Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other


One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:

Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital

I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?

High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two.  Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?

This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
roberttdid
Even if not all people like mikelavigne system, I think it is largely resolving enough for most people to decide for themselves the difference between vinyl and digital...

Like he said and I think the same, in most case we enjoy digital  all of us, and never mind, most system dont have the resolving power to be a fair judge, without speaking about all the other synchronisations and sources problems to compare...

We can enjoy music on any medium, this is wise words, they will not end this debate tough, that for me is futile and unessential, because too much factors are at play for an experience to be convincing, except in exceptional case with a top audio system like the system of mikelavigne...

The key problem in audio, exceeding all the others, is how to embed any systems, mechanically, electrically, and acoustically....All the rest is arguing without final answers and even with no possible final answers in some case.... 
"Even if not all people like mikelavigne system..."
I'd gamble and bet it is not a bad one.

"...most system dont have the resolving power to be a fair judge,"
I feel that "cheaper" systems may actually reveal the differences more than ultra-expensive (and consequently not crappier) ones can.

$300 turntable vs. $300 CD player difference may be more pronounced than $100 000 CD (combination of all those clocks etc.) player vs. $100 000 turntable. I have never heard that kind of turntable, but I have heard cheap ones. CD players seem better to me.
Everyone seems to know what a system sounds like just by the photos. Interesting. 
Glupson I understand your point.... But my point concern the possibility to solve the dilemma once and for all of us with the complex conditions implicated and the refine resolving system that none of us can afford...

For your point I said like you just said myself all the times that differences in scale price/S.Q. ratio makes impossible to claim victory for one or the other camp for the reason you just alluded to...I will not even mention the complex conditions that are implicated...


In the beginning the only thing I said was that probably mikelavigne is right about the vinyl and tape superiority... But in the usual normal day for all of us digital is very good and the way to go for me....


My 24 bucks dac rightly embedded sound better than half of the turntables on earth probably.... :) But probably sound bad or less natural compared to a turntable of a high level in a high level system in a high level room....This is the thing suggested by the experience of mikelavigne...It is not the gospel for sure but an interesting testimony...