Why not? Since you obviously have no idea how a record is mastered or what is involved in producing a vinyl record or the technical differences between analogue and digital and then claim that the SQ of vinyl record is more superior, I was merely trying to enlighten you with the facts. Why can't people understand the difference between a digital master of a piece of classical recording and a vinyl record of it is just distortions and nothing else, and if they really think the vinyl version is better it's because they like the distortions. Why is it so hard to admit it? Anything that is added to the original signal of the master is distortion. Vintage tube sound is basically distortion, I like it myself, but I wouldn't say it sounds more superior.
Both CD and vinyl mixes are usually identical, if the non-classical CD mix sound different to the vinyl version, it's because it has been heavily compressed and limited during post production. Most non-classical CDs nowadays have dynamic range of less than 10dB, but that's not the problem of the CD format, it's just because the vinyl master was not compressed like the CD master. So if you really want to compare sound quality, you should use a classical CD, otherwise you are merely comparing apples to oranges.
SACD has great potential technically but it is still only as good as the master, if the master was heavily compressed like most CDs nowadays, it will not sound any better. However, I think most remastered recordings on SACD recently are quite well made, especially the surround mixes, makes me not want to listen in stereo ever again. Listening to an SACD surround mix on a decent 5.1 system is better than the best stereo system I've ever heard. That's probably the reason why they are getting more popular recently.
I don't have a beef with anyone, and don't wish to. This thread has been educating and interesting to an extent but:
The reason why people would want to state their honest opinions in contrasting debate is because of you, Danz03, specifically. You give your opinions, you give your background, but you also aggressively attack anyone who likes vinyl as "needing enlightenment" "lovers of distorted sound" "can't understand the difference between masterings". You are essentially calling other respectable people to a sense, retarded. That is why no matter what you say, the nature of your comments are not agreeable or favorable.
You've identified the problems with mediums, mastering etc... as have many in this thread many times over. This Apples to Oranges again supports other peoples statements. I have LPs that were never mastered well on a CD, the band is disbanded, the members came back together for a reunion where they played some "best hits". These songs were then translated to English and the new CD (although having a better format) released by probably a contracted recording company had 10dBs of dynamic range, lacked ambiance/soundstage, and overall sounded horrible compared to the LPs from 1989. It was hard to get mint LPs from 30 years ago but furthermore... only about 15% of the songs were re-released in this 2010 reunion release. Not all artists can afford an expensive mastering in both Vinyl and CD. The CDs from 1989 sound horrible compared to the LPs for this band. For this reason alone people are saying they think vinyl has a reserve space in their wallet. They don't need bashing, or re-education based on what mediums are or what mastering is.
To support your statement, I am a lover of classical music, I find CDs from this century's recording rewarding indeed. I have no need to look for a vinyl copy of this century's boston harmonic symphony because the CD mastering is just that professional and excellent. However what about artists from the 70s and 80s that never had a digital master copy. Horowitz in recital? Masterful composers, musicians that never had a perfect CDs to record. That is where the care and effort of people who preserve records come in. Those pieces are limited and inevitably dying but they are still priceless for those that want to hear it. As you probably know and can tell a few decades ago, people had more concern for quality and valued sound integrity more than they do in modern iPod heaven with 10 dollar inner-ear-monitors.
You've given me insight on the recording industry and tape-tape originals and I am thankful. But I can't sit here and agree that people, who are giving their empirical experience with Vinyl, are fools. I'd rather ask you what SACD Classical music you suggest as a good purchase so I can truly enjoy newer technology with a good player's DAC.
I've tried Norah Jones - Come Away With Me SACD and I don't have a very good rig but... it sounds almost exactly the same as the Remastered Hybrid CD release.... I can't help but feel a little bit ripped off paying over 50 dollars for one CD release. SACD recording studios could record with 5 mics? wouldn't that be a possibility to record better surround sound.
My other question would be... is stereo really the only path in audiophile land? Is this because we only have two ears?