiot unable to reply.... You are not ashamed?

Saying that she said that in principle digital is able to recreate analog completely....which is your dogma or absolute belief...But she herself know also better and that the map is not the territory, then assume nothing about those who judge analog superior and dont judge them ignorant like you affirm.... And this is also why you accuse her to be incompetent...

Is it not bad faith or perhaps ignorance from your part? I let you chose....

I think that you presume that all people here are unable to understand your argument(theorem) then you go with any bullshit... This is why you are not ashamed...You think no one will be able to understand the points discussed...English is perhaps not my language but i can think....





It seems you are not ashamed anyway... Then you end all your false argument finally  with this fish tail remark post about my humoristic way to describe, at the end of my last post, blind believers of all origins, be it techno- fad or religious zealot  or analog fad or digital brain fool?



I am ashamed for you....

Good night....

The correlation between numbers and human perception is the road of science through this mystery....

That’s Ok. It is what it is. Just not particularly useful

It is not useful for the debate but it is interesting because she know what the theory of signal is...and she speak humanly about this debate without BIAS....


Mapman you are right then ... It is ONLY intended for the general public not to end the debate... I read her and consider interesting the fact that like me she does not condemn turntable afficionados in the name of "science" nor she proclaim that some science derived from by Nyquist theorem posit an absolute fact: digital is the only way...She only interrogate herself thats all in all modesty, knowing that mathematic so useful it is is not reality...

She only relate his human experience vulgarizing elementary fact for the gemeral reader that’ s all...



Now the interesting fact here, is that a vinyl dogmatic said few posts above that the article is bad, and now the other digital dogmatic said the same exact thing , the article is bad...

What is comical is the 2 dogmatics use the same distorted argument , incompetence, and falsified what she said...





« Atheist and hard religious believers are like identical sausage burned on the fire of blind faith»-Anonymus Smith

i will translate it for an audio forum:

Analog zealot and digital fool are identical janus brothers, a MYSTERY cannot be reduced to subjective impression nor to a sequence of numbers ONLY....

What is the mystery?

The distance between numbers and human perceived phenomena is the unfathomable mystery....

You are interpretating what you want to and assigning expertise where no actual evidence of it exists.

Like i said be honest and accuse me of incompetence... I will accept because i am not a scientist even iy you wre stupid i will accept this fact that i am not competent in signal theory or mathematic...But dont distort what she said for your purpose... Annd being incompetent dont make me stupid by the way...i know more mathematic than you do it seems....

And you are incompetent anyway at least in philosophy of science and in elemantary philosophy.... it is as big as the nose of Cleopatra... She is not....

Human perception can never be reduced to measuring apparatus...Nyquist or not...

Phenomena are not identical to their map....

Is it not simple?

But the limitations of math in replicating reality may factor in to the difference in listening experiences reported by so many vinyl lovers.

This intelligent woman know that the map is not the territory...
Is it difficult to understand?

And in this statement she just shows herself to be yet another academic trying to look smart outside her area of expertise.

You attibute to her something that describe your attitude....It is yourself reducing human timbre perception to a mathematical theorem taken like an absolute...Acoustic is NOT signal theory....

It is also the fallacy of accuracy, meaning that in no way we can attribute an absolute signification to numbers out of any human experience in the first and last place...

Elementary epistemology....




She speak here about the mathematical translation of ANYTHING analog in digital, using Nyquist theorem , that is to say using a FINITE amount of information to store ANY infinite continuous sound wave... This is the same thing that you already said from the beginning, not surprizing because this is linked to the content of the Nyquist theorem, then how can you accuse her of incompetence?

because humans only hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, we can get rid of any other frequencies that may show up in a sound wave’s decomposition and still get back the original sound. So the sampling theorem explains how to use a finite amount of information to store any sound wave.

This is what she really said about fourier and Nyquist, and you think that i am stupid or what ?

This is the gibberish you attribute to her in place of what she just said in the citation i just use:

Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge

Ok i will be short...

Humans are not reducible to numbers....Or apparatus...

Perception of timbre is a subjerctive/objective complex problem...

