HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment

[Richard Dale]

Because those making these arguments obviously haven't heard vinyl done right, because if they had they would get why vinyl proponents can so easily accept the tradeoffs.

 

Everything in the real world comes with its own set of tradeoffs. That some feel that only vinyl comes with a set of tradeoffs suggests their arguments are based in theory more so than in practice. Taking their advice seriously might be equivalent to taking seriously the claims from a virgin about what sex must feel like. [emoji3]

 

+1

 

Yes, actually owning and using a good quality vinyl system, should count for something.

[CR250]

I find it interesting how the vinyl proponents so easily totally dismiss all of vinyls proven, measurable, HIGHLY AUDIBLE weaknesses? You never even mention them in your posts as if they don't exist. What's wrong with vinyl, let me count the ways. No I won't bother, we already been over them. If you prefer the noise and distortions of vinyl, God Bless, but technically your position hasn't a leg to stand on, I guess that's why you ignore them all.

 

Why would someone who loves vinyl and is happy with their system go looking to complain about it? Is it possible that they're not getting they're listening experience from reading a spec sheet? Since you're being so picky about measuring everything, you don't seem too concerned with how any specific TT setup measures. Everything just gets lumped into one category like generic products. You seem very angry. When audiophiles are upset, it usually means their system sounds like crap. Maybe you should try a TT. It might cheer you up.

[kennyb123]

You seem very angry. When audiophiles are upset, it usually means their system sounds like crap. Maybe you should try a TT. It might cheer you up.

 

I'm not sure that would change anything.

 

It seems like there are two types of people participating in this thread. There are those to whom the experience of listening is paramount. And then there those to whom only the little they can wrap their head around matters - actual listening be damned.

 

Some of the latter seem to extract some sense of superiority from mocking those who have preferences that don't align with their limited understanding of how things *must* be. Hence the anger and the mocking about "snap crackle pop".

 

Those of us who have heard vinyl done right probably find such statements laughable. It actually saddens me to see that hubris and bias can keep some from not attempting to partake in activity that so often brings me the most incredible joy. I just wish some would be able to put aside their biases long enough to take the time to hear vinyl done right. There's no downside, only the upside that their lives might be richer as a result of opening themselves up to more musical enjoyment.

[kennyb123]

Is it possible that they're not getting they're listening experience from reading a spec sheet? .

 

Kind of like a virgin who refuses to have sex because there's a measurable downside: they'll get all sweaty. [emoji3]

[esldude]

All the normal cute misdirections from the vinyl crowd. Sal has put it rightly.

 

Of course us who aren't any longer vinyl aficionados somehow haven't heard or used a good TT. Yeah, right, just keep telling yourselves this. Very comforting no doubt.

 

I agree a well setup TT system and very nice vinyl isn't snap crackle and pop. Also that it can sound very good. Also that it has a vinyl sound, and if you prefer it then wonderful you are happy.

 

It also has a smaller performance envelope than digital. Digital is a higher fidelity medium. Digital can record and reproduce vinyl with almost complete transparency. And you don't have to be unhappy or have a crappy system of your own for this to be true or to believe the truth.

 

Why do vinyl lovers have to imagine others unhappy before they can be happy?

[kennyb123]

Why do vinyl lovers have to imagine others unhappy before they can be happy?

 

Logical fallacy.

 

My comments were aimed only at those appearing angry and doing the mocking.

[Jud]

I find it interesting how the vinyl proponents so easily totally dismiss all of vinyls proven, measurable, HIGHLY AUDIBLE weaknesses? You never even mention them in your posts as if they don't exist. What's wrong with vinyl, let me count the ways. No I won't bother, we already been over them. If you prefer the noise and distortions of vinyl, God Bless, but technically your position hasn't a leg to stand on, I guess that's why you ignore them all.

 

Different distortions are more audible/bothersome to different people. I was at a seminar at RMAF where increasing amounts of different types of distortions were gradually introduced into a signal. The attendees were asked to raise their hands as the various distortions became audible, and different folks were first to raise their hands for the different types of distortion. For slew rate limiting I was first to raise a hand. It sounded really nasty to me, like an ultrasonic cleaner (which you may have heard in a jewelry store, a record or audio store (for cleaning records), or an archaeology lab), while most everyone else thought it was pretty innocuous.

