Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vynil or digital? (Read 48176 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #26 –
The popular myth about vinyl is that it's "warmer" and more "soulful", whereas digital is "harsh" and "clinical".

But if done right, they can sound pretty similar, with vinyl inevitably being noisier (ticks, pops, swishes, etc), and sometimes you get audible levels of distortion, especially in more heavily-modulated tracks or towards the inner grooves. Sometimes you even get a bit of pre-echo thanks to the way the record was mastered.

But having said that, I have a brand-new Audio Technica LP120USB turntable and I'm enjoying it a lot! I think it's partly due to the ritual of having to pre-select what I'm going to listen to, and I'm more likely to listen to the entire album, rather than just individual tracks simply because it's too much bother to jump from record to record every few minutes.

Logical? Not so much, but I'm having fun.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Palladium on
I don't understand why a completely superior technology can be regarded worse than it's predecessor just because it's being misused in its application.
First off, no where did I say that digital technology was worse, or in any way inferior, to analog technology so I don't know where that part of your statement came from. Secondly, I don't think that the misuse of digital technology in any way reflects on the technology itself, it only reflects poorly on those who choose to misuse it.

However, I'd like to point out that it can be misused, and in a way that affects sound quality. I'd also like to point out that either technology can be poorly implemented and this in no way invalidates either analog nor digital.  Indeed, my point was simply that using digital technology does not always guarantee perfect audio fidelity. It seems to me that some posts in this thread seem to suggest that all digital recordings must be better than any analog recording could be.

As well, digital compression isn't a misuse of the technology, never the less, it can still degrade sound quality. Personally, I'd prefer to listen to a reasonable analog recording over an excessively compressed digital one.

Quote from: greynol on
With all due respect, why do you believe vinyl mastering ensures freedom from compression (digital or otherwise)?
Sir, with all due respect, your comment appears to be an attempt to misrepresent my position. Yes, I'm well aware that there is compression in the analog domain, however, this in no way seems relevant to my point that digital compression can affect sound quality. I, in my layperson's understanding, can appreciate that compression can be both good or bad in either domain depending on its application. If I'm mistaken in this, please, don't hesitate in providing an explanation or link.

For the record, I'll try to politely and sincerely reply to each and every criticism pertaining to my posts eventually, just so long as I don't have to continue to put up with any more derogatory comments in the process. I'm simply asking you to bear with me as I try to explain my position. I hope that a civilized and polite discussion is not to much to ask for.

One last point, with so many of you piling it on me, it may take me awhile to respond to each of you. In this regard, perhaps a dogpile of responses is not the best way of encouraging discussion.

Thanks  :)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #28 –
Far too much debate going on than is necessary.
A summary is quite simple:

1. Digital technology has the potential to deliver far better fidelity than vinyl.
2. Just because a technology has potential doesn't mean it always delivers - some digital sounds fabulous, but some sounds terrible.
3. A lot of vinyl sounds terrible.
4. Surprisingly, despite the technological limitations, vinyl can sound fabulous.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #29 –
5. Vinyl can be (and often is) sourced from the very same digital masters with "added loudness" as those used to create the CD, including the very same "digital compression" that 2tec seems to think only applies to digital media (which would be a completely erroneous assumption).

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #30 –
Folks, I have a very big announcement to make next week.

Ok, it can't wait.
Amirs birth certificate has been revoked on his own forum
The D-K zombies have turned on their master. Owner-Peddlers scam profits were in jeopardy and now harmony is restored.

I know, I know, you're saying AJ, what the $^#%# does this have to do with "vinyl vs digital" fishing??
Bingo!! Nothing!!
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Folks, I have a very big announcement to make next week.

Ok, it can't wait.
Amirs birth certificate has been revoked on his own forum
The D-K zombies have turned on their master. Owner-Peddlers scam profits were in jeopardy and now harmony is restored.

I know, I know, you're saying AJ, what the $^#%# does this have to do with "vinyl vs digital" fishing??
Bingo!! Nothing!!