Reducing it to Nyquist theorem is ridiculous...

She also think so...



His article was not INTENDED to be for specialist then repeating that there is no new information there is bad faith...

His own human experience is speaking in the article intended for ordinary people and it is interesting and well put... and i cite his article because being a mathematician she knows about Nyquist theorem which only imply elementary mathematic for a mathematician by the way and ordinary people here who dont embark in any boat may be interested to read that....

By the way you quit the last time why are you coming back?

To critic for incompetence a general public article?

If someone is incompetent it is me by the way, not her.... Then be direct and candide and said so... Do not zig zag and said untruthful thing about someone who is not only competent but humanly modest in an intended  GENERAL public article..... I am not fond of distorted argument...

It was a rather weak "paper" not based in any verified reality. There is nothing at all scientific about the paper nor really mathematical for that matter. She is not at all a subject matter expert.

Bad faith exist when someone misrepresent the intention of someone else to attack him after this distortion...

First -You cannot accuse her, like you blame me of ignorance about the Nyquist Theorem, which is small game mathematically speaking for a mathematician...

Second- This CANNOT be a "weak paper" this a general public article... Then faulting her for a piece of vulgarization and anecdotal subjective experience demonstrate your vindicative dogmatism and volontary distortion of objective fact...

Third I myself use this article for the general public here, and for his opinion that float none of the 2 boats in war, nor yours (digital) nor the other boat (turntable fanatics). She trust his ears and have some doubt without faulting no one, nor the digital camp nor the turntable one...( She is modest and intelligent)


I am in the third boat with her and real science, the human Brain/ ears evaluation of timbre experience cannot be reduced to a theorem of signal theory... She said it but with caution like an interrogation: why if mathematically speaking digital and analog are on par , and why if mathematically digital CAN DO anything that analog can do, why then, so much humans are judging it inferior?

My own point which is alluded to in this article, is that from the only accuracy that count, the human ears judgement of accuracy, there remain a debate and this debate pose the question of what is a phenomenon...It is not a measured number, if we said so we destruct science...

My other point, which is not alluded to in this article, is  about the powerful difference that embeddings controls can have on turntable or dac and then on our judsgment about the experience... 

I myself use digital, i will repeat myself, but unlike dogmatics of one boat or  the other, i refuse to solve this Gordian knot by idiosyncrasic arbitrary decision or by some theorem... I am with those who with reason, like this mathematician, interrogate herself: why if mathematically there is no possible difference, why so many human perceive one?

My experience is it is impossible to cut simply that problem assuming only ONE experience, mine or some other experience, nor decide because a theorem of the theory of signals said so...

Accuracy is a human experience first, not a microphone experience translated in digital sequences first ... If you dont understand that, you will understand nothing to the universe or about yourself... Sorry for you...

I repeat , i am not on the turntable boat, and especially not on your boat especially for the reason(Nyquist theorem) you are there, even if i consider digital on par with analog in my experience for reasons i will not repeat here and anyway reason you will be unable or not interested to understand...

By the way last time you depart for a beer with myjostyn leaving ignorant dude like me alone, then why coming back with no new arguments to answer a post that was not directed toward you?

You cannot accuse her to not understand Nyquist theorem do you? You can play this game with ordinary people but not with me and certainly not with her....






« Autocritic hability and good faith are the ONLY gist of Intelligence, nothing else is»-Anonymus Smith

«But if some Nobel prize have not and never had autocritic capacity or good faith then what about his intelligence?»- Anonymus friend

«Guess what?»-Myself

I prefer analog vinyl.

First anybody can have a personal experience...This woman mathematician is not an expert in music, she like music and gives only his opinion...It is for general reader in a non musical review about elementary fact in analog and digital tech.

Second It is not a UNIVERSAL fact that all people has the same opinion than you...

This article does a disservice to that preference, as the writer knows little about how the technologies of each format works, and therefore most if not all of his (redundant, I may add) assertions are not grounded in any reality.

Here you write without thinking that this article is only an opinion and vulgarisation for general public from someone who KNOWS enough mathematics to at least understand what is digital technology...

