Here are some more classic LP vs CD arguments taken from rec.audio newsgroups.

 : > > You can't afford 50 cents an LP?

: > I'm glad that supply and demand has brought LP pricing in line with
: > its sound quality.

: Arny:

: Supply and demand have brought used LP pricing in line with supply and
: demand at thrift shops and garage sales where the condition of the vinyl
: getting dumped is pretty depressing. While an occasional gem can turn up
: there, in a specialty store like Colony records and you'll find records
: are not so cheap.

I buy new records all the time and I can confirm that's true. Here single
albums can often cost about $30 a pop, which is considerably more than
their CD counterparts. This is due to the lower production numbers and the
fact that they are imports. But maybe Arny considers 50 cents an LP to be
expensive, so I guess it's all relative. OTOH, the quality of this vinyl is
much better than it ever used to be, and since it does sound better than
it's CD equivalent, you expect to pay a premium price for a unique, premium
product.

: There is also a substantial number of reissue vinyl selling for double or
: more the price of compact discs although in, comparitively, tiny numbers.

Then there are the collector's items at hundreds of dollars in value, and
more. Consistently dwarfing the value of collectible seedy's. Must be
somebody other than you and Kevin out there buying these things at such
lofty prices!

: Your remarks about sound quality are ignorant and offensive.

I don't know, but I suppose that *could* be because Kreuger is notoriously
ignorant and offensive.

: There is indeed a demand for good vinyl, but the recording companies
: find the profits from CD sales too attractive to bother with vinyl.

Indeed. It now costs more to produce vinyl and CDs are the cheapest music
software to produce. They've brainwashed people into thinking that it's a
premium product and reneged on their promises to lower the price after mass
production. Thus the lemmings gladly continue to pay nearly double the cost
of cassettes, giving record companies profits that are unheard of in most
industries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was an excellent posting.  Since I have gone back to listening to
vinyl a 1 and 1/2 year ago after having listened to cd for years, my
time listening to CD have gone down from 100% to 1%.  The only thing I
disagree with this posting is "CD is good for parties".  I have had
many parties playing both cd and vinyl where friends who listen to
cds 100% of the time will ask me to spin the vinyl only.  Vinyl just
warms up the party.  It is the difference of going to bars when they
have record spinning and off-night when cd spins.  No comparison.
Also, I have no problem at all finding any new release and old release
records here in NYC.  I listen to everything form classical, opera,
jazz, rock, punk, alternative, jungle, trip-hop, acid-jazz, etc...

When Vinyl spins, mass market CD is not a substitute.

>
>
> : >>CD beat out vinyl a LONG time ago.... Why have there been 500 MILLION + in
> : >>cd players sold since vinyl was replaced. we've heard ENOUGH...
>
> Curtis, I don't know where you're getting your misinformation from. I'll
> have to read your original post perhaps for a clue. Vinyl was never
> "replaced", that's nonsense. I can go down to my local record store, and
> find new and used records in the same bins and order all sorts of new
> releases. Yes, even Micheal Jackson. As far as "500 MILLION", I'd like to
> know where you pulled that figure out from under. For most of their
> existence, CDs (and vinyl) lost out to the compact cassette in sales and
> subsequent popularity, for several reasons. Now, are YOU also going to be
> foolish enough to say that this means cassette tape is a superior storage
> medium?! As a mediocre mid-fi medium, CDs are fine for parties and
> background music (and they make pretty coasters too!). They have the
> convenience features the mass consumers want, and they'll usually get
> through a party with a fair bit of manhandling (although the little
> beasties have turned out to be far more fragile than consumers were led to
> believe). IOW, most people don't give a damn about sound quality, because
> they don't have a proper concept of it. Most can't even tell a CD from from
> a good Dolby cassette copy of it. However, for those with refined and
> critical tastes who listen to audio actively, CD sound is not realistic and
> simply doesn't measure up to that obtainable by any decent turntable.
>
> :> Of course, vinyl has not been completely "replaced" just yet...
>
> Au contraire. Vinyl sales have soared in recent years. Many new releases
> are available on vinyl, new pressing plants are opening up and artists such
> as Neil Young, Pearl Jam etc. are releasing new albums on vinyl before the
> CD issue. Some new releases are being issued on vinyl only.
>
> : I recently read a syndicated review of digital TV
> : and the reviewer was searching for a way to explain it
> : to the masses.  His example?	He said something to the
> : effect 'Just like perfect-reproduction CDs replaced
> : the inferior and obsolete LP system, digital TV is
> : easily seen to be vastly superior to analog TV.'
> : And you know what, these comments are regarded as
> : being accurate by over 99% of the American public.
> : They will understand what the reviewer is saying
> : and think that digital TV must be a great improvement
> : if the difference is as great as that between CDs
> : and LPs.
> : PS  Reminder to flamethrowers, I do own 4 turntables
> : and over 300 LPs, so I'm not adverse to enjoying a
> : nice record.
>
> If that stat is true, it tells you exactly how gullible and lemming-like
> average Americans are today. Even the few and generally mindless ABXers
> that hang around RAO like Hare Krishna's at the airport are not stupid
> enough to claim that CDs are "perfect reproduction"! Given that few out
> there have even heard what a good tt sounds like, one wonders if they are
> even aware of the fact that tt's sound vastly different in quality.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
: > >How many people have to tell you that records - clean and well
: > >cared for - can easily embarrass compact discs in a good
: > >stereo system?

