The Science of Vinyl/Analog Setups

When did music become so much about science? Either you like it or you don't. Numbers don't mean much if they don't translate into real human experience.

Didn’t take long now did it?

In analog, unlike digital, magnets or coils are moved relative to and through fields, not numbers.  What's the resolution of a field? At least no worse than the size of the quarks, muons, gluons, higgs, electrons and other particles with spins that comprise it. Certainly higher than any digitized format. More like a continuum. Plus, that field displacement directly translates from magnet or coil to the coil and magnet of the speaker, with only gain stages on the original field. No conversion to numbers and back. Nothing lost in translation. That's why we like analog. That's why the ear/brain uses it too.

I started my stereo oddesy a tad over 50 years ago.  I had a Dual 1019 turn table, Sanaui speakers, receiver and tuner.  I was in heaven sonically, as were all my friends when I returned home from the service.

Over the years I lost a record collection and hardware via a divorce and moved into CDs.  

My circumstances changed allowing me the system I now own, which is mostly digital.

If I could habe my extensive record colkecrion back I would definitely go vinyl again.  I still may, but the cost would be high.  All that said, I think it may be worth it, as long as my wife does not hit me over the head, LOL.

millercarbon, check out reviews of cd players and DACs in Stereophile. They are tested for harmonic distortion out to about 20th order and cd players and DACs do not necessarily output high levels of odd order harmonics. They may have back in the 80s but digital has improved and will continue to improve for a long time to come.

Let me ask you this, I have no idea what your system consists of, but do you think it sounds better than every digital system in the world? Not just to you, which it probably does, but to a group of audiophiles who listen to both digital and vinyl?

There's a wealth of material lodged at the AES from the original era on materials science of vinyl, including vinyl compounds, pressing and challenges in manufacture; curves, RIAA, the introduction of quadraphonic records; measurements of frequency response and the like. Much of this research was funded by companies like RCA who had good commercial reasons for doing so. Others, like Western Electric, are long gone.  
You'll need to become a member of the AES to access the archive, which is digitally accessible. Makes for some interesting reading. 
I suspect, once LP was long in the tooth and replaced by CD as mainstream format, there was no need to do any "science"-- it was considered a dead letter commercially. 
The revival of the LP in mainstream consciousness is not necessarily about state of the art, but price point and value. Who would fund such research and for what purpose? The big record companies are a shadow of what they once were-- like Hollywood studios, they license content rather than create and manufacture the product themselves.
The state of the art endeavors in LP playback are small shops for the most part, aren't they? Panasonic is the biggest one who comes to mind and it's probably a tiny part of their business. Have they published papers on the rebooted SP 10?
I suspect a lot of the advances since the heyday of vinyl playback are in areas like materials science and isolation (where there should be some scientific substantiation for claims, e.g. Minus K, whose business is not strictly audio). But, a lot of the science was established years ago so improvements are likely in a better execution, higher grade bearings, lower noise motor systems, all of which should be measurable. 
Where will that leave you? Most of the more recherché equipment isn't bought on specs. If a turntable can't keep speed, that's something that a reviewer would note, isn't it? If there is motor noise, that's measurable and also probably evident to the ear. I'm not suggesting that there is no innovation, but an awful lot of LP playback isn't new science is it? And is science going to explain why a Lyra cartridge sounds different than an Airtight than a Koetsu? I doubt it. (Airtight claim that there are advantages to extremely low impedance and also probably to some of the materials they use, but I didn't buy those cartridges based on such claims or specs, I bought them because I liked what I heard). I'm not sure that buying at the top level requires scientific validation and the more modestly priced stuff- things like reliability and long term in the field usage probably sold quite a few of those Technics 1200s, then and now.