Then she explain why in PRINCIPLE by Fourier analysis there is not supposed to be a difference in the comparison between digital and analog, BUT it seems anyway that, perhaps she says, there is one difference even if the theory of signals said the contrary...She only wanted to know by herself... It is vulgarisation +anecdotal personal experience like yours or mine...Not more not less...

Then your affirmation that "she does a disservice to that preference" (analog vinyl) is wrong...She never pretended to be a pro reviewers in music or an expert in sound...But your affirmation that she knows " little about how the technologies of each format works" is if not plainly wrong at least misleading: all digital technology are based on a sophisticated mathematics and she knows about this mathematics because this level of maths is complex for most people but simple for a professional mathematician...

And you add to your distorted interpretation of this simple article :" his assertions are not grounded in any reality" which is saying nothing at all except a bad interpretation of this article and the writer knowledge... It is your opinion of this article that is grounded nowhere except in your dogmatic interpretation of the validity your own experience... She speak with modesty about his own experience in the same way that you speak about your own experience with less modesty tough... 😁

I must add that even if myself i use digital tech with success, i am not, in this war, in the same boat that those who attack vinyl afficionados because of ignorance of Nyquist theorem, neither i am in the boat of those who vouch only for vinyl like a universal evidence...

Then this simple experience of someone who know the digital signal theory and vulgarise some of these notions here, BUT conclude that she finally could not take any boat...This article is interesting... Except for dogmatics from the 2 boats that will speak of her as incompetent because she does not chose a boat...

I am with her because myself i know that not only the format but many other factors play together and for MOST of us it is IMPOSSIBLE to cut this knot with absolute certitude....Too much variable are implied by the comparison...Not the least one is the subjective link of each one of us with timbre perception...And our own rightful or wrongful embeddings of these 2 format...

I myself prefer MY digital embedded dac and my opinion is grounded in MY experience and in MY reality....Nobody can propose this experience of mine or yours to be a UNIVERSAL fact demonstrated once and for all by ..... (write a name).

I did not say that your have written a bad post....😊



Happy new Year....

A very simple article about the perpetual war between analog/digital written in 2017 for the scientific american from a mathematician but for general public and easy to read with a conclusion that look like mine....

For those who are always in the thread.... 😊



note: no there is is no explanation of the Nyquist theorem there, only allusion, but she know what it is, then his conclusion cannot be attributed to his ignorance of simple maths... 😁


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/which-sounds-better-analog-or-digital-music/

Thanks to lift the burden from my back....

😊

Why do yo say you are out?

To put the burden of your emotion to someone else back?

I dont understand your negative reaction...

I was polite, and only arguing my point...

And facing the fanatics of digital or analog, i reasonnably argue for the judgement of the human ears evaluating timbre perception in all these different rooms and analog and digital systems...

Between digital or vinyl, i refuse to chose in the absolute.... Each one has his own experience of timbre perception and i refuse to declared turntable afficionados a deluded group and i refuse to critic all digital implementation for the sake of some turntable...

Is balanced thinking a defect ?

Is my not so perfect English a problem? i already apologize for that...

My humor is not to the taste of everyone but i make my best...

Sulking in a corner is not a mature reaction to arguments...

Anyway ....

I wish you the best for the year....

Sometimes Pandora’s Box is just a large can of worms.

Right.... But some constant noise dont change the tune, no more than a false note can modify the melody...

Pandora’s box or can of worms....It is up to your free will to choose...

The left ears process the duration of tones... Not the changing tones...

Then your remark are not surprizing.... It is always the same echoing... 😛

You must use the other ear for balance....



Happy new Years....

All beginnings are Pandora’s box and all this almost always end in Sorcerer’s apprentice dance, why?


Because all beginning’s manifest themselves as art before becoming a science and at the end, becoming mostly a technology...

In the beginning comes the poet, after come the great scientist and at the end the technocrat...

Why is this so ? Because the great scientist can think poetically but speak prosaically...

The technocrat think and speak a dead prose... This resume the story of science and civilizations...