Pi many! Seriously, logic, facts, empirical evidence, objective evidence,
statistics... it really doesn't matter *what* facts you relate to Arnold
Krueger about anything, or even how you say it. If it contradicts his own
"beliefs", he simply *won't* change his mind. It just doesn't suit Arnold's
agenda to do so. Many of us have gone up against him and come to realize
this. So, good luck!

Arny Kr=FCger:
:> Let's see, there is Mr. Stager and Mr. Pausche who are in favor
:> of vinyl, and then there are all those millions and millions of
:> younger people who love music, don't have any vinyl, don't want
:> any vinyl, and  never will have any vinyl. For example, my 4
:> children and almost all their cohorts.
:>
:> Can we say Ad Homonym argument - wrong when you make one and wrong
:> when I make one, too?

: By the way, do you seriously believe Kevin and I are the only people
: that feel this way?

Probably, he does! Given what beliefs Krueger has shared with us in the
recent past, I wouldn't put it past him. Did you know for example, that
in the world according to Kreuger, high end audio started on a specific
day?! He won't name that day, but he'll talk *of* it!

: I can say it. Is that some Sesame Seed sketch about a commercial for
: words that sound alike but have different meanings? Arny. You seem to
: strain yourself when you try to sound intelligent. It is sorta funny,
: though.

Funny? It's bloody hilarious Marc! When Arnold declared himself to be an
"intellectual giant", I almost had a coniption reading that!!!!

[Arny, the mid-fi shill's anti-audiophile propaganda snipped]

: Nope.  Ask Shure how they're doing with their newly reissued V-15  -
: or Grado or Sumiko.  Or ask Audio Advisor about their record cleaning
: machine sales. Sales may not be huge, but analogue is certainly alive
: and kicking.

Ask Roksan about the new models of turntable's they're releasing. Ask
Allsop about the new record cleaning kit they're putting back on the
market. Ask the "younger generation" about the Indie groups they're buying
who release on vinyl only. Ask Technics about the continued popularity of
their SL-1200's and ask the DJ's that use them and get their dance music at
stores replete with 12" singles. Ask WEA, Sony, Columbia, Mobile Fidelity
etc. who are pressing new full releases on vinyl. Ask the millions of
people who were smart enough or music-loving enough to hang on to their
tt's and who continue to frequent used/new record shops and the vinyl
newsgroups on the net for their vinyl purchases.

: They don't hear this on the radio and, compared to CD or LP, the
: sound of the real thing is far superior and more beautiful.

Agreed.

: I was fortunate in growing up in a musical home. My mother was a concert
: pianist and still teaches, my dad was a fine amateur violinist. My sister
: and I were often taken to hear performances at Carnegie Hall
: (fortunately, long before the consultants decided to improve it), the
: Met, and other New York venues. (It is from the memories of long past and
: recent memories of live music that I find a preference for analogue over
: 16 bit digital.)

