Why vinyl?I have large collections of cd,download,rip and vinyl music.So why the vinyl.-1-to my ears the vinyl sound is closer to what I hear at lincoln center-2 the lp causes me to become more engaged with the music-3 I love the cover art.I still buy all formats and enjoy them all.Cost can also be an issue.Good lps can be had at reasonable prices and this also can drive the purchase,though I have bought new vinyl also.So why vinyl,I guess I just find it enjoyable and fun.

Wow... for once a conservative supports progress, innovation and lives in the present and gets all, the timing, the subject and most facts wrong. Impressive.

This is a bit of an old, sterile debate, which ignores a capital fact. A lot of us crazy audiophiles actually like BOTH formats. For sheer convenience, CD can't be beaten. Digital has also come a long way and the best engineers are able to capture glorious sounding music using good old Redbook (aka CD) technology. Denying it would be ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is denying the stunning sound of a good analogue LP. I own a lot of CDs and a lot of LPs. All things being equal, analogue is still for some unexplainable reason (hence the rather esoteric explanations) the most faithful medium to live music. It's just brilliant. The problem is that things are rarely equal and that LP, these days, sound more readily crappy than CDs! Analogue is not plug-and-play, I can totally understand preferring to use CDs. But if we're talking about absolutes of sound reproduction, analogue is still best. It's hard to explain to somebody (like the author of this article apparently) who hasn't experienced it. It's way beyong warmth, as digital can sound very warm. It's a fluidity which has to be heard or experienced. This is a non-article, misinformed and too subjective. I think CDs and LPs can sound great, it's just that LPs sound... greater. A better subject matter would've been: do high-rez digital bring anything to the table compared to Redbook?

ChrisZ hits the nail on the head...perhaps their was greater 'artistry' in the recorded performances of yore. However, I notice there is not one mention of the two most vital parts of the electronic-reproduction system...the amplifier and the speakers. IMHO, this is an area where there has been little or no forward movement in the last 25 years - indeed, there has been a regression, caused by amplified sub-bass, to some kind of distorted mean suited only for MP3s. Consider, vacuum tube amplification was a mature technology by the early 1950's, after DTN Williamson's designs were refined, and that speakers reached their ne plus ultra in the 1970's, with the Quad Electrostatic. The absence of negative feedback in the circuit and the introduction of third-order harmonics is what probably gives that 'warmth' to the sound we rave about.

In 1978 I read about the Philips disc, and declared that 14 bits just wasn't enough. Counting on my fingers in binary I quickly determined that 21 to 24 bit should do it. Having just been thru the quadraphonic promise and bust, I said "here we go again". Another audio albatross on the market. And I still believed in the Nyquist theory and the cover-up at the top where a third of the audio spectrum is pixelated. All of this is moot if micing is not addressed. No one has brought this subject up. Go to Archive.org and almost all the recordings listed will not only give the gear used in the event but most importantly the spacing and location of the microphones in the hall. I want to see that on the label-listing like on some of those vintage issues. Most vintage recordings were captured with a minimum of mics though many still muddied up a made up soundstage . By the 80's, union scale, time constraints, and economy and technology in the form of 48 channel recordings turned symphonic sound into salad. Cut up small bits of each seat-with-squeaks mixed in a small room with extra hall pickup or effect sauce added. Close micing is an anathema to symphonic sound.I am particularly upset because I record with a binaural dummy head and get stunning results on a cassette and don't hear the same transparency with a direct to audacity take. I haven't done high def yet. Demonstrated in 1881 it's 2012 that's a long time, why can't-don't we hear this way. I'll tell you, no engineer needed, no post recording and production etc. Perfection on demand not twiddled in later, most of the older artists knew it this way. Like the great German baritone that just passed away Deitric Fischer-Dieskau they knew how to lay it down.

I got into vinyl in the last two years with enthusiasm, but over time I've come to find the downsides outweighing the advantages. Principally, I find the vinyl 'ritual' simply a PITA. I didn't grow up with vinyl so there's no nostalgia for me there. The set up is also very tricky and you never really know whether the turntable/arm/cartridge is set up right, especially if you aren't a veteran vinyl expert. I much prefer the simplicity, accuracy and lack of distortion of SACD and CD. It's far less stressful and I can ignore the equipment when I listen, unlike vinyl where I get jolted by new pops and clicks and awful inner groove distortion which ruins my Sinatra LPs even though they're brand new MFSL pressings. I agree with many LP fans who say they want to hear the original source as closely as possible, to get closer to the master tape. It's just that I find CD and particularly SACD accomplishes that in a way that is less obstructive than vinyl. Choose what feels best to you. You don't need to justify it or follow a bandwagon.

As a subscriber to the magazine I find the general sloppiness of this article less than amusing, as cliche upon cliche is piled in an attempt to apparently construct an argument that really will not stand up to critical examination. It may be that Norman's name is considered enough to justify this nonsense, but it really isn't good enough and is condescending in the extreme. You really ought to be ashamed.

more of the same tired twaddle from Fremer. Hey dude, I love your "review" last month, you know the one in which you said "**Although my entire system has changed in the eight years since the first version of the 101E Radialstrahler was here, I feel confident saying that the sound of the Mk.II is more refined and well behaved, and far more capable of speaking with a uniform, focused voice**." Christ Almighty. Keep hanging on to your 1920s tech. You are in good company what with all the beardo hipster douchebags in skinny jeans and ultrafidelistas of the "cable believer" sort who are allergic to change and believe that high distortion, limited FR and the comparatively crude mechanical operation of TTs is "superior" (LOL!!!). The rest of us will move forward. 14 bits FTW!! Dont ever change, Fremer. You are nothing if not entertaining. Have you considered working for MAD Magazine?

Old Believers? Burn them at the stake! Vaporize them, vituperatively, in viscous vats of vintage vinyl. Heh-heh. Je ris mon mauvais rire. Only kidding. Kudos, Norman.

For some reason what I really want to say doesn't end up on this site. Probably too strong. So I'll try this: the Jarvi Beethoven symphony box to which I think you erroneously referred as a "vinyl only" project (it originated on SACD) came about at the behest of members of the Bremen Chamber Orchestra's string section. They prefer vinyl. I know many well known musicians (and conductors) as well as award winning recording engineers who surely know what their masters sound like, who prefer vinyl to CD and think LPs properly produced are more accurate to the source. So really, what you've written is a bitter, condescending load of nonsense.