The character of analog and digital

It suddenly occurs to me - suppose analog preference is simply an aversion to the digital sound, and nothing more? Going on and on about how analog is superior this way and that way would merely be a mirror image of your aversion to digital recording. I think there’s a real distinction to be made here. There are things about digital that displease some people, and when this kind of person is introduced to analog never having having heard it seriously it’s a revelation to them. I tend to prefer the digital sound, but I have no aversion to the analog sound so there's nothing to keep me from enjoying my LPs when I listen to him.

Second thing that just occurred to me: One comparison you could make to preferring analog to digital is preferring driving with a stick to driving with an automatic transmission. Automatic is easier and more convenient, but you might find driving standard shift is more enjoyable to you.

ghdprentice: “The late 50’s / early 60’s vinyl really stand out as jaw droppingly good.”

Agree wholeheartedly 

How much does the difference between 50s/early 60s and later discs have to do with the quality of the material, do you suppose? There was a dramatic increase in the number of records pressed in the late 60s and onwards, and that probably led to compromises in material.

Add my voice to the chorus, welcome back Millercarbon!

The question is, and has been answered here and elsewhere ad nauseum, is what is being discussed a feature of the media or the many issues related to the recording and engineering of that recording.

Judging by many comparisons between vinyl and CD, I have little faith in the skills of the geeks with hats who have an ejucaton in marketing or advertising and who  pretend that they know some stuff about the fine art of producing quality music in the digital domain.

In the USA there still exists capital punishment. Doesn’t work.