Probably deserves its own thread, maybe even  a new forum called "Gossip" ;-)

Amir seems to have prepared for this eventuality by starting up that new forum I posted about here a while back.

What was its name? ;-)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: jensend on
...I have to think that at least some of the time an OP knows better and is just trolling the HA regulars because we're easy pickings- just post one deliberately misinformed statement, then sit back and chuckle while dozens of people spend hours nitpicking each other's hasty corrections.bove links, or if you are interested in discussing something else, feel free to start a new topic!"
I bet alone for the spelling of "Vynil" the OP had some serious fun.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Quote from: jensend on
...I have to think that at least some of the time an OP knows better and is just trolling the HA regulars because we're easy pickings- just post one deliberately misinformed statement, then sit back and chuckle while dozens of people spend hours nitpicking each other's hasty corrections.bove links, or if you are interested in discussing something else, feel free to start a new topic!"
I bet alone for the spelling of "Vynil" the OP had some serious fun.

Then again, it gets boring around here without the usual trollbaiting masqueraded as innocent question seekers.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Here's an apparently much needed news flash: Digital audio does not necessarily include lossy compression or added loudness.

Weeeeelllll.  That statement suggests that we should use formats with no loss. From the 204 dB of Saturn V to whatever is theoretically closest to negative infinity as dictated by quantum mechanics or whatever, that is a helluvalot of bits and surely way more than 32. Which kind of invites to the hi-rez bandwagon.
Going from a the sound in the wild to a 32-bit digitized signal is in principle a lossy compression operation. There is no need to argue in a way that suggests it is problematic. Same goes for the reduction to a suitable end-user format.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Here's an apparently much needed news flash: Digital audio does not necessarily include lossy compression or added loudness.
That statement suggests that we should use formats with no loss.
I don't read it that way at all.

Quote from: Porcus on
Going from a the sound in the wild to a 32-bit digitized signal is in principle a lossy compression operation.
Recording a sound in the wild to any medium is in principle a lossy compression operation.  Without questioning the veracity of your statement concerning the dynamic range of 32 bits, why are you singling out digital?

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #37 –
+1 for clveb

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Here's an apparently much needed news flash: Digital audio does not necessarily include lossy compression or added loudness.

Weeeeelllll.  That statement suggests that we should use formats with no loss.

There ain't no such thing as a format with zero loss, even in theory as long as we limit ourselves to finite numbers. When you get to real world practice, then that there is no such thing as a format with zero loss is even more abundantly clear.

Quote
From the 204 dB of Saturn V to whatever is theoretically closest to negative infinity as dictated by quantum mechanics or whatever, that is a helluvalot of bits and surely way more than 32.

I thought we were talking about audio, which is related to sounds that are potentially audible and non-fatal.  Rule of thumb, if you have to conflate audio and quantum mechanics to support your claims, your opponent wins.


Quote
Which kind of invites to the hi-rez bandwagon.

The hi rez bandwagon starts at anything > 16 bits, last time I looked around in the real contemporary world. 

Quote
Going from the sound in the wild to a 32-bit digitized signal is in principle a lossy compression operation.

Excluded middle argument, anybody?

BTW am I conversing with one of those who is so ignorant of how things work they think that analog audio has infinite resolution? ;-)

Truth be known, Vinyl lacks dynamic range as compared to any digital format but the ones that are violently bitrate reduced. Way south of Redbook.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #39 –
I'm pretty sure the compression comment was in regards to dynamics rather than data, BTW; not that the two don't get conflated.

Don't ask me why I'm even putting this silliness back on the table.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #40 –
On with the silliness I say ... ;~)

Quote from: DVDdoug on
Quote
I don't see an answer to my questions
It was answered. 
Not really. My point was, and remains,  that the statements I quoted seemingly ignored the fact that the application of purely digital technology is not immune from problems  and the supposition that a digital/analog,  or straight analog, recording must be inferior doesn't always hold true in the real world.