As they say, you are not alone. Little argument can be made against the
fact that the mass consumer market have slowly but surely embraced the
lowly, inferior 16-bit digital format, thanks to the strained efforts to
hype the format by the electronics manufacturers and their puppets, the
mass media (especially mass consumer electronics rags like Stereo Review,
Audio etc.). These are the same unquestioning and uncritical people that
have embraced cassette tapes and 8-track in the past and have been
conditioned to accept new gadgets as a sign of "progress". Unfortunately,
that's not always the case. I have found that there is an unmistakable
trend for many musicians and music lovers who have a good ear for the real
thing (live music) and who both have a first hand experience with the
analogue format, favour analogue over the CD. These are largely not
audiophiles by any means and could care less about our audiophile
obsessions or to get into our audiophie and format debates. The reasons
given are not due to convenience, romantic attraction to the aesthetics of
vinyl, or a misapprehension of analogue's qualities. They are due to the
simple fact that by and large, they find that analogue replay systems
produce a quality of sound that is undeniably closer to the sound they
recognize from real instruments in real space. 'Nuff said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> : There is indeed a demand for good vinyl, but the recording companies
> : find the profits from CD sales too attractive to bother with vinyl.
> 
> Indeed. It now costs more to produce vinyl and CDs are the cheapest music
> software to produce. They've brainwashed people into thinking that it's a
> premium product and reneged on their promises to lower the price after mass
> production. Thus the lemmings gladly continue to pay nearly double the cost
> of cassettes, giving record companies profits that are unheard of in most
> industries.

The collector demand for vintage vinyl in mint- or better condition is
indeed extraordinary, particularly in jazz and specific classical titles
(not just audiophile titles). The collector market exists because dealers
can (theoretically) buy low and sell incredibly high, 100:1 mark-up not
being at all unusual for obscure early titles or from the "golden age" of
tube-based recording, 1955-65 or so for stereo. There are literally
hundreds of specialist dealers out there foraging for collectable vinyl. I
know because I just researched a list of 500 specialist dealers for Primyl
Vinyl.

The LP era ended in part because the majors escalated the price of vinyl
while reducing the quality (using the oil shortage as an excuse), and
sales flattened as the sonically inferior (high speed duplication) but
cheaper cassette mass market grew. LP production was not easily automated,
required skilled labor, and consequently was frequently subject to
defective returns-all of which cut into the profit margin. The CD was
designed to replace both formats for economic rather than sonic reasons,
as Alan points out; the 16/44 CD standard was the mathematical minimum to
provide 20kHz bandwidth, playing time was determined by the Beethoven 9th,
the diameter by Japanese dashboard players.  

The cost of CD manufacture has plummeted, but this has not been reflected
at retail. Just how cheap CDs are to produce might be judged from the
activities of America On-Line, which has gone from including a CD-rom with
every computer magazine to bundling them with daily newspapers. CDs
production is readily automated, and the defect rate is either .01% or 99%
depending upon whether you can compare them with other formats (original
or audiophile reissue vinyl, analog tape, 20bit/96kHz digital, etc.). 

Audiophile vinyl, at $17-30 list per disk today, is vastly superior to the
typical 1980 LP that retailed for $10-14, and taking inflation and the
cost of originals into account, is a bargain. The Classic Records release
of Kind of Blue is an excellent example, including both right and wrong
speed versions plus a 45rpm alternative take, on dead quiet vinyl and
lustrous sound. To return to the subject of the thread, one reason vinyl
sounds better is because it is produced today by small, quality oriented
firms, and sound quality is the selling point.

-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Improved sound quality?!!! CD's sound like nails on a chalk board compared
to vinyl; particularly the early ones. I have never owned a CD player
because it would drive me out of the house with the sonic screech of
syntho sound that is suppose to represent the sound of real instruments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Yup. The CD is technological twilight right now, to be replaced by the
latest gee-whiz gimmick vying for consumer greenbacks, the "DVD". The
venerable, technologically superior LP will probably *still* kick the
DVD's ass, but that remains to be heard.<<

: Analog disc playback enjoyed a long and illustrious run, starting about
: 1902.  But any reasonable person has to admit that the old black disc
: is in the throes of death, and no amount of vinylphile howling at the
: moon is going to reverse the process.

I wouldn't hedge my bets. There's been a great resurgence in vinyl
lately and CD days we now know are *definitely* numbered.

: This is not to say that I don't enjoy records.  I own several thousand
: LP's, singles and 78's, so I'll always need a turntable or two. But I
: won't use convoluted reasoning to try to convince myself that somehow
: a superior technology is being buried.

Neither will I use hype and flawed reasoning to try to convince myself
that a CD player is really reproducing music more naturally when I can
damn well hear with my own two ears that the LP is light years ahead in
its natural rendition of music. So can others that I've tested.

: I submit that it was high time for the LP to go.	It was a mature
: technology, butting up against its insoluble limitations.

I submit that that is false and you are coming to preconceived foregone
conclusions about a medium you don't seem to know all that much about.
Mature yes, but typical LP play wasn't *nearly* at its optimum and
continues to be developed. The CD OTOH had built-in limitations from day
one and you can't do bugger all about that.