«I deduce that sheeps always speak prose in any language»- Groucho Marx


Thanks hilde45,for these marvellous metaphors.... I wish you the best God can create.... Happy New Year....😊

embeddings sure are messy... mahgister, I think I’m gonna have to pass on that way of doing things.

The most important thing in audio is a dedicated room...
Luckily i could afford one...

You have seen nothing.... Trust me...I dont have put photos of the last months...

You must understand that on these forums and on others, nobody has advise me about these embeddings controls, i had to create them myself systematically in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensions...All people only advise their products of choice, not much anything else...It is interesting to read but of no avail at all to create a top system...

Here all people sell something then , literally and figuratively; i know by experience after 2 years of experiments that a more than good audio system is not mainly dependent of the new electronic design progress but for all of us ordinary mortals, and even for those who can afford the costliest system, dependent mostly of the embeddings controls...But who knows really that here? Almost nobody, they all boast for dac or turntable superiority, or amplifier design quality etc...



I know what i learned after thousand of hours...Not reading reviews but by listening trials experiments...

Buying a new product is available to anyone, but this dont gives us the optimal S.Q. at all...

Few people really know that by experience...

Then i understand your smile....But for me the goal was not possible by connecting beautiful esthetically new electronic design pieces right of the box....

A dreamer can dream or make his dream true.... I succeed...Even my wife who dont give a dam about audio is amazed by the sound trnsformation of my modest system...

For 100 hundred peanut butter jars approximatively, i live with a piano filling my room with perfect tone decays....

Who here can say that?

And it is not the dac or the turntable that can do that by themselves in virtue of their reciprocal alleged superiority, it is their rightful embeddings...




Happy New year and may God create for you after making you the healthier man and the happier also...

In your case, i think God succeed for at least the last part....😊 For the rest, i dont know...But i wish you the best of all worlds...





«Dont laugh at the ape, it is your sorrowful brother»-Groucho Marx

«Dont bother too much about speakers, the room can swallow any of them»-Anonymus acoustician

«The waves are to the sea what the sound is to the room»-Myself

«Even in your room the sound speak his own language, you must decipher it. A clue: His accent come from your room»- Myself

«Nevermind the digital convertor or the turntable, choose first your ears, second the room»-Myself

«The world itself came from a spoken sound, nowadays it is science»- Unknown source






«If this world came from a spoken sound, where is the room?»-Harpo Marx
« The room is another universe brother»- Groucho Marx

Great post...

But just a remark to say that my audio system, digital based, cost me 500 bucks with 2 used vintage components and will put to shame some others system way more costly...

Dont upgrade anything learn how to embed it right....

Happy new Year....

I have no preference... I chose digital for his immense practicality... It take me time to make it sound "analog" like....I succeed...

I cannot have 10,000 vinyl in my house... 😁

I hate the obligation to change the faces of the vinyl...

My last vinyl was popping after 2 listening...I throw it ....



I only refuse to assimilate all timbre recognition being the same in all cases and conditions and circonstances, invoking only signals theory....
Timbre naturalness perception is linked to many factors and cannot be reduced to an alleged vinyl or digital superiority... That is my point.... Anyway all the audio chain is a mix of analog and digital elements...

No dac beat all turntables, and no turntables beat all dacs in ALL rooms for all ears whatsoever...

By the way blind test are limited in what they can prove....Our link to some specific circonstances and environment for the identification of timbre make these test not completely decisive by principle...In my own room and with my system i can detect easily some aspect of sound i will be unable to identify in a new blind test environment...All identification processes are a learning process connected to an environmentally based usual living experience....

Happy new year...

Digital recording and playback systems create a more accurate analog waveform at playback than analog recording and playback systems.

On paper yes theoretically...By Fourier transform...But the real event for the ears take place in a concrete recording room and after that in a concrete specific listening room...

These 2 concrete rooms are different and only the human ears can decide in which format with many choices of embeddings controls in each room he will prefer for his recognition of the timbre event...The theory of signals cannot decide if my electronics components and their embeddings are right or wrong to recreate the experience of timbre perception...It is also the ears who chose where to put the mic...

Then it is of no avail to condemn all analog systems versus digital system...

Too many variables to condemn all people sticking to their analog system....