As well, just to sum up my position in this regard. Personally, I don't listen to music with the aim of technological development or testing. I certainly have no end of appreciation and respect for those who of you who do. Thank you, you're doing an outstanding job in my opinion. However, as an end user, my main goal is to enjoy music. Besides this, I also enjoy music technology. I try to keep these distinct for the necessity of living in two realms. One is the the more objective and technical world of audio equipment and audio engineering which requires a strict scientific approach. The other world is the realm of musical appreciation which allows for every and all manner of psychological enhancement since the goal is maximum enjoyment. I, and others, willingly suspend our disbelief and scepticism. We willing allow ourselves to be fooled for the sake of enjoyment alone. People do it all the time, it's called fantasizing. Appreciation and enjoyment are intrinsically bound to fantasy, psychologically speaking.

Now, I'm sure there are people here who look down on this approach as irrational and even stupid and as a waste of time but I suggest that people often waste time and do stupid things in the pursuit of happiness. This does not make people worthy of contempt, it just affirms their humanity and provides temporary pleasure. I suggest happiness is hard enough to find and I ask you, is it really all right to deny it to people just because it's not "scientific" within your definition of the term?

As well, I reject the disparagement that comes with the misuse of the term "audiophile" around here. It's a poor use of diction and for this reason, conversations are often misunderstood by newcomers and outsiders. Even more disturbing is the fact that it's used so contemptuously. Contempt for others is really not a good thing. If people want to disparage fraud, deceit, ignorance or misinformation, great! I'm all for it. But when people are personally attacked and belittled, I think that's both unseemly, ineffective and worse, inhumane. It's also a logical fallacy and often undercuts an entire argument. All that's really being done is the building walls, and not doors or windows, metaphorically speaking.  I suspect that such an approach can only, in the end, result in resentment and rejection, and not communication, which should be the goal of a forum.

On the other hand, I think placeophile, as a term in and of itself, is reasonable right. Much of the "magic" is undoubtedly a placebo effect and or the suspension of critical analysis. There's nothing wrong in pointing this out, especially in an engineering oriented discussion. However, I don't think people should expect placebophiles to share this contempt for the benefits of a placebo type effect. Indeed, they seem equally contemptuous of an inability to understand the value they place on unrestrained enjoyment.

Thus my conclusion that "objectavists" see "audiophiles" as hopelessly gullible and placebophiles see audio skeptics as hopelessly closed minded.  In conclusion, this is why I think many people in this community are at such odds with other audio factions and some of the members here as well.

As well, I definitely acknowledge the shortcomings of any analog storage medium, however I don't focus on what a container can't do, I'm more concerned about what it can do. Vinyl is reasonably adequate when it comes to the playback and storage of audio as far as many consumers are concerned. It's more than adequate as far as I'm concerned since I, and others, grew up with this stuff and have become accustomed to the shortcomings. There's a lot of good music on vinyl, I see no good reason for undervaluing a proven and stable technology. That's like throwing out the baby with the bath water, isn't it?

It's no different than saying a 128 bit mp3 is adequate for the task in an appropriate setting.

Indeed, I make no apologies for my position, or the fact that I enjoy listening to music on vinyl, but I'm certainly not above listening to any criticism since my real goal is to learn and that requires putting a hypothesis out there for peer review, doesn't it?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #41 –
> ignored the fact that the application of purely digital technology is not immune from problems
I don't know why you keep coming back to that, since as far as I've read, nobody said that digital is immune from problems.

> how about digital compression and added loudness?
You can record digitally and then... not do those things ;)

You can't with vinyl recording and playback.

> Indeed, I make no apologies for my position, or the fact that I enjoy listening to music on vinyl
Yeah, it stings to be called "sentimental and ignorant" (geez, Arnold), but as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to apologize or defend your records in any way. It's totally fine. Listen to your music.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: 2tec on
On with the silliness I say ... ;~)

Quote from: DVDdoug on
Quote
I don't see an answer to my questions
It was answered. 
Not really. My point was, and remains,  that the statements I quoted seemingly ignored the fact that the application of purely digital technology is not immune from problems  and the supposition that a digital/analog,  or straight analog, recording must be inferior doesn't always hold true in the real world.

