It Can't Be Explained Better

Loved this discussion: had doubts that "it can't be explained better" but that was one good try. Found compelling the finale by  twowheels53. 
In spite of investing tens of $1000 in high-end audio equipment that process CDs, DVDs and streaming... wife and I still LOVE listening to our vinyl collection via an old Luxman turntable with Audiotechnica MC cartridge.
Of course, all signals go thru McIntosh, Anthem power amps into B&W Center and multiple surrounds, a huge subwoofer, and a pair of K-Horns.
What we enjoy sounds awesomely similar to reality-- from my perspective as a professional musician.  

+1 Mahgister on all your comments

Someone above made an analogy between incandescent and LED bulbs--in some ways I think that's a good one for vinyl v digital but i have the opposite view--i much prefer incandescent to LED b/c of the unnatural "glare" of LED. Regardless of how many shades i can turn my smart LED bulb i cannot make it appear as "warm" as incandescent.  However, do i use LED?  Of course.  Same for vinyl v digital--i prefer the sound of vinyl but more often than not i will stream music b/c of its convenience and unlimited library.  However, when i stream i sometimes use my equalizer to gently roll off the highs which reduces that glare which may be coming from either compression or the fact that digital can reproduce treble to a higher frequency than vinyl.  Back in the 80's Stereo Review ran a column on equalization and how to go about approximating best seats in concert halls.  Their "perfect" curve on 5th row seats at an orchestral concert hall featured a rolloff of the highs beginning around 12KHz.  I could reproduce that curve with my computerized graphic equalizer and pink noise generator and found it quite pleasing for taming CDs which were just gaining prominence.  I usually bypassed the equalizer (as i still do today) for vinyl playback.  Chesky's point about everything resonating is the reason i recently replaced my metal component rack with solid wood racks. 

All that aside there really shouldn't be a debate between vinyl vs digital--it really doesn't matter which one is more "accurate" or dynamic--it only matters which one you prefer.

People generally are completely unconscious about the amount of information that a vibrating and resonating  source convey. (be it our own body speaking, singing, or a violin or any object which is put in a vibrating (ringing) state).

Here a quote from a very important article on acoustics :

«"In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted).» Oppenhein and Magnasco 

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Now go to page 5 and look at the image of this article and read this text :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267327268_The_Body-Image_Theory_of_Sound_An_Ecological_Approach_to_Speech_and_Music

« Wherefore, a body in vibration produces auditory attributes peculiar to the body as a function of its properties. With the ear,we did not have to cut A and B open to see the cavity inside; it sufficed to tap A and B and let the objects talk to us about themselves. Even with closed eyes we can hear A say, ’I have no cavity’, and B say, ’I have a cavity’. All this information is available to us in the sounds produced by the excited bodies A and B. Numerous traits distinguish bodies one from another, and the differences impact on the sound qualities they produce in specific ways. Consider the pair B1 and B2 in fig. 1. The presence of an orifice (aperture) adds a new sound quality and distinguishes the sounds produced by the pair. The sound produced by B2 can never miss out the presence of an orifice, and the sound produced by B1 can never convey the presence of an orifice which it
does not possess. The size of the aperture produces yet a new and different sound quality in the pair C1 and C2. The shape of the aperture is the source of a new and different sound quality in the pair D1 and D2. The body E1 has one cavity; if we couple to it another cavity, we obtain the body E2. This new feature of coupled cavities causes E2 to produce a sound quality that E1 cannot. We introduce a new feature into the list of modifications by having E2 made in different materials, F1 in stone and F2 in steel. The three bodies E2, F1 and F2 produce a common sound quality as a result of their common configuration, but each sound acquires an additional but different quality as a function of the material of which the bodies
are made ― plastic, concrete, wood, ceramic, clay, aluminium, copper, steel, glass, etc. The sound quality produced by the body is further affected by the body’s other characteristics ― thick/thin, soft/hard, fresh/dried, slack/tense, etc. The size of the excited body also affects sound quality. Thus, although G1, G2, G3 and G4 are made of the same material and have the same configuration, they produce a common sound quality (subject to constraints) with the added quality of higher pitch as size of body decreases. The variability of sound qualities as a function of the excited body is far from searching out. Nevertheless, they portray each sound
as a bundle of information on the excited body. » Akpan J. Essien

 This is what Chesky tried to convey with the notion that all thing are ringing like a bell and all things being linked by resonance...

 This goes way beyond the useless debate vinyl/digital...

I am interested way more by acoustics than by subjectivist taste about gear or objectivist narrow mind interest in few measures as key to sound qualitative information...

All that aside there really shouldn't be a debate between vinyl vs digital--it really doesn't matter which one is more "accurate" or dynamic--it only matters which one you prefer.

 Thanks for your appreciation...

Sometimes we may  indeed prefer a candlelight over an electric light, but basically we prefer to use electric light. I think this was a very nice observation by @jasonbourne77. As to the analog sound production, I personally prefer the sound as reproduced by my cassette decks over turntables. 
 

@mahgister  Oh come on;  Akpan Jimmy Essien---"Ecological theories have fallen short, not only of Gestalt invariance, but also of the link between the distal object and the organism".  Who reads this stuff?  This reminds me of the study of hermeneutics in sociology when I was in college.  Sociologists wrote this material primarily for other Sociologists to read, and I'm fairly certain that D. Chesky did not mean, "Wherefore, a body in vibration produces auditory attributes peculiar to the body as a function of its properties."   

"What is beautiful? What is meaningful? What moves you?
Because in the end, the world is a bell — and it wants to ring.  Dave's thinking more the poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, more philosophical, the nature of reality, and not,"The size of the aperture produces yet a new and different sound quality in the pair C1 and C2. The shape of the aperture is the source of a new and different sound quality in the pair D1 and D2", and on and on ad nauseam.