 

What you call "Rice Krispies" obviously sets your teeth on edge. It doesn't bother me unless it's really bad, and there are very few of my 1000 or so LPs where it does sound really bad to me. I think most people who have spent a fair amount of time with music from LPs have learned to listen "past" the surface noise, while I'm sure for you the idea is ridiculous. And while "wow," for example, is relatively speaking far, far greater with an LP than a CD, most people, including me, are pretty insensitive to such a minute amount of slow pitch variation on an absolute scale.

 

So it's not that everyone who likes LPs must be deaf, or that you've never heard a decent turntable. It's just different strokes for different folks, which in the world of sensory appreciation (food, drink, visual arts, music, TV, audio) is very common.

[semente]

I'm not sure that would change anything.

 

It seems like there are two types of people participating in this thread. There are those to whom the experience of listening is paramount. And then there those to whom only the little they can wrap their head around matters - actual listening be damned.

 

Some of the latter seem to extract some sense of superiority from mocking those who have preferences that don't align with their limited understanding of how things *must* be. Hence the anger and the mocking about "snap crackle pop".

 

Those of us who have heard vinyl done right probably find such statements laughable. It actually saddens me to see that hubris and bias can keep some from not attempting to partake in activity that so often brings me the most incredible joy. I just wish some would be able to put aside their biases long enough to take the time to hear vinyl done right. There's no downside, only the upside that their lives might be richer as a result of opening themselves up to more musical enjoyment.

 

The whole chain from capture to reproduction is flawed and because we all have different backgrounds, sonic and musical culture and preferences it seems logical that some will prefer one support over the other.

 

This makes it very difficult to discuss technical performance (accuracy) in an unbiased, selfless manner.

 

Ultimately, the goal of a domestic recording reproduction system is to provide listening pleasure to it's owner regardless of it's technical performance.

 

This article on Analogue Warmth tries to investigate possible causes for some people's preference for this technology :

 

Analogue Warmth - The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm

 

R

[Sal1950]

Different distortions are more audible/bothersome to different people. I was at a seminar at RMAF where increasing amounts of different types of distortions were gradually introduced into a signal. The attendees were asked to raise their hands as the various distortions became audible, and different folks were first to raise their hands for the different types of distortion. For slew rate limiting I was first to raise a hand. It sounded really nasty to me, like an ultrasonic cleaner (which you may have heard in a jewelry store, a record or audio store (for cleaning records), or an archaeology lab), while most everyone else thought it was pretty innocuous.

 

What you call "Rice Krispies" obviously sets your teeth on edge. It doesn't bother me unless it's really bad, and there are very few of my 1000 or so LPs where it does sound really bad to me. I think most people who have spent a fair amount of time with music from LPs have learned to listen "past" the surface noise, while I'm sure for you the idea is ridiculous. And while "wow," for example, is relatively speaking far, far greater with an LP than a CD, most people, including me, are pretty insensitive to such a minute amount of slow pitch variation on an absolute scale.

 

So it's not that everyone who likes LPs must be deaf, or that you've never heard a decent turntable. It's just different strokes for different folks, which in the world of sensory appreciation (food, drink, visual arts, music, TV, audio) is very common.

I'm not angry in the least and I have owned very high end vinyl components, vinyl done right indeed. But I just got tried of listening to a media that most everyone admits you have to learn to "listen past" all it's very audible defects. Kind of like a bad tasting medicine I guess. We got past all that 30 some years ago, I wonder how long some will insist on staying locked to the 1950s? What other technology hasn't brought you any improvements since a 17" B&W TV was king? Do you think your grandchildren will be carrying their TT to the new outpost on Mars? Vinyl had it's day, I was listening to it when probably a lot telling me I don't know "vinyl done right" weren't born. I sold it all cause there was a much better path.

What does surprise me is did any of you look at the name of this site? You must be hanging out here looking to find out how to get into a medium where you don't have to

"listen pass its defects" to enjoy it. LOL Don't worry, we'll help you, welcome to the future, welcome to the world of The Computer Audiophile.

[Sal1950]

Ultimately, the goal of a domestic recording reproduction system is to provide listening pleasure to it's owner regardless of it's technical performance.

 

That's NOT High Fidelity!

