Close
Articles Story Time today i learned (til) vintage science

Vinyl is Better than Digital Music

April 24, 2021

Hear that music??? That, my friend, is the sound of classic vinyl…

Meet Ernie. My vinyl player 🙂

You know that round spinning thingy that plays music that your grandparents and/or parents used growing up? Well, good news – it’s not extinct! When it comes to enjoying music, one of the best ways that I have discovered is by using vinyl (aka: the record player).

Compressed MP3 files and digital streaming services such as Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, and YouTube have been the social norm for listening to music; however, vinyl sales have tremendously increased from under a million in 2007, to more than 8 million today in the U.S alone. According the British Phonographic Industry, vinyl sales hit a peak in the UK and the US in recent decades. Why? Because vinyl just is better!!

Let’s delve into the reasons why vinyl records are superior to digital MP3.

1) Simply put, vinyl sounds better than MP3:

Vinyl is the only playback format readily available to consumers that is fully analog and fully lossless. That means that with a quality record player, you get to enjoy a high-fidelity listening experience. High-fidelity equates to high-quality reproduction of sound, that has inaudible background noise and distortion – giving a sound extremely similar to the original. Who wouldn’t want to listen to music that sounds as authentic as the source intended it to be?

The quality is immaculate. The song you hear playing in this article is featured above. It is a vinyl by the Righteous Brothers, with a song clip entitled “The White Cliffs of Dover” (1965).

2) Listening to vinyl is a complete experience:

An expanding collection of my vinyls!

You know when you can feel the music when listening to your favorite songs? Well, with vinyl, you not only figuratively feel the music coursing through your mind and soul, but you can physically feel the music through the tangible form of the vinyl. There’s nothing like unraveling a vinyl wrapped in its cover. There’s nothing like being able to smell the music, just like the comforting smell of books in the library. With vinyl, you get to fully experience music with literally all of your senses.

3) Going to record stores is so fun!!

There’s nothing like the nostalgic and magical experience of entering a record store, whether it’s your first time, third time, or hundredth time! You can easily spend hours in the record store browsing, searching, and discovering music! You can mingle with other vintage audiophiles, and you can usually always get a special discount when buying vinyl in bulk! Furthermore, there is no monthly subscription to enjoy the music you want (Haha, take that Spotify and Apple Music)!

Unraveling a shiny vinyl!

Vinyl is an unbeatable classic that has remained relatively unchanged for the past 40 years! Since it’s creation in 1948, numerous developments and refinements within the vinyl industry have been made to perfect its technical and practical excellence. As George Plasketes, a professor of media studies and popular culture in the School of Communication and Journalism at Auburn University in Alabama, put it:

“Vinyl is not simply a recording format, but the artefact of an age; it is an experience that embraces emotion, passion and romance”.

Keep calm and vinyl on!

Sources:

Oregonian/OregonLive, David Greenwald. “Does Vinyl Really Sound Better? An Engineer Explains.” Oregonlive, 19 Nov. 2014, www.oregonlive.com/music/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html.

Plasketes, George. “Romancing the Record: The Vinyl De‐Evolution and Subcultural Evolution.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 5 Mar. 2004, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1992.00109.x.

Sarpong, David, et al. “’Vinyl Never Say Die’: The Re-Incarnation, Adoption and Diffusion of Retro-Technologies.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, North-Holland, 29 Nov. 2015, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515003078#bb0310.

Zabowski, Jason. “4 Reasons Why Vinyl Is Better Than MP3.” VOX Player, 21 Nov. 2017, https://vox.rocks/blog/vinyl-is-better

0Likes
About Author

Devi is an undergraduate at Georgia Tech studying computer science. In her free time, she enjoys jogging, cooking and baking new things, jamming to vinyls and music, and gazing at the stars. Devi also loves cats!! (meow)

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Science Memes: Duality of Light
today i learned (til)
Navigating the Side-effects of Gel Nail Polish
today i learned (til)
A New Bumpy Buddy in the Deep Sea
today i learned (til)
The Prehistoric Origins of Birds

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.