Vinyl vs high def audio i.e. 24bit / 96 or 192khz

I've been reading a lot of chats between modern-day vinyl users. The final "nail to the coffin" that made me decide to continue my digital path is exactly what @atmasphere mentioned: the master file isn't even being used. I read that in many modern-day LP production, the source is actually already digital, often time already "lossy". The inability, or at least limited ability for me to get authentic vinyls in the future is definitely a "no deal" for now.

I guess for those of you who have enjoyed vinyl for a long time, it makes sense to continue this path, but for me who never ever owned a single LP, I wouldn't know what I've missed.

@angelgz2 ,
You might have missed my point- which is the often the LP uses a digital file that is closer to the original than the file used to make a digital release. IOW if you want to get closer to the original, the LP might be the ticket.

Dear @angelgz2  : """  I wouldn't know what I've missed. """

in true and with today HR that digital alternative already achieved and still growing up about you missed nothing at all, only a different experience.

When I said " nothing at all " I'm talking that nothing " superior " to today digital mediums.

The nearer to today digital medium you can compare through analog is with the Direct 2 Disc LP recordings .
R.

lalitk-

“Vinyl is more for people who love music.”

Thanks for humoring us.......LMAO!!!! 😂 🤣😂

Vinyl is so much better than digital its silly to even talk about, as that can't be done without assuming they are comparable, when they aren't. One is music, the other noise. A whole lot of people miss this, because the noise of vinyl is so obvious. The noise with digital is woven right into the signal. With digital its silly even to talk about signal to noise ratio. With digital the signal IS the noise!

The situation is so bad people try and make their digital sound better by dubbing it to analog. Seriously! Famous Blue Raincoat, which shows on the jacket as DDD, the final mix-down was in fact done to analog. Several versions were compared, none of them preferred DDD, they all went with the analog.

The one thing that gives the numbers crunchers cover is the sad reality of vinyl being temperamental. Unlike digital, the plain fact is no two records sound exactly the same. Better Records has thrown a microscope on this, but anyone who cares can prove it easily enough simply by playing two copies of the same record back to back. 

What this means is that digital vs analog is not like most people think a question of sound quality. Its a question of convenience. 

Which is why I said in the beginning, " Since you are mainly interested in convenience then you should just stick with what you know. Vinyl is more for people who love music." And that's no joke.

^^+1

I have it all. Vinyl is euphoric like tubes, it is tradition, it is a collectors dream, and lastly it is tweaky. There is so much you can do with it. What are you going to do with zeros ones. Vinyl once set up is really just a little more work than CDs
I have 192/24 HDtracks and Vinyl versions of both Dylan’s Desire and the first Santana album. Actually the Santana might 88/24.
the Vinyl has a sense of space missing in the digital versions. This might be a euphemism but I like it. The vinyl obviously has more noise. Tell me of any venue that does not have extraneous noise. People cough and shuffle around, talk to each other etc. as long as it is not a big loud scratch the noise in the vinyl biases your brain. It actually is more like the real experience!  Digital is silent, drier, more up front. The violin in Hurricane has a bit of a sting to it missing in the vinyl version. Dynamics are the same.
Albums that have been remastered specifically for high resolution digital are however amazing. Just have your wife cough once in a while.