What happened to the world I grew up in, we called it High Fidelity, the goal was

"the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original"

People use to please themselves with tone controls and loudness buttons on their receivers, we advanced the hobby to a High End with people that were interested in making their systems as accurate, clean, and transparent as possible.

Seems like we've fallen back to the days of ever fancier and more expensive tone controls and loudness buttons. That does make me sad, 50 years of engineering work being thrown away for a world of "sounds good to me" and $3k snake oil power cord markets.

[Norton]

That's NOT High Fidelity!

What happened to the world I grew up in, we called it High Fidelity, the goal was

"the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original"

 

I imagine most in this thread would agree to some extent with that definition, where some of us would disagree with you is that this is precisely the reason we rate vinyl so highly. After all, the reason it's called analogue is because it's analogous to the original sound.

 

What does surprise me is did any of you look at the name of this site? You must be hanging out here looking to find out how to get into a medium where you don't have to "listen pass its defects" to enjoy it.

 

They're music formats, not personal identities, political parties or monotheistic religions. You can like both vinyl and digital. But just because this is a CA site doesn't mean people can't tell it as they see it from their own experience, whether that's rating one DAC against another or digital against vinyl. In my case, I have good quality contemporary vinyl and digital front ends I listen to regularly, the latter including via HQP & JRMC. I have plenty of hires/DSD downloads, SACDs, RBCD rips etc as well as LPs. I thus have no agenda to push, other than sharing an honest appraisal of the formats in response to the OP, whose conclusions to date seem similar to my own.

[Richard Dale]

I'm not angry in the least and I have owned very high end vinyl components, vinyl done right indeed. But I just got tried of listening to a media that most everyone admits you have to learn to "listen past" all it's very audible defects. Kind of like a bad tasting medicine I guess. We got past all that 30 some years ago, I wonder how long some will insist on staying locked to the 1950s? What other technology hasn't brought you any improvements since a 17" B&W TV was king? Do you think your grandchildren will be carrying their TT to the new outpost on Mars? Vinyl had it's day, I was listening to it when probably a lot telling me I don't know "vinyl done right" weren't born. I sold it all cause there was a much better path.

What does surprise me is did any of you look at the name of this site? You must be hanging out here looking to find out how to get into a medium where you don't have to

"listen pass its defects" to enjoy it. LOL Don't worry, we'll help you, welcome to the future, welcome to the world of The Computer Audiophile.

 

Earlier in this thread you said 'The day the first CD player, a Magnavox 560 entered my living room, the days of the LP were over for me.'

 

That would have been in the late 1980s when you were raving about that CD player, and yet when I listened to CD players of that era I found them simply unlistenable. I only bought a CD player because all the shops had stopped selling LPs and you could only buy more expensive CDs. The CD player I bought was a Sony CDP-211:

 

Sony CDP-211 Manual - Stereo Compact Disc Player - HiFi Engine

 

It had simply terrible sound quality compared with the vinyl front end I had at the time: Gyrodec/SME V/Audio Technica ART-1/Audio Research SP9 - the same deck and arm I use today. The Sony CD player had coarse treble, the bass lines were pretty much impossible to hear, imaging was pretty non-existent and so on.

 

And yet, 25 years later here am I on this Computer Audiophile forum saying that although I still think vinyl sounds great, I really like the sound of my current DACs playing digital tracks off a NAS, even Red Book quality tracks.

 

I suppose I find it interesting that some people liked the sound of early digital CD players right from the start, whereas people like me had to be forced kicking and screaming into the digital era because it didn't work at all well for a long time, from our point of view.

[semente]

Ultimately, the goal of a domestic recording reproduction system is to provide listening pleasure to it's owner regardless of it's technical performance.

 

That's NOT High Fidelity!

What happened to the world I grew up in, we called it High Fidelity, the goal was

"the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original"

People use to please themselves with tone controls and loudness buttons on their receivers, we advanced the hobby to a High End with people that were interested in making their systems as accurate, clean, and transparent as possible.

Seems like we've fallen back to the days of ever fancier and more expensive tone controls and loudness buttons. That does make me sad, 50 years of engineering work being thrown away for a world of "sounds good to me" and $3k snake oil power cord markets.

 

Of course it's not High Fidelity (to the recorded signal) but as we all know many recordings are far from exemplary from a technical standpoint...

If you fail to see this then you miss the point: many buy/build a system to enjoy reproducing music.

