You would be surprised how few audiophiles have actually heard R2R in a system that they know well enough to separate the qualities of the R2R from everything else, not that that will stop a large number of them from claiming that they do.
Similarly, a most audiophiles really don't know what the music/vocals sound like at the time of recording. They claim they are looking for realistic while not knowing what that sounds like.
When I talk about which is "better", I talk about potential. Digital, without question high-res digital has the capability to be better than vinyl by a fairly good margin, and to R2R by a fairly good margin too. That does not mean that a large group of audiophiles will not prefer the colorations that occur from vinyl and yes R2R. Is it the comfort of a bit of noise, possible detail emphasis from noise, frequency emphasis, frequency roll-off, less masking due to less information content, inherent compression? ... Does not matter, if you like it you like it, just try not to fool yourself that it is accurate and try not to claim to others it is and set unrealistic expectations (and cause arguments).
Anyone who claims vinyl is "far superior" I find has a particular taste that strays from realistic. No shame in that. Some have a real hard time getting past what can be considered minor surface noise/clicks/pop of vinyl and delving into the music. I also find that "consensus" w.r.t. what is best, is really a consensus of people who are far past their best hearing days, and have a huge history of acclimatizing to what can be called legacy formats.
For those who don't know, there is a lot of work done on plug ins to pull digital away from perfection, not for all music, but it works for some genres, likely in how I seem to have a preference for the final result on vinyl with rock/pop which prefer pristine digital for others.
Similarly, a most audiophiles really don't know what the music/vocals sound like at the time of recording. They claim they are looking for realistic while not knowing what that sounds like.
When I talk about which is "better", I talk about potential. Digital, without question high-res digital has the capability to be better than vinyl by a fairly good margin, and to R2R by a fairly good margin too. That does not mean that a large group of audiophiles will not prefer the colorations that occur from vinyl and yes R2R. Is it the comfort of a bit of noise, possible detail emphasis from noise, frequency emphasis, frequency roll-off, less masking due to less information content, inherent compression? ... Does not matter, if you like it you like it, just try not to fool yourself that it is accurate and try not to claim to others it is and set unrealistic expectations (and cause arguments).
Anyone who claims vinyl is "far superior" I find has a particular taste that strays from realistic. No shame in that. Some have a real hard time getting past what can be considered minor surface noise/clicks/pop of vinyl and delving into the music. I also find that "consensus" w.r.t. what is best, is really a consensus of people who are far past their best hearing days, and have a huge history of acclimatizing to what can be called legacy formats.
For those who don't know, there is a lot of work done on plug ins to pull digital away from perfection, not for all music, but it works for some genres, likely in how I seem to have a preference for the final result on vinyl with rock/pop which prefer pristine digital for others.