: There was little hope anyone was going to get better bandwidth, better S/N,
: less distortion, or better dynamic range from a stylus being dragged
: through an undulating groove.  What was needed was a quantum leap in
: technology. And that's where the CD came in.

All you're doing is breaking down some aspects of sonic fidelity into
little compartments without seeing all the pieces that make up music
reproduction - it's not just about three possible measurements.
Unfortunately, that's the mistake of the CD isn't it. It appears to be
based on those few measurements, and as long as they come out nice on
paper, people think that the CD must be perfect. No kidding they were
saying it was "perfect sound forever"! That also explains why CD gets some
aspects right and the sonic picture as a whole - wrong.

: When judged in terms of CD versus vinyl copy of the same source material,
: some will be so enamoured of the euphonic distortions of the vinyl medium
: that they will prefer it to the CD. However, when objectively evaluated
: in terms of which format offers a more accurate reproduction of the
: master tape, CD trounces vinyl, no contest.

According to who's standards? Yours? CD recording may offer the illusion of
accuracy, but the primary ingredient essential to the lifeblood of music
goes missing. That's what some have found when comparisons between analogue
and digital master recordings were made, such as during one of the
"objectively evaluated" Stereophile sessions. Consequently, that's not
dissimilar to what people find when they do analogue vs. digital playback
comparisons. Your views on the LP are limited by your biases and other
factors, so everyone has their own opinion on this. You just happen to
think that your standard's are everyone else's.

: But everytime I perform all the necessary anal-retentive rituals required
: to play a record, I wind up wishing it was available on CD - vinyl does
: make you jump through hoops to get merely acceptable sound. adrian.

This paragraph relates to my the foundation for some of your biases against
vinyl. You share that with many others. Those who truly can appreciate the
inherent superiority of natural vinyl sound over the typical 'canned' CD
rendition of music can also put up with the fussing about required. It
does not mean that I don't sympathize on that point. It just means that
I prefer musical accuracy more than convenience. When you pay several
thousand dollars for a CD player/system, that's really all that you
get - 'acceptable sound'. Again, this is going by *my* standards, which I
suspect are much higher than yours. So what I brush off as mediocre, you
may well consider to be near perfect sound according to your particular
experiences with audio. No mystery there.

Enter the LP!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stopped listening to my LPs when CDs came out in the mid-80s. Too
much trouble screwing around with the table and cartridge, too much
hassle cleaning and handling records. CDs seemed to sound great. They
were quiet and really easy to handle (and so darned cute). Best of
all, they played a lot longer before I had to get off my lazy butt to
change the album.

At the time, I had a sort of audiophile-wannabe system: Tandberg
preamp and amp, Sequerra's Pyramid loudspeakers, Denon DP60L
turntable, Denon 103D cartridge (later, a Monster Alpha One), Denon
HA-1000 head amp, and a brand-new Sony 507 ESD CD player. The speakers
had great potential, but were actually horrid. I can't remember the
model numbers (Met 10?, Met 7?), but they were built around a very
nice small bookshelf speaker, a hot ribbon tweeter, and a ghastly
woofer, all three stacked with velcro in one of the ugliest
configurations I've ever seen. The crossovers were absolutely
terrible. Also, the room was a bust and I had to keep the speakers way
in the corners, probably 15 feet apart, and one was behind (and near)
a woodstove. It was all I could do to get some good tones out of those
speakers, let alone imaging (in fact I had no idea what imaging was
until much later.) Suffice it to say that I spent hours horsing around
with a spectrum analyzer and equalizer to no avail.

I abandoned all that equipment, except the analog and digital front
ends, to my (appreciative) ex, and bought a pair of Mirage M3 speakers
(not Si's.) I drove 'em with an Adcom 565 preamp and biamped with a
pair of Adcom 555's. I also added an Aragon D2A DAC and relegated the
Sony to being a transport. The M3's were good speakers, but the system
still did not image very well. Every now and then (maybe once every
year or two), I would play an LP. "No comparison", I would think, and
happily return to CDs.

Finally, after many years, I put together a decent system. Not great,
but very decent. I replaced the M3s with Apogee MiniGrands, replaced
the Adcoms with Conrad Johnson gear (Premier 7b tube preamp -- a gem
-- and a pair of MF2200 solid state biamps), and got some decent
interconnects and speaker cables (Monster M1000 and Audioquest
Midnight.) I have a much better listening room, too. Now, at long
last, I understand the meaning of imaging (not to mention reasonably
accurate sound.)

