I thought it was, all things considered, a pretty good article, at least by journalistic standards anyway. One thing I did like was the focus they gave to the mastering process in all this. This angle usually ends up getting overlooked in forums like this one. But, the one thing I didn't like as much was that nobody brought up the fact that preparing a master for digital makes for a necessarily differently sounding master than one that was prepared for vinyl. So, it may be not so much of a surprise when a master made for CD is released in vinyl and doesn't fare as well. A direct comparison between a master made for CD and a separate master made for vinyl, of the same title, would have been the more fair comparison...and the better on which to draw conclusions from. You can't do that in the real world, because separately built up masters for the same title greatly drives up the cost of the release - as in like $60-$80 for each vinyl and CD copy...just not doable. But, overall I thought the article was a pretty good effort, although I agree with you, Theo, your ears are always they final judge, no matter what, I think.