By the way i concede that your post was not adressed to me....i take it too personally... 😊😁😊

That you think digital discards things, while analog recordings do not just shows more lack of understanding. Attacking me for holes in your knowledge is not a good look. I seem to know exactly what timbre is, I just don’t feel a need to attach special qualities to it beyond what it is.

You caricature your opponent before attacking their so called argument after putting it in their mouth...(oups

I never said that only digital discard things, analog too discard things, or better said each has his limitations for the perception of timbre.... The ears/brain is not an analog only or digital only device...

And what a ridiculous thing to say that you know what timbre is but dont attach to it special qualities among other sound characteristics... This only disqualify your point.... Timbre is the basic phenomena in acoustic....Not only that the timbre experience is the means by which musician chose their instrument, or their audio system listening to them ....Not by the act of faith in Nyquist theorem....

My point is only that timbre recognition is perhaps not perfect for many analog and many digital system...There is no Sirius ideal perspective to judge timbre perception...Except  real listening
in specific and varied conditions...Imposing digital absolutely make no sense...Because timbre recognition  before being a digital or analog translation in a new, different room from the recorded event is always a brain/ears phenomenon and not an equation in theory of signals transformation ....


Sorry....

Timbre perception implied "timing" of bundle of micro events, that are simultaneous and successive at the same time or synchronized in a 4 dimension of a concrete acoustical-neurological space and it is a phenomena perceived and interpreted only for human ears... Something is lost then in the reductive 2 dimensions of signals theory...Timbre is not first an information set, it is first a dynamical event....

This is why many human ears vouch for analog... Their timbre learning recognition process is their witness...

Myself i own digital and in the beginning was very distress by his limitations... But for the last 2 years my embeddings controls devices and my choice of dac( Nos +minimalistic design ) make me smile again...

I dont pretend that my system now is better than any turntables but on par with many of them.... The parameters in plays are way too complex to speaking in the absolute sprouting some dogma...

 

At the end of the day, you can record an album on digital, and play it back on digital (carefully choosing the equipment), and not be able to tell the two apart. That should tell you that vinyl is nothing but a bunch of colorations and distortions that can be replicated in digital.

I never contested that digital can sound on par with vinyl and even better in SOME case...Assimilating my posts to those who said otherwise is bad faith...

Your post illustrate your total contempt for anyone who express an other position than your false alternative: analog OR digital...Evil or good... Simplistic indeed...

I am not so simple mind sorry. there is other position illustrated by my explanations in my post : Analog and digital are DIFFERENT way for me to access timbre... I dont know which one, analog or digital, is the better in the absolute because perception of timbre naturalness is an acoustical concrete event implying room acoustic and ears/ brain...I myself vouch for digital by the way and all along my posts ... Then you interpret falsely my arguments distorting them because i refuse your childish fixation of an absolute alternative...I refuse to condemn turntable people accusing them of a collective illusion...It is not so simple....

You said that "vinyl is nothing except a bunch of colorations and distortions that can be replicated in digital" then if you were less preoccupied by your ego you would have understood that these colorations pertain to the OBJECTIVE definition of TIMBRE and to his SUBJECTIVE evaluation by the ears/brain...This is acoustical basic science and my thesis all along against your war against turntables and with your fake alternative pretending to be science....

Digital can mimic analog yes, but it does not means that one is superior to the other, in ALL embeddings room/house, with ANY electronic components... There is too much variable to cut this problem once and for all except like Alexander the Gordian Knot... timbre perception is the crux of the matter and that means EARS differences between people...That means also that some powerful embeddings controls in the 3 audio dimension, mechanical,electrical, and acoustical can decrease or increase for the better or the worst the right perception of timbre....

Reading my posts adequately then you would have understood that the difference between you and me is this fundamental fact of acoustic science: timbre is a phenomena captured and evaluated by the ears only.... the Nyquist theorem is only there to throw off your show of dust to dismiss anything out of the alternative you force people in : Analog OR digital...

Reality is more complex than your simple mind alternative between good and evil.... Sorry...

