Zd542,
I generally have an attitude of 'listen to whatever format that brings you the most enjoyment when listening to your music' and have no interest in discouraging anyone from doing this. However, I find it curious that you would object to vinyl being accurately described as not hi-resolution.
You stated in your last post: "that there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital."
Are you saying that common audio measurements (such as frequency response, signal to noise ratios, dynamic range, etc.) mysteriously cannot be measured for vinyl but can be exactly measured on digital formats? This would be very troubling but convenient for anyone wishing to avoid objectively comparing the two formats. Fortunately,however, your statement is not factual.
You may be correct in stating my previous post lacked objective facts. So, here are some facts comparing various performance measurements between vinyl and 24 bit/96khz digital formats that are audible and directly affect audio quality:
Dynamic Range Vinyl 55-70db Digital 110-120db
Signal/Noise Ratio Vinyl 70db Digital 144db
Frequency Response Vinyl 20-20k hz +/-3db Digital 20-20k hz +/-.5db
You may like the warmer sound of vinyl or the rituals involved with playing vinyl but insisting it is a hi-res format defies the facts and is, ultimately, not relevant to your enjoyment of it.
Also, you stated: "A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously"
The reason I referred to this article was to demonstrate the reporter's total lack of understanding of the importance of a recording's provenance. No, I don't think he was qualified to conduct such a test, precisely because he didn't realize he was asking his subjects to choose which recording sounded best when both recordings were identical. Because of this, the results of his test are meaningless.
My main point is that the major labels are using standard resolution older masters of their recordings, transferring them into hi-res formats, increasing the prices and marketing these as hi-res without disclosing the provenance of these recordings. Doing this adds no improvements in sound quality but may garner large revenues from uninformed consumers. I'd prefer these potential buyers to be well informed. I'm fairly sure the major labels would prefer otherwise.
Nonoise,
completely agree with your comment that good recordings make for good playback.
Tim