As well, just to sum up my position in this regard. Personally, I don't listen to music with the aim of technological development or testing. I certainly have no end of appreciation and respect for those who of you who do. Thank you, you're doing an outstanding job in my opinion. However, as an end user, my main goal is to enjoy music. Besides this, I also enjoy music technology. I try to keep these distinct for the necessity of living in two realms. One is the the more objective and technical world of audio equipment and audio engineering which requires a strict scientific approach. The other world is the realm of musical appreciation which allows for every and all manner of psychological enhancement since the goal is maximum enjoyment. I, and others, willingly suspend our disbelief and scepticism. We willing allow ourselves to be fooled for the sake of enjoyment alone. People do it all the time, it's called fantasizing. Appreciation and enjoyment are intrinsically bound to fantasy, psychologically speaking.

....

As well, I definitely acknowledge the shortcomings of any analog storage medium, however I don't focus on what a container can't do, I'm more concerned about what it can do. Vinyl is reasonably adequate when it comes to the playback and storage of audio as far as many consumers are concerned. It's more than adequate as far as I'm concerned since I, and others, grew up with this stuff and have become accustomed to the shortcomings. There's a lot of good music on vinyl, I see no good reason for undervaluing a proven and stable technology. That's like throwing out the baby with the bath water, isn't it?

It's no different than saying a 128 bit mp3 is adequate for the task in an appropriate setting.

Indeed, I make no apologies for my position, or the fact that I enjoy listening to music on vinyl, but I'm certainly not above listening to any criticism since my real goal is to learn and that requires putting a hypothesis out there for peer review, doesn't it?



Well, stating that you enjoy listening to vinyl is no problem.  I certainly don't think anyone here would have a problem with that statement.  It reflects a matter of preference.  One of taste.

Where the problem exists is trying to extrapolate that statement to argue that vinyl is therefore better than digital from a technological standpoint.  It clearly isn't.

Statement 1:  "I like music on vinyl.  The sound reminds me of a younger, earlier time, for nostalgic purposes."  <---- personal preference and taste.  No problem.

Statement 2:  "Vinyl is superior to digital."  <----- Unless  you have verifiable and peer-reviewable evidence to back it up, it will be met with derision and scorn.

I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, and thus grew up with vinyl and cassettes.  Even 8-track given to me as a kid by my father.

At one time in the late 1980s, I had about 70 vinyl records.  All various types of music.  I put up with the pops and clicks inherent in playing vinyl, and even the weird pitch changes from warped records.  Also, records with scratches on them affecting audibly the music.

Until... I got my first CD player in 1989.  The first time I listened to a CD I bought on my new CD player, I (figuratively) crapped my pants.  The beautiful music emanating from my speakers was marvelous.  No more pops and clicks in 'silent' or 'low-volume' parts.  Nothing but dead silence or virtual noiseless.  In addition, the massive (by comparison to vinyl) dynamic range had me drooling.

Even though, back then, most CD equivalents of vinyl albums were from the same original analog masters, the superior technology of the digital CD storage format was plainly evident.  We all remember the AAD and ADD logos somewhere on the artwork on the front or back of the jewel cases.

Over the next few years, I would replace nearly all my vinyl with CD equivalents.  I gave nearly all my vinyl away.  Didn't want or need them anymore.  I had CDs now!  I now only have 10 vinyl records from those days, mainly 12-inch singles that contain extended/remix/dub versions of "Top 40" dance music which I cannot find on CD or online as a FLAC/WAV.

One of the most often cited arguments in favor of vinyl from vinyl enthusiasts and hipsters is that CD/Digital music sounds 'cold' and 'sterile', while vinyl sounds 'warm' and 'flavorful'.  They actually felt that the pops and clicks added character to the music and that the background hum sometimes heard from analog equipment playback gives it warmth, like being hugged by the music.

When I talk about background hum, an example is from the movie "Back to the Future" in the scene near the beginning where Marty has his guitar plugged into the amp and giant speakers, and cranks it up to like 11.  You hear this hum/feedback from the speakers, like a faint buzzing, right before he strikes his guitar and the sound blows him across the room.  That's what I'm talking about.  Some vinyl/analog enthusiasts think that this noise that is sometimes inherently part of some vinyl and analog music pathways gives it warmth.

