In order to make a CD, the original analog recording has to be converted & broken up into a bunch of 1s and 0s, and regardless of how many 1s and 0s go into it, or how high the bitrate is etc, its still not not as natural as music from an analog vinyl record.
First off: analogue is heavily compressed in order to get the low frequency content into the groove, and has to be de-compressed for replay.
No idea why that should be more natural than converting to digital.
Secondly, almost all new material is being produced in the digital domain, so yeah, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to go and first convert to analogue, compress and cut to a deeply flawed medium - vinyl.
I have likely more listening experience with vinyl than you - I started with vinyl in the mid sixties, went digital in the late eighties and went partly into vinyl into the late 90's. Some of it was simple nostalgia, the possibility of almost endless tweaking - but definitely not superior sound quality. This is a lie that can be disproved by measurement and unbiased blind listening...actually, the problem there is that almost NO vinyl is without surface noise, which makes a record even blinded detectable w/o problems.
You must be kidding if you imply that expensive record players are a sign of superior quality of vinyl. It is a sign that there are enough technically challenged out there to throw good money at a bad source of sound, and it is a sign of excellent marketing - I just wonder what the volume of sales is on any player above 2000$.
The jury is in- vinyl recordings still offer the most natural reproduction of sound available. Case closed.
Just repeating often mouthed ******** doesn't make it true. The jury is out that vinyl is a slowly dying breed of sound reproduction.
i wonder why "natural" seems to be a measure of value or quality for anything. Nicotine is natural, so is E Coli, so is Yersinia pestis, so are earthquakes and tsunamis. All natural and all potentially deadly.Edited by kraut - 4/22/13 at 5:53pm