vinyl versus digital redux

@seventies - what appears to be something that may be "quite achievable", certainly from a technical perspective
- I think that it would be a considerable undertaking for any record label to setup yet another "stream" of source material to package and store (if on CD), distribute and market.

And that’s before you factor in which sample rates to provide

So what appears to be a relatively simple undertaking, may actually may turn out to be something few labels would even consider.

Generally - Record Exec’s are there to make money - fast!
- and today, spinning of a vinyl stream of business from a digital source is relatively easy

Spinning off a digital source from a vinyl replay would probably be considered as - NOT required, NOT profitable or even sensible, by those same Record Exec’s - just to cater to "a few" audiophiles

Jeton is a very specialized company and provide highly specialized product to a select few - not the mode of operation of your more normal record companies

High-res digital audio, well above 24/192, is readily available from many sites and the trend will continue to even higher rates. But even so, the companies thqt offer high res digital are not so "mainstream" - I'm thinking apple here :-)

I think higher-res digital may probably satisfy the vast majority of audiophiles

I also think for the "kids of today" the more recent "allure of vinyl" has far more to do with it being unique, as opposed to sounding superior
- they just like to have something different to show off to their friends
- they also like those other traits of vinyl, such as the artwork and the sleeve content.
- and - most vinyl today comes with a convenient digital download - best of both worlds

At least - that is my own personal view of this particular line of thought.

Cheers - Steve

Cleeds,
With all those thoughts I largely or entirely agree.
Please let me know if you elsewhere come upon similar discussion, this being a relatively specific discussion.   There are bits and pieces, but where to find a more comprehensive review ?
Meanwhile, my 'own personal view' is focused on DXD as a PCM/DSD 'one format suits all high resolution seekers' solution.
Another topic I'm happy to discuss.
Again thanks,
'Seventies'

seventies

Increased measurable distortion and decreased dynamic range inherent in vinyl playback are, I believe, hard to dispute.

The potential dynamic range of the LP format exceeds that which most music requires. That was true even before the loudness wars, which have only further reduced dynamic range. If you have any doubts about that, check the dynamic range database.

The distortions that are inherent in LP playback can often be reduced to levels that are essentially inaudible, and that’s why sometimes the best version of a particular recording is the one from LP. At their very best, the results from LP and digital are very, very close. So your wish to obtain the quality of "vinyl playback" without using a turntable doesn’t really make any sense.

As I mentioned previously, some people enjoy the warm, euphonic, tubey distortion they can get by using sonically colored turntables, pickup arms, cartridges and phono sections. Perhaps that’s the sound you’d like to achieve using only digital playback.

There is more to vinyl than just the sound. There is the collection and handling of records. There is no way to duplicate this digitally even if you can duplicate the sound digitally. Those of you who do not think you can have obviously not tried it. Don't believe me. Michael Fremer has commented on this subject numerous times and uses the process for demonstration all the time. Personally, I do not record my records to the hard drive. It takes way to much time and effort. I'm just fine with playing my records the old fashioned way. There is a mystique in the process. Watching the record spin in wonder that such a crude process could sound so good. 
Buy the way Cleeds, all vinyl playback systems are sonically colored and euphORic. Reality is sometimes a hard pill tp swallow. 

I disagree with the basic premise of this thread.

First, I don’t agree that digital recordings of LPs sound indistinguishable from the originals in all respects.

Second, I don’t agree that the reason LPs often sound better than digital recordings is euphonic distortions or colorations.

Addressing the first point, in my experience, digital recordings of LPs can sound extremely good and can be indistinguishable from the original at a superficial level. But over the longer term the digital recording suffers from the same issues as all digital recordings - a slight sense of artificiality, a slight sense of remove from the musical event, and a sense of unease which is so slight as to be almost unfelt. These differences are not apparent on an A/B comparison, but do become apparent if listening over a longer time period. This is not to say that digital recordings of LPs (or digital recordings per se) cannot sound good or be enjoyed over the longer term; they certainly can, but it is a different experience to listening to a purely analog recording.

Second, it is true that LP playback involves many distortions and colorations, introduced by the various stages of equilization, the physical process of playback, including tracking distortions and the mechanical movement of the stylus in the groove, the and the additional gain stages (amongst others). But I believe for most listeners of high end vinyl systems, vinyl remains preferable despite these obvious issues.

The distortions in vinyl are often only too audible, and yet we tolerate them precisely because vinyl does seem to recreate something of the original performance that digital somehow does not capture. It is not that vinyl sounds better because it is adding something; it is that digital is still not yet able to reproduce something essential in the musical experience. It may be timing errors and pre or post-ringing, it may be aliasing artifacts, I don’t really know. Digital has improved remarkably over the last decade or so and is extremely good. At a superficial level it really does sound "transparent" to the source material; but at a deeper level many of us continue to have a sense that there is still something missing. And that is why we still listen to vinyl, despite its obvious limitations, distortions and colorations - we listen through these because it still captures something essential which digital has not quite been able to do yet.

If it were true that people prefer vinyl because of additive distortions and colorations, then this would be relatively easy to demonstrate. Digital recordings on LP would sound just as good as analog recordings. But they don’t. Digital recordings played back as LPs still sound digital - they still have that sense of artificiality, only with LP’s distortions added as well. And it would be possible to add LP-like distortions and colorations to digital files to make them sound like LPs. I have seen many attempts at this and they have all failed - they still just sound like bad digital recordings, and nothing like good analog playback.

If digital recordings of LPs were in fact indistinguishable from the originals, and the reason people prefer LPs is because of additive distortions, then I would agree that this would be a strong argument for the superiority of digital playback. But I do not think those premises are correct, and the reason many - though not all - discerning people with good critical listening skills and good hi fi systems prefer vinyl is the inherent limitations of digital, not the additive distortions of vinyl.