 

I am fortunate enough to listen mostly to classical music which is generally better recorded and mastered than other genres.

For this reason I find that a more "transparent" or accurate technology such as digital provides better enjoyment.

 

I have limited experience with valves but I can understand that the distortions they produce, like some of those inherent to vinyl, are correlated with the music signal and can produce a subjective impression of spaciousness or decay.

This can make studio recordings more pleasant because these are usually devoid of spatial cues - it works a bit like the artificial reverb that is added during production - but when music is recorded in a naturally reverberant space such "effects" are unnecessary or even unpleasant as they "mask" the original sound of instruments in space.

 

Besides the more obvious "crackles" and "pops", I find that poor channel separation and speed stability of vinyl interfere with my listing pleasure, the latter being more obvious in classical music because most of the sound is legato.

The fact that my parents got their first CD player when I was in my mid teens could be another reason for my preference since I didn't live with the LP medium long enough to get attached to it.

 

R

[semente]

I imagine most in this thread would agree to some extent with that definition, where some of us would disagree with you is that this is precisely the reason we rate vinyl so highly. After all, the reason it's called analogue is because it's analogous to the original sound.

 

I have trouble accepting that an analogue sound signal affected by a large panoply of distortions of varying intensity is more analogous to the original sound that a more accurate digitally encoded one (as long as the encoding is adequately "scaled").

 

R

[master]

We need to stop listening to equipment and start listening to (and enjoying) the music.

 

As a student all I had was an iPod and my mobile to enjoy music on... and that's exactly what I did.

 

I enjoy sports and I even like it very much that I get to enjoy them on 4K and in 5.1... but when traveling if all you have is a transistor radio (the only device my parents had for a while) then that's the best thing to get the scores on.

 

I saw Spectre on a 1080P monitor and 2.0 computer speakers (not even a sub) and still enjoyed it immensely. Of course I'd enjoy it even more in my home theater and on the PJ, but I was in a hurry and not at home... and all said and done I still enjoyed the movie lots.

 

I don't really understand why folks need to start arguing on formats and equipment.

 

Seems audiophiles listen to equipment and not music.

[semente]

We need to stop listening to equipment and start listening to (and enjoying) the music.

 

As a student all I had was an iPod and my mobile to enjoy music on... and that's exactly what I did.

 

I enjoy sports and I even like it very much that I get to enjoy them on 4K and in 5.1... but when traveling if all you have is a transistor radio (the only device my parents had for a while) then that's the best thing to get the scores on.

 

I saw Spectre on a 1080P monitor and 2.0 computer speakers (not even a sub) and still enjoyed it immensely. Of course I'd enjoy it even more in my home theater and on the PJ, but I was in a hurry and not at home... and all said and done I still enjoyed the movie lots.

 

I don't really understand why folks need to start arguing on formats and equipment.

 

Seems audiophiles listen to equipment and not music.

 

Audiophiles discuss equipment (and support) performance...that's what makes them audiophiles.

They also discuss recording techniques, mastering quality and even music.

 

R

[LostHighway]

As is typically the case with threads of this nature there is far more heat than light.

 

To me the two formats simply sound different. Surface noise on LPs does bother me and the 15 to 23 minute sides of an LP now seem to fly by rather more quickly than they did when vinyl was the primary medium. On the other hand digital can often sound thin, glare-y, etched, brittle, closed-in, etc. I will freely confess that I have much more experience with high end vinyl rigs than the current digital SOTA.

 

People tend to forget that hearing along with our other senses is not an objective measuring instrument. Ultimately we hear or see or taste with our brain (mind if you prefer) and exactly what goes on in that processing is only very partially understood. I simply fail to see the point of trying to convince people that they are "wrong" or should change their minds about liking what they like. Unlike politics for example the ramifications of personal preferences don't really reach much beyond the individual.

 

While it seems less true here than at say Hydrogen Audio I will note that that those who hew closer to a purely objectivist position often seem to have not terribly good systems but there are always exceptions to try the rule. Of course the internet being what it is anyone can claim to own or have owned or heard almost anything they have simply heard of.

 

Perhaps a debate between the R2D and DSD camps might prove more interesting?

[master]

Audiophiles discuss equipment (and support) performance...that's what makes them audiophiles.

