[Exmoor]

> I get the ceremony of vinyl, but it's not going to improve over perfect digital reproduction.

As a millennial, I'm always slightly amused (and maybe a little horrified) to see my peers spend endless time and more than a little money hunting down vinyl releases of the music of our generation. I also listen to a lot of music from earlier generations and have noted that older collectors were and are thrilled to see that music get well-transferred and mastered releases on a digitally perfect and durable medium and generally consider those to be the definitive release.

[primax]

I'm quite fond of suggesting to them they just play a track of pops and hiss quietly over the digital recording to get the same effect.

[Syonyk]

What if they're right?

https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=Taylor+Swift&album=Red - one fairly recent album I found in which the vinyl version seems to have quite a bit more dynamic range than the digital or CD versions.

There's also the benefit of vinyl in that a single sale will typically send quite a bit of money actually to the band - vs streaming sending fractions of a penny, if that, per play. One of the best ways to actually support a band you like is to buy the LP, even if you don't have a turntable.

[Pet_Ant]

As I said 58 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34597194

> Ugh, this frustrates me. You are just saying that the _mix_ put on vinyl is better than the mix put on CD. That same mix put on CD would be even better due to higher fidelity of the format. Vinyl is a strictly worse format... unfortunately it's also an easier source of better mixes.

Demand better mixes, not vinyl.

[TimTheTinker]

> in which the vinyl version seems to have quite a bit more dynamic range than the digital or CD versions

Perhaps the mastering engineer did that intentionally? Surely the vinyl dynamic range doesn't exceed 96db.