Why vinyl?

I agree with the packaging and fun factor of collecting vinyl, I was just in London and picked up this funk compilation album "FUNK DROPS: Breaks, Nuggets and Rarities from the Vaults of Atlantic, Atco, Reprise and Warner Bros 1968-1974" (I wasn't even born yet) and it comes with these liner notes with a brief history of the songs and the musicians...very cool.

I also just got a tube preamp (first one, tube anything) and hooked up my crappy turntable and it sounds awesome... I was just A/B-ing the gear with some friends.. and I'm beginning to see what what people on Audiogon mean about soundstaging, speakers disappearing and "holographic" images.

Very happy with my $40 turntable today.... can't wait to get a proper power amp that is a good impedance match.

Played a 1969 live John Mayall record too.. and it seems fine musicians playing acoustic instruments sound so much better on vinyl.... I don't think it matters as much when I'm playing JT (Justin Timberlake) but I think I saw Sexyback on LP.... (just kidding... sorta)

Some of the new albums come in both digital (CD) and anglog (LP) format.
If you prefer LP in general, have you compared CD and LP for newly released albums?
The only new album I have for both CD and LP is Norah Jones' Come Away with me. On my system, Norah Jones' LP sounds a little bit (very subtle) better with warmth, depth and detail than CD. But my wife does not think so. She just cannot feel any difference. Well, my wife at least recognizes the difference between CD and LP for those early 60/70's LPs and their reissue CDs -- She think LP is much better.

My systme is
Clearaudio bluemotion with Aurum Classic Wood Cartridge, Clearaudio microbasic preamp, Yaqin MC10L tube amplifier (with Siemens EL34 and RCA 6922s replacing Chinse 6N1s), Tyler Taylo 7U speakers, Zu Wax biwire cable, and NAD C541i.

I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different?

I have to wonder how much the warmth and appeal of many older well recorded LPs from the 60s, etc., is due to the fact that they were LPs so much as the fact that these recordings were mastered using the analog tape and tube recording systems of the day, whereas these days most new recordings (like Norah Jones, I would assume) are mastered using SS and digital?

03-19-08: Ihcho said:
"...I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different?"

I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things.

Dave

"I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things."

I also prefer Norah's LP, but probably not as much as you do. My listening may not be as refined as yours, or my analog system is not as good as yours, but difference I hear is, well, subtle or marginal. Rather spending $30, I would go for $6 used CD. Maybe, when I become well off to spend for higher quality cartridge and amplifier (and speaker), I would not spend $30 for newly released albums; I would rather spend $30 for 10 used LPs.
There is an exception - I would not hesitate to spend $30 for albums like Muddy Waters' folk singer. Its sound quality is absolutely superb.