When and how did you, if at all, realize vinyl is better?

@lowrider57

Thanks for the answer, I think I was trying to say what you are saying, you being more eloquent on the way of articulating it. I do believe the LP is warmer, but for the reasons mentioned, the EQ at the production stage, the "artist/mastering engineer" (that, after all, has the job of making a recording "fit" the LP media), and even (not odd, i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8, etc) harmonics distorsion, that we like to read this or not... After all, listen to a piano and punch the two C (one octave apart), IT IS warmer, much more rich than a single note, no wonder we humans like "even" harmonics...

On another note, I am always amazed how many people that I talked to in my youth, never noticed the distorsion (with the treble going out) of an LP near the inner grooves; out at the end of a side.  You turn the record over, and suddently the sound comes less distorsioned and treble is at max. This can be explained for anybody who studied physics.  The tangential velocity of an LP is probably double that of the one at the end. This means that at the beginning of the record, the 33rpm is like more equal to 16 rpm at the end, or 66rpm at the beginning would equal 33 at the end, something like this. I don't know the exact value, but it is quite heard... I often wondered, in fact, if more complex tracks were not put at the beginning of an LP for this reason.  Yes the mastering engineer can relax the space between groove when the lacquer is cut, but the speed cannot be changed.

For the RIAA curve, I am not sure if I agree. Normally when you pre-emphasis and you de-emphasis using the same amount the result should be the same. However tolerances of the system may come into play. For that reason and for the fact that compression combined with the EQ (RIAA) your point may be valid.

Exclusivity is at the core of this, as is most things audiophile.   If CDs cost $100 each, we would all be singing the praises of digital.  We always love and crave what the masses don't or can't have.

Cheers

It is a done deal in my mind and in my system, digital is the way to go.  I have a SOTA Sapphire vacuum TT with an SEAC tonearm and Dynavector 20X10 cart and a modified Oppo 103D.  Of course the vinyl sounds great, but the hassle of pulling out LP's, cleaning them, and having to repeat the process every 30 minutes has gotten to be way to much of a hassle.  I did a comparison last year with a guy who has a very fine system and we compared his VPI rig to his Modwright-modified Oppo CD player and I will be damned if I could hear a difference between the recordings. Nor could he.  I think vinyl is a legacy sort of thing that folks don't want to abandon.  If you have tons of vinyl available, its great, but if you are a newbie, my best advice is to forget about vinyl.  My $500 Oppo is a world-beater and makes my life simple and musical.  So does Spotify, which I listen to more and more everyday.  

I've never not had a Turntable. And I've owned digital since the first player released by Sony in 1979.

I've always seen digital as a listening convenience. It's like those who listen to a switchable amp like a Plinius with a Class A and Class A/B switch where one listens to Class A/B for not critical listening. But when you're ready for sitting in the sweet spot you switch that amp into Class A.

Vinyl far surpasses digital, and is less fatiguing to my ear. What's better is always subjective to the listener. But I've always scratched my head in respect to those who can't readily hear the obvious difference...head scratching!

This is a little like debating over whether the weather is nicer in Arizona or San Diego.  Depends on what you prefer and what the weather was like when you were there.  

That said, I do love the sound of vinyl.  I find that the best go-to LPs please/impress more consistently than the vast majority of my 2-channel digital recordings.  Now, some of the digital 5.1 stuff is a different experience, albeit the availability of source material is limited.  

But I think the quality of digital can be a lot closer to analog than many people have experienced here.  It's best to take the data off the spinning disk and play through an appropriately optimized computer or quasi-computer system.  This optimization can be very intense trial and error, and involves a ton of both hardware and software variables.  

So while many listen to digital through very high end gear, you can do a lot better by being an under the hood PC guy.  Then you have to get compulsive about finding the best digital source material - re-buying CDs with better mastering and sometimes even remixing from what was available in the 80s and 90s, and of course hunting down genuine and legitimate hi res versions that are not just upsampled or poorly mastered.  

Add the effort and you will be rewarded with digital.  It's there.  Not saying that the sound alone is superior, but you can get to the point where which is better is on a recording by recording basis rather than format vs. format.  

Then if you add the convenience factor, digital has a legitimate reason to be in your audio lives, without sacrificing quality for the most part.