The character of analog and digital

@tomic601 , @david_ten , @audphile1  in case and if 'all things should be equal' (from reproduction side of things, if that is possible at all) than everything comes down to the mastering. Judging by what people who are actually doing the masterings have to say (will post this again) it seems that their consensus is on analog side. The rest is all about our personal preferencies which are caused by quality of our system, analog or digital and because of it that the 'discussion' is pointless. Perhaps if the discussion is about the principles of analog or digital domain, we might have something to discuss. Without knowing how 'the original source' and consequently all other versions of some recording sound, we all, in fact, make our judgments by listening final product (analog or digital) which has been heavily 'manipulated' and has little to do with inherent quality of some format, but more of 'craft' of the person who made it   

" I listen to classical 95% of the time. I think it’s safe to say the majority of Agoners don’t. "

And how did you come to that presumption?

@lalitk, there are devices that avoid the need to "babysit" vinyl if one has a fully manual TT. For example, the Audio-Technica tone arm lifter works quite well and doesn't cost an arm & a leg like some others. Because of this Audio-Technica, just as with CDs, I also sometimes play LPs when I'm entertaining, cooking or what have you. I often play CDs, too, when I'm just relaxing in the living room and focused on pure music enjoyment. I certainly wouldn't say that digital sounds "inferior" to vinyl. However, as I've previously said, all things being relatively equal in a good audio system, to my ears, vinyl is definitely "better", for lack of a better term in this respect.

I've had many friends visit, audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike, had them sit in the sweet spot on the living room couch, played well recorded CDs and LPs of the same work or performance, at the same volumes, flat out and then asked them to tell me which sounded "best" or "better" to them. Without exception, the determination or preference has always been the vinyl recording. Typical comments include:  'more bass and it sounds more real'; 'sounds more real'; 'sounds more like being there'; 'everything is clearer; 'frequency response up & down the ranges are clearer, crisper, more accurate'; 'vocals sound more real or natural'; 'I could tell right of the bat'; etc.

I feel the same and this is not something one needs to listen long or hard for. Most of my friends are contemporaries in age. However, some are veritable youngsters who could be my children or grand-children and they all like vinyl "better".

As the French would say:  "Chacun so gout!" and "Vive la difference!" The important thing here is love of music!

The directness of R2R tape is not captured by digital atm. Vinyl is inferior to R2R period. Vinyl has it own drawbacks (pops, crackles, noise, channel separation, sub bass) but is the second best analog source. Digital is getting there (for example MSB/DCS) . In the CD-era (80's & 90's) 70% of the analog qualities were captured. With Hi-Res we are getting at 80-90% I think. It's enjoyable and easy to consume though.

@ghdprentice:

"When we go to choose audio equipment we go into analytical mode where we direct our minds eye (ear in this case)... to listen for differences flitting from sound to sound. Spend too much time picking out equipment like this only and this becomes how we appreciate a system… instead of being drawn into the music and making your decision from the perspective of the music."

I couldn't agree more! When doing serious seat-time with various components, over the years, those I've always come home with are those that have always drawn me out of critical listening mode and into pure music enjoyment quickest, often without me even realizing it, at first.