And by the way constantly menacing to end the conversation because your opponent is an alleged " idiot" is not an argument except if you take it seriously and mute yourself....It is a sure sign of your own insecurities like all people throw menaces in between or in place of arguments...

I am here to discuss with arguments not with a repeated slogan like: colored tone of analog system are a bunch of distortions and vinyl fads are ignorant...Or Nyquist theorem said so....

Timbre perception is more fundamental in acoustic than any theorem of the theory of signals, the reason is simple, it is the basic problem that is linked not only to acoustic in general but through liguistic to the survival and evolution of the human species... The learning process by which we perceive timbre speech make human master of the earth...

When someone knows what is timbre perception in music and acoustic then he knows that only human ears can decide and judge this perception...Modelling the descriptors of timbre perception with their neurological and acoustical correlates dynamics and their working in vector spaces and phase space goes mathematically way beyond your theorem....

Audio is the art to create AND perceive sound, analog AND digital here has their own reasons, their own way, and people with turntables are not all idiots unable to understand your engineering use of Fourier series with Nyquist theorem...

But being myself an "idiot", if you are right, you are not supposed to read my post anymore now, then i will not answer to ghost chanting mantras anymore myself....


Happy new year....

Timing matters, if you will calculate it in ms and will found in anatomy manual how ears are made you can go to sampling and resolution calculation and compare it with Nyquist figures - it’s physics and waves + math -- no engineering at all.

Exactly one part of my argument....Timbre is a complex bundles of "timing" events in a specific room discriminated by a learning process in the ears/brain....This applied to music, acoustic, and linguistic....

Only real listenings experiments with ears can decide and evaluate timbre experience....Somebody who said he dont need his own ears but Nyquist Theorem to judge timbre experience walk next to his shoes.... Or sell dac...😊 But i already own a good one myself at low cost.....😎


Thanks for your 2 wise posts...

Happy new Year...




«I use maths like a clever dog playing tricks but you know i never understand them at the end, reflex conditioning is not piano playing»- Harpo Marx

«You need to add real phenomena to numbers, not numbers to numbers brother»-Groucho Marx

audio2design, it is like running into a brick wall. I suspect that most of these people have very little experience with digital equipment and obviously have no idea how powerful it is. They will keep coming up with baseless explanations for digital sounding awful or why vinyl "sounds better." I suspect most of their opinions are based on the very early CD players that had bad filters and did sound pretty bad.

First: i own many dacs, they were not so good at first but at the end i stumble on a very good one.... I dont regret turntables one second for too many reasons anyone can guess, sound quality included...

Second: All these remarks in your post about turntable afficionados with a negative tone about me at the end of this rant, including indiscrimately all analog people in one bag with me is only that: what someone else call "Gibberish"...I never said that turntable are superior to dac.... I use only dac myself....

Third: Insulting people dont count for an argument.... if you would have read my posts about what is TIMBRE, a bundle of real " timing" events in room acoustic coupled to human ears, you would know that my critics of those who put analog on the side of the road, with a contempt for those "ignorant people" who stick to it, was based not on comparison analog/versus digital only, but on the difficulty to seize the complex event of timbre with ANY audio system analog or digital...And you would know that audiodesign call the colored tone dynamic, namely timbre, an only subjective phenomena that is secondary... Which is totally false because timbre is like a rainbow phenomena, at the interface of objective and subjective events..... Audiodesign affirmed digital coding being primary and supreme in audio and call ALL analog people ignorant crowds for their ears evaluation...

Fourth: you will know that myself i affirm that indeed digital is different than analog but able to emulate it, ESPECIALLY if the dac chosen is good BUT mainly rightfully embedded mechanically, electrically and acoustically with the audio system itself....And this point is my original contribution here to the discussion because no one speak about that ever except me...

Five: You must read about TIMBRE perception before saying that you know what is is.... If someone understand timbre that means that he understand the absolute necessity of ears evaluation for this complex phenomenon implying timing of bundle of concrete events in a phase space of his own...Timbre identification is a complex LEARNING process at the foundation of language not a digital artefact or only a musical event...

Six: denigrating someone dont count for an argument, if you read my post you will see that i NEVER insulted audiodesign, i even recognize his competence.... BUT no one knows it all...