They also discuss recording techniques, mastering quality and even music.

 

R

 

But why rain down on somebody's parade? If someone likes vinyl then so be it and if someone likes digital then let them enjoy their cake too.

 

However, both are equally guilty of dissing or putting down the other format.

 

Younger folk like me did not even get to hear vinyl. Most of the music I listen to does not get to vinyl even if I should desire to. Ditto for high res music... most of the hip hop and popular music I listen to does not get to high res either.

 

Still does not mean I don't enjoy my music.

 

However, the vinyl guys make it sound like digital is no fun or the digital folks are all sad and the digital folks make it sound like all you can hear with vinyl is distortion and lots of hiss.

 

Not a good place to be in the middle of... especially as you say folks are here to discuss equipment, discover better equipment, and further their enjoyment from it.

[Kimo]

That's NOT High Fidelity!

What happened to the world I grew up in, we called it High Fidelity, the goal was

"the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original"

 

The original what? Sound that the mic picked up, multi tracks, the mixed master? If your goal is to get you as close as possible to the sound of the original master tape, digital should be your ticket, provided the engineer doesn't futz with it too much. Needless to say, this doesn't happen all the time. At best you typically are listening to the original master tapes, as interpreted by the modern mastering engineer.

 

Should you even consider the master tape the grail in the first place? Perhaps, it is best to consider them as work products. Just a stage. The sound of the music pressed into a piece of vinyl, the last stage, was likely more important to the producer and band, than the sound of the masters. Of course, that is assuming that they cared at all, or that their vision was not obliteraged to make it to AM radio. It is not as if the cutting engineers didn't understand vinyl, its sound and limitations, and it is not as if they had any other options.

 

Just as pressing a fully realized 24 bit master in vinyl, may take you a step away from the original, listening to a 24 bit flat copy of an aged master tape may not get you any closer to the realized vintage original.

[zackthedog]

In some rerspects the argument is moot for me. The string quartets of Joachim Raff are not going to be appearing on vinyl so refining my digital reproduction has become paramount. Would they sound better on vinyl? Maybe, but I'll never know! Sony's syncing of the two live performance tapes of Ellington at Newport in 1956 is a treasure I wouldn't part with, and wouldn't have been possible in the analogue age. Digital sound has made production so much less expensive that classical lovers, in particular, can enjoy an extraordinary range of things that never would have been recorded or marketed for LP. I expect thge same is true for a lot of other genres. A lot of new pop artists are recording and selling their stuff online without the need for the old "big label" methods. And a lot of it sounds pretty good, IMO.

 

The OP bemoaned how much money he has spent on his digital rig only to find it didn't compare favorably to vinyl. There are certainly a lot of ways for digital front-end to go astray. But I've also heard some absolutely awful, $30,000 vinyl setups. When digital started to get good, it was with no small measure of relief that I was able to turn away from tonearm azimuth and record cleaners and wrecked cantilevers and all that. But others find tinkering with those things just as much, if not more, fun that tinkering with computers. I recently considered purchasing a new phono preamp, and priced some of the better ones. Gosh....

 

Speaking of "high fidelity," many years ago I set up my first single-ended 300B system, and my wife played one of her favorite rock albums. She was horrified to actually hear the multi-tracking and over-dubbing for the first time. Previously, to her it sounded like a live performance. She didn't want to know that it was all stitched together like that. For her the old mid-fi turntable-and-receiver combo that blended all that stuff together was what she'd grown up with and what sounded best to her. :-)

[orgel]

After all, the reason it's called analogue is because it's analogous to the original sound.

 

Point taken, but I think the real reason it's called "analogue" is to differentiate it from "digital." Similar to "analogue watch," people didn't talk about analogue sound systems before there were digital ones.

 

—David

[orgel]

I suppose I find it interesting that some people liked the sound of early digital CD players right from the start, whereas people like me had to be forced kicking and screaming into the digital era because it didn't work at all well for a long time, from our point of view.

 

I think this gets to Jud's point about different people being sensitive to different aspects of playback. I was always really annoyed by flutter, wow, and surface noise (not to mention the overall fussiness inherent in vinyl care and maintenance, nor the existential despair I experienced as a result of the continual deterioration of my favorite LP's despite my best efforts). So the advent of the Red Book CD, as mediocre as it may have been initially, seemed like a godsend. As time went by, I became more aware of the deficiencies of early CD's and players — especially once there were much better-sounding CD's and players to compare them to — but the shortcomings were never sufficient to draw me back into the vinyl realm.

