@lp2cd had by far the most intelligent answer.
@lp2cd believe it or not stochastic resonance has been brought up.
Jitter on recording was pretty much gone by mid 90s, earlier in some studios a bit later in others.
To the op, many will post "facts" they have literally made up about digital while having no clue how it works or any depth of understanding. Most to justfy they "like" vinyl better, not because it is. That includes false claims about errors in digital, made up claims about "timing", or even claims to needing wickedly expensive digital, and claims about the "superiority" of certain digital implementations that absolutely sound better to that listener but are farther from accurate.
Very few here have heard a live recording in process done on analog or digital. Anyone who has worked through that ove the years will tell you that modern digital is what captures fully and accurately what is being played. Not analog tape (and consequently not vinyl). I am not saying you will like the sound better simply that is is accurate.
@lp2cd , one more point is simply information overload. The reduced information on vinyl may cause less masking of detail for many listeners.
Perhaps to that point personally I find jazz, most classical, etc., to be preferable if mastered well on digital. I often prefer rock/pop on vinyl. Admittedly mastering will almost always dominate the listening experience. I like the post from one op where they have a few DACs based on their mood. I totally get that. On the production side we have been adding artifacts to recordings intentionally because people like the results.
Can't remember which label but recently a label that subscribed to high res being superior did a study and found their listeners couldn't detect superiority of high res over level data.
@lp2cd believe it or not stochastic resonance has been brought up.
Jitter on recording was pretty much gone by mid 90s, earlier in some studios a bit later in others.
To the op, many will post "facts" they have literally made up about digital while having no clue how it works or any depth of understanding. Most to justfy they "like" vinyl better, not because it is. That includes false claims about errors in digital, made up claims about "timing", or even claims to needing wickedly expensive digital, and claims about the "superiority" of certain digital implementations that absolutely sound better to that listener but are farther from accurate.
Very few here have heard a live recording in process done on analog or digital. Anyone who has worked through that ove the years will tell you that modern digital is what captures fully and accurately what is being played. Not analog tape (and consequently not vinyl). I am not saying you will like the sound better simply that is is accurate.
@lp2cd , one more point is simply information overload. The reduced information on vinyl may cause less masking of detail for many listeners.
Perhaps to that point personally I find jazz, most classical, etc., to be preferable if mastered well on digital. I often prefer rock/pop on vinyl. Admittedly mastering will almost always dominate the listening experience. I like the post from one op where they have a few DACs based on their mood. I totally get that. On the production side we have been adding artifacts to recordings intentionally because people like the results.
Can't remember which label but recently a label that subscribed to high res being superior did a study and found their listeners couldn't detect superiority of high res over level data.