[troutman]

Grist for the mill:

Are Vinyl Recordings Better than Digital?
Many audio aficionados split into two camps, those supporting modern digital audio, and those supporting vinyl records.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303

Vinyl and digital both have good points and bad points. But here's the reason why the entire debate is stupid: whether the music is stored on vinyl or a CD is just not that important a part of the overall system. It's like deciding which of two different cars is best by comparing their spark plug wires. There are many, many variables in the process of playing recorded music that noticeably affect the sound, from the microphones, to the mixing, to the mastering, to the quality of the playback hardware, the amplifier, and (far and away most important) the quality of the speakers and characteristics of the listening room; whether the recording was vinyl or CD is simply not one of these important variables, with apologies to the zealots. Both methods are easily far superior to any differences the human ear might hope to distinguish.

A lot of vinyl proponents say that the difference is subjective, for example that it sounds warmer or just better. Digital proponents tend to point out objective difference, such as the fact that a digital signal can accommodate a higher dynamic range, which is the difference in loudness between the quietest and loudest parts of the recording. But can they actually tell the difference under controlled conditions?

To summarize the science, digital is the superior reproduction format, but analog (particularly vinyl) offers a particular type of sound that some people prefer.

The best argument in favor of vinyl recordings need not be bolstered by unsupported claims about the technical quality of the recording, and that's the physical, tangible experience . . . It's about an experience, not about metrics or tabulated results.


Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697...than-cd-or-not