A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..

It was Irish.  I lived in England for 13 years so I recognize it very easily.

I also actually LIKE listening to vinyl too but NOT becoz it sounds better but becoz it LOOKS better when a big nice platter steadily turns and produces music.  And I admit that.....

And to all vinylistas, who highlight the "shortcomings" of sampling, do you think that the small groove of a record is large enough to be able to store all frequencies from 20 - 20 khz, not to mention the relative intensities, ie the dynamic range.  You think all that information is FAITHFULLY written into 20 - 25 micro meters (typical width of a groove for 33rpm vinyl).  No way, since it is limited by PHYSICAL SPACE.

With digital, there is no limit, all you need is a bigger disk.  One can sample at higher frequencies as well as amplitudes.  The typical 16 bit deep CD can store 65k different ranges.  Increase that to 32 bits, and it will be 4 billion.

As I said before, I also DO like listening (I should say looking at) to vinyl but not because it sounds better but because it LOOKS better :-)

I understand BOTH formats have their strengths and weaknesses.  That was not the purpose of the discussion.  Maybe I miswrote the headline.

It was meant to be read by people who CLAIM that vinyl is ALWAYS better then digital.  And to that, I say NO WAY.

And the other 5% are superhumans.. as I keep on saying :-)
Kinda like cold fusion :-)

Exactly and I "feel" that CDs sound way better than vinyl :-)