 

Right now, I think I have a digital front end that sounds darned good (but could still be improved on, of course). And folks mention "convenience" as if it's a side issue, but for me the ability to bop around my library (which now includes Tidal's library) at will while sitting on my arse, or to queue up, say, half a dozen versions of "Skylark" in a matter of seconds, contributes to my listening pleasure in a way that's simply not possible with vinyl.

 

So different strokes, horses for courses, etc.

 

--David

[Sal1950]

Speaking of "high fidelity," many years ago I set up my first single-ended 300B system, and my wife played one of her favorite rock albums. She was horrified to actually hear the multi-tracking and over-dubbing for the first time. Previously, to her it sounded like a live performance. She didn't want to know that it was all stitched together like that. For her the old mid-fi turntable-and-receiver combo that blended all that stuff together was what she'd grown up with and what sounded best to her. :-)

 

A good analogy to the popularity of vinyl today. People prefer the sound of vinyls technical weakness from the surface noise to all the mechanically induced timing errors that wash out the inner details and smear together that which good digital reveals in the recording, for better or worse.

[Sal1950]

I think this gets to Jud's point about different people being sensitive to different aspects of playback. I was always really annoyed by flutter, wow, and surface noise (not to mention the overall fussiness inherent in vinyl care and maintenance, nor the existential despair I experienced as a result of the continual deterioration of my favorite LP's despite my best efforts). So the advent of the Red Book CD, as mediocre as it may have been initially, seemed like a godsend. As time went by, I became more aware of the deficiencies of early CD's and players — especially once there were much better-sounding CD's and players to compare them to — but the shortcomings were never sufficient to draw me back into the vinyl realm.

 

Right now, I think I have a digital front end that sounds darned good (but could still be improved on, of course). And folks mention "convenience" as if it's a side issue, but for me the ability to bop around my library (which now includes Tidal's library) at will while sitting on my arse, or to queue up, say, half a dozen versions of "Skylark" in a matter of seconds, contributes to my listening pleasure in a way that's simply not possible with vinyl.

 

So different strokes, horses for courses, etc.

 

--David

 

+1 and right on target David.

[LostHighway]

Earlier in this thread you said 'The day the first CD player, a Magnavox 560 entered my living room, the days of the LP were over for me.'

 

That would have been in the late 1980s when you were raving about that CD player, and yet when I listened to CD players of that era I found them simply unlistenable. I only bought a CD player because all the shops had stopped selling LPs and you could only buy more expensive CDs. The CD player I bought was a Sony CDP-211:

 

Sony CDP-211 Manual - Stereo Compact Disc Player - HiFi Engine

 

It had simply terrible sound quality compared with the vinyl front end I had at the time: Gyrodec/SME V/Audio Technica ART-1/Audio Research SP9 - the same deck and arm I use today. The Sony CD player had coarse treble, the bass lines were pretty much impossible to hear, imaging was pretty non-existent and so on.

 

And yet, 25 years later here am I on this Computer Audiophile forum saying that although I still think vinyl sounds great, I really like the sound of my current DACs playing digital tracks off a NAS, even Red Book quality tracks.

 

I suppose I find it interesting that some people liked the sound of early digital CD players right from the start, whereas people like me had to be forced kicking and screaming into the digital era because it didn't work at all well for a long time, from our point of view.

 

 

Kudos for one of the more sensible and less inflamatory posts on this thread.

 

Your experience was similar to mine. I found the early CDPs (including the Boothroyd Stuart MCD and MCD Pro) nearly unlistenable but by the end of the 1980s you could get tolerable mid-fi sound out of them. IME it wasn't until the late 1990s that digital even begin to rival good TT set ups.

 

Curiously two of my major high end audio mentors diverged on digital almost from the beginning; one went the J Gordon Holt route of embracing digital immediately while another hated it, at least in the first ten to fifteen years. Interestingly, the one who hated it had far more background and expertise in the computer world. There clearly is something going on there that we don't have the right understanding or measurements to quantify, assuming it even is quantifiable.

 

I tend to align with the late, great, Arthur Eddington on both the importance and limitations of science.