When and how did you, if at all, realize vinyl is better?

^^ Exactly, Rainer. Susi jo syntyessään... About CD we audiophiles used to say here back in the day :)

That flawless medium that after a while started to evolve even better , and gradually even better (more bits) and finally we got a super version of the format, the mighty SACD.  The hyper perfect audio disc. I just kept thinking how can a perfect thing get better all the time. And for convenience ? Well, it´s just a matter of taste but the damn cover was too large to put into pocket and liner notes too small to read.

CD never fooled me but it is alright when doing homework like vacuum cleaning (my new machine is very quiet ) and washing car :)

Music Hall MMF 2.1 (my first TT) on a freshly vacuumed copy of Rush 2112 (Nitty gritty 2.5) through a crappy RadioShack phono stage into a cheap Denon receiver and a pair of Mirage FXR-7's.  I have the same album on CD.  The vinyl sounded so much more smooth, the highs were not harsh...all the normal vinyl cliche's apply...liquid, dynamic, tight bass...Geddy's vocals sound amazing...Alex's guitar...

I have since upgraded everything...but vinyl still rules for me.  I have about 2,000-3,000 digital albums all ripped to my QNAP NAS, and I still listen to digital (mobile / car and when I'm lazy at home) but for critical listening, I love vinyl the best...particularly for jazz.  Pepper Adams all day long!

Current 2 channel rig is Music Hall MMF9.1/Goldring Eroica LX LOMC/Budgie SUT/Hagerman Bugle self-built-kit phono stage with dedicated power supply, Emotiva XMC-1/Emotiva XPA-1 Gen II monoblocks and GoldenEar Triton Ones.  I also have two pairs of Mirage M3si's with freshly re-foamed mids that I love and will never part with, and I sometimes put in an Audible Illusions Modulus II for the phono stage for some vacuum tube goodness added to the chain in lieu of the Hagerman.

Reviewing comments of those who abandoned vinyl in favor of cd only later to return to vinyl I am struck by how this reflects on the flaw inherent in blind a/b listening tests.

Like many others I whole heartedly embraced cd when it was first introduced.  Hard to deny it's convenience, lack of clicks and pops sharp highs and tight, impactful bass.   It was only after extended listening that digital's flaws became evident.  The air, bloom and smoothness just was not there.  In short most cd's were not musical.  This realization does not come from short term a/b comparison.

While more recent high rez digital files are very close if not the equal of analog, if I purchase music I want to be able to unpack it, hold it in my hands and place it in or on my player.  Knowing it is on my hard drive is just not the same.

The question is not yet complete, so we will likely not find the correct answer.

We are not finished defining the psychoacoustics of how the ear works - what the ear expects and needs to enable it to decode and identify a quality signal.

Engineering terms and weighting does not specifically or directly apply in perfection. That would be an assumption by those who use engineering terms, methods and weighting when measuring and comparing signal creation and reproduction methods.

However the generalization is strong.

That the ear does not use math, it uses a specific methodology in a physical realm.

Then we have the differences in each individual's physical aspects and their personal neural development and employment, as a genetic and upbringing scenario.

So we get to having different emphasis in desires and exceptions in those physical biological scenarios.

In that (the human biological package), the generalization is strong.

But both are not detailed specific related aspects, they are generalizations... and are laid on top of the scenario as if they are the perfected fundamentals of the question or equation.

Since the question obviously remains unanswered in a way clear enough for all involved, they are obviously not the specifics of a totally functional question.

But both are not detailed specific related aspects, they are generalizations... and are laid on top of the scenario as if they are the perfected fundamentals of the question or equation.

Since the question obviously remains unanswered in a way clear enough for all involved, they are obviously not the specifics of a totally functional question.

As best I can make out this statement is false.

We know that the ear converts distortion into tonality. Further, we know the kinds of distortions made by digital and analog systems.

We also know that the ear is tuned to be most sensitive at birdsong frequencies (Fletcher Munson). So any distortions occurring in that range will be easily detected by the ear.

The distortions of analog tend to be harmonics of the input signal.

The distortions of digital tend to be intermodulations between the scan frequency and the signal (aliasing).

Analog systems tend to lower ordered harmonics (particularly in the case of the LP, where the mastering process makes very little distortion; most of it occurs in playback). These tend to be less audible to the ear and are interpreted as 'warmth'.

The distortion (aliasing) of digital systems manifests as 'birdies'- so called because that's exactly what they sound like. These tend to be higher in frequency, and since the ear generally uses higher ordered harmonics as loudness cues and because the ear is particularly sensitive in this range, and also because the ear converts distortion into tonality, the result is a 'crispness', a brightness inherent in the recording.

Analog hiss, ticks and pops are not always inherent, and often sit in the speaker while the music itself exists in three dimensions. Thus its possible to listen past such artifacts (keeping in mind that the phono preamp can be a major contributor to ticks and pops if it has an unstable design, which is quite common), whereas with digital, the artifact is pretty well built into the resulting signal.

I am confident that this will change in time- it already has changed a lot since the bad old days of digital. Were this difference not there, digital would have replaced analog long ago, no looking back and no mistake and no endless analog digital debate (which is older than the Internet).

So in spite of my long diatribe, you really don't have to know anything more than the fact that analog is still very much here and alive when it really shouldn't be. The market likes it and kept it around for a reason.

So we can answer unequivocally that the highlighted statements are false and that we really do in fact have an answer on this.