Why vinyl?

I've been into vinyl for two years. I think it's unbeatable (and its advantages most obvious) with any music recorded in which the engineer's aim was to preserve the original acoustic as well. As an orchestral musician for 26 years, I've never heard instruments better resolved. I did the SACD thing, and it was an improvement over CD, and I've also auditioned high-end players, up to 10K extensively. No contest. Maybe someday there will be a digital breakthrough.

Oh, I forgot to mention, Telarc records in '82 were $16.99. I bought one in Musicland. An audiophile label of course, just like the $30 new lp's of today. Let's not forget the huge weight, (and today's freight charges) involved in getting the lp's to the warehouse. Of course, I was a teenager in the late '70's, so $8.99 seemed like a load of money. $30 today also equals 6 Big Mac meals. Yuck.

Ihcho, it may or may not make you feel better, but the cost of new vinyl in the '70's--$8.99 to $11.99 for Classical on major labels--probably gets very close to $30 in today's money. Inflation calculator anyone? : )

Ojgalli writes, what's to gain on a digital lp? I'd take a digital lp any day over the same CD, at least for orchestral music. Presumably, the Lp is cut directly from the master digital tape, which preserves the hi-rez. The tape is "number-crunched" when transcribed to CD with "flattening" and harsh results. I still like analog, (or at least the better, more tasteful recording technology that came with it), but digital lps work for me too.