Does Age Matter?


Having read and contributed to several threads on the digital vs analog controversy I developed a nagging itch that suggested it is older people that prefer analog and younger people digital. If this is the case than there is most definitely a nostalgic element to that opinion. Perhaps we can answer that question. I will go first. Please do not ruminate on the differences. Age and preference, digital, analog or both! We'll tally the results at the end. 

I am 67 and like Both analog and digital.
128x128mijostyn
Post removed 
Age is 66.  I have always been vinyl, first and foremost.  I use very little CD in my home but do rely on it for music in the car.  I have had very big car audio systems for the past 35 years and the SQ from CD has been great.  SXM or any streaming service into the vehicle doesn't even come close.  I do plan on investing into a high-end CD player with exceptional DAC (Luxman D05-U) next year which also provides the ability to bring a streamer into the system and utilize the great DAC on board the D05-U.  That should provide the digital front end to satisfy my needs.

I just don't believe that digital will ever overtake my preference for vinyl.
The nostalgia of my musical life is part of that.  More importantly, though, is the analogue sound quality.  I can fall into the music, become enveloped into it, so much better than with digital.
61 in a couple of days, and totally into Analog.  Though my digital collection is quite large, my go to for good listening is analog.  
72. Digital only: it has no wow and flutter, no pops and ticks, excellent sound (like LP, not necessarily, but just as possible), and a MUCH larger repertoire. My tastes far exceed what’s available on LP, and I long ago tired of the fussing with VTA and so on.
I choose the recording or performance, but I don't stream. So, if the recording or performance I want to hear is on vinyl, I play that; if on CD, then I play that; if SACD, then that; sometimes I even put on an old cassette of something I don't have on any other medium (which can happen for any of several reasons; in general, my cassettes sometimes are showing their age).

Bottom line: for sound quality, by far the most important element is the quality of the original recording/mastering. For impact (emotional, intellectual), the performance is even more important. Thus, for instance, a 1950s mono Furtwängler performance of Wagner's "Tristan" with Kirstin Flagstad is simply unique--even though its sound quality is extremely problematic. Radiohead sounds great on CD, but the 180 gram vinyl pressing of "Junta" by Phish (from analog masters) sounds better than the well-mastered CD. IMO, this question--like the perennial question "Which is better, analog or digital?"--shows an interest in cataloging fetish preferences, not objective criteria.

I'm 64, and have been listening and collecting most of my life. I have thousands of LPs and even more CDs, all of which are "curated"--I've listened to all of them, and have opinions (and memories) associated with most of them. 

Frankly, I enjoy the ritual of spinning vinyl. But most of the recordings/performances I want to hear are either exclusively digital or just sound better that way. Most, but not all. With apologies to McLuhan, in audio, the medium is NOT the message.