Then, I dragged out my old turntable, which I had not used for several
years, took it apart, cleaned it out, replaced the interconnects,
screwed down some loose parts, remounted and aligned the cartridge and
tonearm, got rid of the headamp (the 7b has lots of gain), and played
a record.

                I could not believe my ears.

The last thing in the world that I wanted to discover was that my poor
old LPs, which I'd been dragging around with me -- unplayed -- for
years, sounded *much* better than my CDs. Sure, a really well recorded
CD of a fabulous performance will beat out an old Stones LP, but
comparing similar (or identical) high-quality material was a
revelation. The LPs sound fuller, more alive, richer, and the imaging
can be absolutely stupendous (depending on the album, of course.) Yes,
there's surface noise, clicks and pops, and some other artifacts. I
can see how some people think it's a matter of preferring the
coloration introduced by the imperfect LP system, but, even if it is,
why is the imaging so much better than my CDs?

My conclusion is that LPs are in fact capable of sounding better than
CDs, but your system needs to be pretty good in order to show it. It's
probably a combination of the system being good enough to reveal the
potential of the LP while also being good enough to reveal the flaws
of the CD. It may look like snob appeal when all the folks with really
expensive systems say they like LPs better, but I think it's really
because their equipment is good enough to reveal the truth. However,
my guess is that when the sampling rates increase, and the jitter and
other digital artifacts decrease, the difference will be much less
noticeable. For now, I think it has nothing to do with snob appeal. I
wish my LPs did not sound better!  They're a pain in the butt!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Arny Kr|ger wrote:
> I find it interesting that both writers focus on the high end of the audio
> spectrum, where audibility is controversial, when the "real" action is at
> the low end of the audio spectrum, where audbility (or at least reliable
> sensation) is a given.

> LP's can't possibly have decent response below 100 Hz because of the
> proximity of the tone arm/cartridge resonance. This resonance is moderately
> damped or undamped, and in the range of 3-30 Hz, and usually has an
> amplitude of many dB's. Because of its nature there are inherent deviations
> from flat response in LP's that can extend as high as several hundred Hz.

> Now folks can argue all day long about the audiblity of harmonics of
> musical program material above 15-20 kHz, but back in the real world, solid
> bass below 100 Hz strikes me as a wonderful feature that we can all
> appreciate.

I agree with Arny that low tight bass is a satisfying experience.  But
in my experience this is not compromised with a good analog system.
The double bass in jazz and symphonic music sounds just as deep on a
good analog system as on a digital system, and to my ears the analog
version has more lifelike timbre.

Now if you're talking about deep organ tones, like the huge 32 Hz
pipe, then I've never heard a good analog recording of that.  But I
have heard a good CD version.  Assuming this is a limitation of the
analog media (this is debatable -- anyone ready to post some good
analog organ recordings?)  then the real question is what you're
willing to sacrifice for that kind of bass.

There is a distinct difference between the way good analog sounds and
the way good digital sounds, and it is audible mostly in the upper
midrange and high frequencies.  And it is a testament to the lifelike
sound of good analog mids and highs, that good CD players are often
complimented as having an "analog sounding top end".

Whether it is worth sacrificing this to get bass down to subsonic
frequencies is a subjective issue.  It would be nice to have both but
I've never heard any system that can do both.  So again it all comes
down to the preferences of the listener and the type of music being
played.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drifter,

My own $0.02 goes like this.  LPs, for the most part, sound better than CDs.  
If the album was mastered and produced with any care, a good LP playback rig 
will do the music more justice than a CD could ever do.  The problem is that 
you have to spend more money on a turntable/tonearm/cartridge combo than you 
would on a CD player.  The short version is this... If you have $500 - 600 to 
spend on a turntable, you will be able to have much better sound than from 
your basic mass produced CD player.  LPs also require a lot of TLC.  It seems 
from my reading these newsgroups, the younger generation can't be bothered 
with having to properly handle and care for records.  CDs are so much easier 
to deal with in this respect. To vinyl junkies like me, it's a labor of love 
playing a record.  Try listening to the entry level SOTA, VPI or Rega 
turntables and make your own decision on which format pleases you the most.
There are some reasonably priced CD playback rigs that can give vinyl a run 
for it's money.  Marantz 63SE comes to mind and so does some of the Audio 
Alchemy products.  I heard that AA is having problems so check availabilty.