Seven: Nyquist theorem is about coding and decoding signals and also the implicit limitations and not only the power to do so.... This theorem has nothing to do directly with TIMBRE, which is the cornerstone of musical perception but more than that the cornerstone for evaluation of audio system in their acoustical controlled or uncontrolled embeddings...




I have written these 7 points and no one can accuse this post to be like your last post and the post of audio design accusation of ignorance against all analog people...I clearly set my point and i remind you that i believe myself in the power of digital system to compete with analog then spare me the insult....

My main point in one word is ANY evaluation of analog versus digital cannot be based on Nyquist theorem only, except for those who ignore acoustic and the fundamental PERCEIVED timbre phenomena and the powerful transformation of an audio system with the rightful embeddings controls...(This last point is my own experience for 2 years experiments)

To my knbowledge EARS has not been replaced and would not be replaced in acoustic studies by only ONE theorem...It seems engineers are not all acousticians...And it seems that experimenting with our own ears is not a good recommendation for many here....😁

Happy new YEAR 😊 May God give you the best health ever and may the only doctor you encounter this year be yourself in a mirror.......

@mahgister I know full well what timbre is since music theory in college

First my post about timbre was not directed to you, but to the "specialist" which with i was discussing...Then no need to be insulted by some information you already know...By the way timbre is not only a musical fact, but also an acoustical fact, and also a neurological and linguistic fact, and even other things...Then some information was necessary....You are not alone here...Dont be too reactive to some post like a teen.... 😁

Your mansplaining or copying out of a book is irrelevant and adolescent.

Here spare me your gratuitous insult please, i cited 5 lines of wiki, calling back a complex description of Timbre for a non specialist in 5 points and the post was not directed to you....I use this clear 5 points to illustrate my own point...I am not a specialist and i cannot reinvent the wheel....

My other citation is 2 lines about the fact that timbre is not an abstract digital signal but an acoustical event...The writer said it better than i said it already in my posts.... Another time i cannot reinvent the wheel... I am not a genius nor an engineer nor an acoustician...and my discourse was aiming to a "specialist" here, then i used this citation for his clarity in the context...

By the way if you think my citation was irrelevant, i think you are of bad faith, the wiki 5 lines are TOTALLY relevant to the course of the discussion....

Perhaps it is your attack of my post that is irrelevant and adolescent... Others will judge...

Most of what you talk about is rambling gibberish suitable for an abnormal psych textbook but not here, though we appreciate the enthusiasm!

I will not take this one for an insult because i think that you assimilate and confound the content of my explanation with my bad use of the syntax and rhetorical english... English is not my first language and i never use it except for reading.... I apologize for that....But my explanation is perhaps cumbersome but understandable.... I know that timbre is not an illusory purely subjective elusive phenomenon it is a real timing bundles of events for the ears/brain and i was not sure that my interlocutor knows it....

My opinion about audio digital format versus analog format was clearly expressed tough...Contrary to my interlocutor i dont accuse vinyl afficionados of illusion or pure fetichism because they like the sound of their turntable and cannot support bad digital dac or recording or prefer simply vinyl...Fetichism for the cardboard pocket containing the vinyl perhaps refreshing their nostalgia but it is an another matter....

Then i will deduce from your remark about my posts that certainly they were not ABSOLUTE gibberish even for you if you have appreciated my enthusiasm, and i will attribute to your own excessive enthusiasm the fact that you have not been cautious enough and you have not precised clearly that your words about my " rambling" was more inspired by my heavy writing than by my content and argument about timbre....I suppose that you are enough intelligent to be able to read through my bad writing.... Adding the fact that i am in no way a specialist...

Then i thank you for your underlining of my enthusiasm... If i had a little representation of what timbre is like you have it seems, admit simply with me that many here dont....And that explain all.....

My main point for all audiophiles was clear also, the mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings of the system/house/room make a powerful impact on the perception of timbre in audio experience, even more perhaps than the choice of a turntable or a dac... That is my experience after 2 years of experiments by the way with my own devices....

Happy new year...