These vinyl enthusiasts also state that the experience of grabbing a vinyl album, taking the record out of it's paper sheath, putting it on the turntable, and lifting the arm, and putting the needle on the record, is one that is dear to them.  It's their way of going 'old school' with the music listening experience.  Young hipster millennials see it as a way of listening to music the way their fathers and grandfathers did.  Again, that goes to preference and taste, and has nothing to do with the scientific and technological merits of vinyl vs digital.

I rather prefer the 'cold', 'sterile' dead silence and lack of noise in digital/CD music.  I can also do without the 'vinyl experience' of putting a record on a turntable.  I like having thousands of tracks in MP3 format on a micro SD card in my phone or on my laptop hard drive, playable whenever I want, and wherever I want (with my phone).

Again, saying you like vinyl as part of a personal preference or nostalgia is no problem.

As long as one doesn't try then to also say that vinyl is clearly better than digital, claiming a scientific and/or technological superiority.  It clearly is not.




Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: WonderSlug on
Well, stating that you enjoy listening to vinyl is no problem.  I certainly don't think anyone here would have a problem with that statement.  It reflects a matter of preference.  One of taste.

I'd say I enjoy listening to music and I don't much care if it's on vinyl. That being said, I don't buy vinyl when a CD is available either. I get the advantages digital tech offers, I've never claimed that vinyl is better or equal as a medium. In its day, they did what they could with what they had and I'm impressed they did so well, just as I'm impressed by the current state of audio technology. And yes, I do transfer analog to digital and I do think it's great to be able to preserve old analog source material in a way that maintains it. Lastly, I'd point out there's a lot of CDs out there that only sound as good as the original analog source material and that represents a lot of good music we've all heard. I don't see anybody running around about how inferior the sound quality is or was. Just saying.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: dhromed on
Yeah, it stings to be called "sentimental and ignorant" (geez, Arnold),

That was a misstatement. I apologize.

I meant, "The sentimental and the ignorant".

IOW people can like vinyl for sentimental reasons and also be knowledgeable, etc.

I consider being sentimental to be one of the many possible emotional states that are not necessarily undesirable. IOW, if you want to be sentimental, please do so in good health and with gusto and happiness.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #45 –
I detect some goal post-moving.
Quote from: 2tec on
how about digital compression and added loudness?
It isn't intrinsic to digital as a medium.  It is something that is added as an effect and can and often is present on the vinyl version when it is present on the CD version for new releases.

Quote
Aren't these perceptible?
Sure, but, again, they aren't inherently tied to the medium opposed to surface noise, inner-groove distortion, the need for mono bass, etc. which IS inherently tied to vinyl as a medium.

Quote from: 2tec on
As well, I've heard some amazingly realistic recordings from vinyl
Based on what objective metric?  Did you have access to the master used to make the vinyl and failed to hear a difference?

Quote from: 2tec on
I'm just wondering if these sweeping types of statements meet the normal requirements for making claims about audio quality here?
When free from controversy among those knowledgeable, yes, they are.
 

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: greynol on


Quote from: 2tec on
As well, I've heard some amazingly realistic recordings from vinyl
Based on what objective metric?  Did you have access to the master used to make the vinyl and failed to hear a difference?

Quote from: 2tec on
I'm just wondering if these sweeping types of statements meet the normal requirements for making claims about audio quality here?
When free from controversy among those knowledgeable, yes, they are.

Interesting pair of comments. The first exceptional claim about perceived realism  by 2tec was no doubt based on a sighted evaluation, and then he turns and demands DBT confirmation for a number of well known inherent audible artifacts related to vinyl.

Moving goalposts, indeed!

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #47 –
Some comments off the top of my head late at night :)

Think of Vinyl, CDs and Digital Files as final storage mediums.
What is stored and how it was created and pre-processed is a different subject (aka masters or master recordings)

Storing audio on CDs and Digital Files (read digital storage) are much more accurat towards the original audio source than storing on Vinyl or Tape for that matter (read analog tape storage).

