Everything you know about vinyl is wrong

Via No Rock’n’Roll Fun, what appears to be a very plausible demolition of the “vinyl is better” argument. This bit makes a lot of sense:

Early digital to analogue and analogue to digital converters were pretty terrible. I think a lot of the myths about digital were formed in the 80s, when the tech was still fairly new.

Imagine if our perceptions of digital photography or digital music file formats were based on the early digital cameras, or 128Kbps MP3s.

2 thoughts on “Everything you know about vinyl is wrong”

  1. Hmmm. Is fidelity all that it’s about? People always talk about a ‘warmer’ sound. Perhaps that’s partly down to a loss of fidelity. (Y’know a warm fuzziness. And, do the ebbs and flows at different points on the vinyl not add to that?) I remember standing in Fopp when they were playing the Beatles remasters of a few years back and being freaked out at just how off/wrong they sounded. I’ll bet they were more fidelitory.

    I don’t know. Just seemed a little strawy to me. No-one was suggesting the frequency responses on vinyl were more accurate than a stonking big digital version.

  2. Hey, sorry I’m slow to this. I’d agree that vinyl is warmer – same way analogue distortion is pleasant and digital not – but I have seen quite a few pro-vinyl things that suggested the difference was because digital lost crucial bits of the music. I suspect it’s from the same school of expensive speaker cabling :)

    On a related note, industry loudmouth Bob Lefzetz made a good point about Neil young’s hifi digital thing: unless most of the music is remastered for the Pono, it’ll be no better than current digital formats.

Comments are closed.