Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"

@audio2design you literally said timbre doesn’t exist... that’s severely discrediting

my musical and sound system engineering includes quite a bit actually such as concerts and installations

Analog is actually 4 dimensional while volume reproduction in digital creates loss bc there is no amplitude

It’s not natively sampled in 3/4D while analog is. Was. Pure modern digital can maybe keep up but we can’t tell bc few record on analog anymore. 
What IS nearly definitive is that older recordings, even when remastered digitally, are better in analog delivery.
I’m not arguing this point so much as to explain why so many believe digital sounds inferior (perhaps to those preferring a live performance sound granted).

Here’s another point worth considering
microphones and instruments are analog (infinite in that sense). Sampling no matter how good is not infinite (if you don’t get the 3/4D aspect).  
There’s no instrument but the human ear for this (yet).

BTW the comparison with digital photography is poor
our hearing detail far exceeds our visual acuity

@mahgister I know full well what timbre is since music theory in college

Your mansplaining or copying out of a book is irrelevant and adolescent.

Most of what you talk about is rambling gibberish suitable for an abnormal psych textbook but not here, though we appreciate the enthusiasm!

Tonight’s comparison
Wilco’s “Star Wars”
Qobuz FLAC 44.1kHz/24b > DirectStream+B2 > Kimber KCAG XLR
vs
vinyl on pro-ject RPM3 >gold note ph-10/ps-10 > blue Jean xlr
both into Schiit Freya+ (Tubes off and on, fully balanced on both signals) > Parasound A23 mono > SF Sonetto 8 > my ears

Vinyl wins hands down. Not really a very close comparison. Clarity. Detail. Truer high end.
Here’s to cheap cables? Nah
here’s to vinyl

FYI
That’s $4300 vinyl setup trouncing an $8000 digital

IMAGO get some $1k Kimber XLR for the phono preamp out to square up the competition... another story!