CD quality was set at 44.1 khz and 16 bit resolution, and with good reason.
Human hearing will not surpass the approx 22 khz playback frequency that the CD will record, not even by a good margine.

In general frequencies in the area above 16khz will be exremely low (-96 dB i think it is) in volume compared to the lower frequencies of audio material, so to even hear this, you'd need to turn up the volume an insane amount. Imagine standing 20 meters from a whining airplane jet engine and the drop a single match to the ground. Think you could hear the impact of the match?

When people claim they can hear the noise, its not the digital CD setting but the quality of the master recording they hear. Even today, a lot of music produced have a noise floor at somewhere between -50 to -75 dB. I've never seen a single song that utilized the full -96 dB recording capacity of the standard 16/44.1 digital settings.

A funny sidenote, the in(famous) mp3 format got people to think that bitrate 128 sounds really bad while bitrate 320 is very very good. Both have a lowpass filter at approx 16.5 khz, proving the point that the frequencies above this threshold is more hype than reality.

Many believe that 24 bit resolution means the audio is sampled more often than 16 bit resultion, hence being more true to the original. This is WRONG! 24 bit resolution recordings use the same sampling resultion but have more storage space allocated, which allows recording with an even lower noise floor (-144 dB i believe) than 16 bit does.

24 bit and even 32 bit has its purpose when pre-processing audio in studios before storing the final product, but is absolute overkill for final recordings, for which 16bit/44khz is the optimal digital quality setting.

A lot of so called audiophiles like to record from vinyl and store this in 24 bit / 96khz (or even 192 khz) claiming they can hear the difference. This is utter nonsense! Anything they hear has to do with the source audio being recorded and insane space wasting recording settings themselves.

Good night! :)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

Interesting pair of comments. The first exceptional claim about perceived realism  by 2tec was no doubt based on a sighted evaluation, and then he turns and demands DBT confirmation for a number of well known inherent audible artifacts related to vinyl.

Moving goalposts, indeed!
Music is listened to, and not "evaluated". Many people listen to vinyl and do so to hear the music, and not to evaluate the experience only in technical terms. Only a rhetorical argument could fail to observe the obvious difference between a listening experience for enjoyment and an audio evaluation sighted or otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, and in my view, some people in this discussion are not being "open-minded" or perhaps trolling, when they claim that vinyl is incapable of reproducing acceptable audio reproduction, or that digital is always perfect. Such efforts to argue that because it's not digital, it's not acceptable are, in my opinion, just refusing to accept any argument that doesn't fit with their "analog must be crap" beliefs or just to be argumentative. The fact that so many people enjoy so much music on vinyl, and have for so long, seems a self-evident argument concerning the acceptability of vinyl based audio reproduction.

I fully acknowledge the advances that digital processing has made when compared to the preceding analog processing technology.  Nor am I making any claim other than that vinyl is capable of providing a rewarding and enjoyable listening experience for many people, obviously.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: 2tec on
As far as I'm concerned, and in my view, some people in this discussion are not being "open-minded" or perhaps trolling, when they claim that vinyl is incapable of reproducing acceptable audio reproduction, or that digital is always perfect.
Did you read the original post with even a modicum of objectivity?

You might want to look up the definition of the terms "projection" and "irony."  While you're at it, you might also want to research the concept of thread-jacking.

Quote from: 2tec on
Nor am I making any claim other than that vinyl is capable of providing a rewarding and enjoyable listening experience for many people, obviously.
Yet you did in your first post...
Quote from: 2tec on
I've heard some amazingly realistic recordings from vinyl
...and continued to do so...
Quote from: 2tec on
personally I, and many others, continue to enjoy music from both analog and digital sources. Good analog recordings can sound ok as far as I'm concerned, and I've seen many discussions here about problems with some digital recordings.
...and no one is disagreeing with you, despite all the scarecrows you keep erecting.  However, that is not what the OP is asking.