As for your friends assertion that thicker vinyl is always better, well I 
don't think that holds true in every instance.  What he was probably referring 
to is the MoFi half-speed mastered, Nautilus direct to disc and EMI heavy 
vinyl releases, etc.  While these products have every opportunity to sound 
better, they don't always succeed at doing so.  Critics will agree that some 
of the MoFi releases sounded worse than their original release (thin vinyl) 
counterparts.  Others sounded much better.  Vinyl/stereo nuts would have me 
remind you that you have to adjust your tonarms vertical tracking angle when 
spinning the thick stuff too.  

What you should watch out for is music that is being peddled as "audiophile".  
Sometimes what you end up with is mediocre music recorded extremely well.  I 
don;t know too many people who would be proud of that purchase.  I am not 
recommending that you steer clear of audiophile releases, just use some 
caution and maybe look for a review of the LP/CD first.  

One thing I do when buying LPs is to make sure I am buying the original 
release of that LP and not a re-issue.  As a general rule, re-issues just 
don't seem to have the impact that the original had.  I don't know what kind 
of music you listen to, but if you are into rock, try comparing the original 
Decca release of Who's Next to any of the later re-issues.  The Decca wins 
hands down.  If you like Genesis, compare the original Charisma FC6060 version 
of Selling England by the pound the later Atlantic re-issue.  The Charisma 
creams it by a mile. These are just two examples I can think of off the top of 
my head.  The original issues can be harder to find and may be in worse shape, 
but it's worth the effort to search for a clean original.

Good luck.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I originally said:
>  A well processed CD reissue from first generation masters, played through
>  a decent machine, will beat the LP version at least 99% of the time.
> 
>  "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
> 
> >This is totally false.  Which one sounds better depends on two factors -
> >how the CD or record was mastered, and the quality of the playback
> >equipment.  I have heard lousy CD's and lousy LP's. I have heard lousy
> >CD players and lousy record players.
> 
> >You ought to listen to a top notch LP playback system, some of them can
> >still reproduce the 'magic' :)
> 
> I knew I'd get a rise out of someone.  Yes, I have heard a top notch LP
> playback system, and it can sound excellent.  But for a hefty price, plus
> the extreme care you must expend on maintaining your LP surface as
> pristine as possible.  For the more average person with a more average
> budget, I stand by by original statement, which by the way you first
> denied as totally false and then seemed to validate.

I validated nothing.  A Rega Planar Three will be more musical & more
enjoyable to listen to than many similarly priced CD Players.

Your 99% figure is total bullshit.  50%, I'll buy into, but 99 just
won't do as Wilson Picket sang :)
Zip
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For the past 15 years vinyl collectors everwhere have claimed that
the reason for continuing to collect vinyl is because of the superiority
of analog recordings.  No, I'm not here to claim that CD's have a better
sound, but rather to question whether our love for vinyl is deeper than
just sound quality.  Imagine this:  15 Years ago instead of coming out
with a brand new 5" digital CD, what if they had come out with a 5"
compact disc with analog  grooves?? Would we still be so interested in
collecting Vinyl?? I think yes.
       I'm part of the CD generation, being exactly as old as they are
(right down to the month), but vinyl has always been  the medium of choice
for me when it comes to sound. Not only because of the sound, but also
because vinyl has that special .... something.  With vinyl you are in
controll of the music, there is no mystery involved.  All of the working
parts are right before your eyes.   With a record, if you want to listen
to a part 30 seconds into the second trac, you simply drop the needle
there.  With CD's however, you have to skip to the second trac, and then
Fast Forward untill the 30 sec. mark.  With vinyl there is no need for
mechanical help everthing is (or can be done) manually.  CD's require
mechanical help -- ain't no way you gonna reach in there and move the
laser by hand.  Vinyl requires TLC to stay in good condition, and it also
takes a good deal of responsibility.  Any Joe can keep a CD collection in
good playing condition, but listen to his vinyl and you'll know how much
he really cares about his music collection.
      That is why I think vinyl has become what it has today, not because
of the sound quaity, but because of the thrill of spinning a new record
for the first time.  All my friends know that I can't hear the music
unless I can watch the Turntable spin (well -- kinda).
     I'm glad CD's were digital, or we collectors may have totally been
out of luck. 
Just my take on things -- Alex
**********************************************************************

>I put in about 25 years hard time in a world where there was really no
>viable alternative to vinyl. 

There was an alternative... open-reel tape, the REAL audiophile
analogue medium.  I still have a couple dozen Barclay-Crockers that I
keep on hand... to show vinyl tweeks how good analog can REALLY
sound!!  >;-)

*********************************************************************