Does Age Matter?

72. Digital only: it has no wow and flutter, no pops and ticks, excellent sound (like LP, not necessarily, but just as possible), and a MUCH larger repertoire. My tastes far exceed what’s available on LP, and I long ago tired of the fussing with VTA and so on.

I choose the recording or performance, but I don't stream. So, if the recording or performance I want to hear is on vinyl, I play that; if on CD, then I play that; if SACD, then that; sometimes I even put on an old cassette of something I don't have on any other medium (which can happen for any of several reasons; in general, my cassettes sometimes are showing their age).

Bottom line: for sound quality, by far the most important element is the quality of the original recording/mastering. For impact (emotional, intellectual), the performance is even more important. Thus, for instance, a 1950s mono Furtwängler performance of Wagner's "Tristan" with Kirstin Flagstad is simply unique--even though its sound quality is extremely problematic. Radiohead sounds great on CD, but the 180 gram vinyl pressing of "Junta" by Phish (from analog masters) sounds better than the well-mastered CD. IMO, this question--like the perennial question "Which is better, analog or digital?"--shows an interest in cataloging fetish preferences, not objective criteria.

I'm 64, and have been listening and collecting most of my life. I have thousands of LPs and even more CDs, all of which are "curated"--I've listened to all of them, and have opinions (and memories) associated with most of them. 

Frankly, I enjoy the ritual of spinning vinyl. But most of the recordings/performances I want to hear are either exclusively digital or just sound better that way. Most, but not all. With apologies to McLuhan, in audio, the medium is NOT the message.

Yes a surprising number of us older folks here. Where are the guys in diapers?

51 and prefer digital.

61 and have both.

Enjoy vinyl most of the time (90%)