Vinyl Reason

CD'S are good for working out or cleaning house. LP's just hold my attention for a much longer period of time. I can play records for hours. I was never able to do that with CD's. When I got out of the Navy everyone had gone digital and I went along with the crowd. A couple years ago I was fooling around with the HI-REZ formats and not finding what I was looking for. The suggestion was made that I try out a good TT and pre. Since then my 500 or so CD's sit idle most of the time.

Tim

Most of my favourite rock and jazz recordings made in mid-70's beginning 80's sounded very poor on CDs or even more truely saying not as I used to hear them on vinyl. Hence this is my main reason to have an analoge.
Another reason is that I seek and collect rare records that had never been released on CD.

Because of all the (mostly old) records I own. Sound, as allegedly defined by format, has nothing to do with it for me. Mastering quality far outweighs format choice in my view, and availability trumps sonics. But even if CD's (or whatever) always sounded better than vinyl, I would still be a record hog, 'cause I just plain dig 'em as cultural objects, like hunting them down, and like having them around me. I by and large don't dislike, but don't necessarily always relish, the greater inconveniences of cleaning and playing them.

However, the reason I think most present day audiophiles get into vinyl (or back into vinyl) is because it has been hyped by a high end industry that craves and needs the additional sales, creating a self-serving myth of general sonic superiority when the truth isn't that simple today. (The same sort of paradigm applies to tube gear as well.) Audiophiles do it because they've been taught to think it's cool, because it's tweaky and audiophiles like to tweak (sometimes more than they like music), because it's another avenue to explore when they get bored or itchy, and because they hope it might further distinguish them from the non-audiophile masses.

P.S. - For some of those who might be contemplating a rebuttal directed my way, before you click, better make sure you have more invested in your vinyl record collection than in your vinyl playback system...

I suspect I qualify for that distinction. About 6000 LP's, assuming an average of $10.00 each ( I have one worth over a thousand dollars) makes $60K software collection (not counting CD or tape).

That is certainly more than my LP playback rig, but I fail to see how that makes either of us correct in deciding which format is superior, at least based on the "mine is more expensive than yours" concept.

Still, I prefer LP.

Albert: Yes, you are one whose collection exempts you from my critique. But I wasn't refering to which format is 'superior' (IMO a hierarchy which can't be bluntly stated for all instances - even at their respective best, both formats have their strengths and weaknesses), but rather to my list of reasons for why I suspect many audiophiles have been drawn to the 'analog revival' (meaning vinyl strictly speaking, not analog per se - a distinction which you as a reel-to-reel owner are also eminently qualified to comment on :-)

I just don't feel that sound is the primary reason why we're seeing so much activity in this market segment these days, though some will no doubt disagree with me. My postscript was just in case anyone might get the impression that I personally prefer digital for sonics, when it's been my experience that many neuvo-vinylistas drop more on their rig than they have actual records to play. I don't prefer digital - or analog; I prefer music, and prefer to see audiophiles get into vinyl so that can expand their musical horizons and opportunities, not so that they can listen to the same 200 audiophile-approved recordings in another format at $30 a pop.