>And frankly, I'm glad I don't. And I doubt that 90% of the
>people who say they do, really do. One of these days I'm
>going to dream up a way to do a test and get a definitive
>answer. Like people who claim they can hear the difference
>between



there are double blind studies out there to test audiophiles ear.
they didn't do it for vinyl vs. other media,
but they did do it for high end vs. low end equipment.


most of the time, folks couldn't tell the difference.




i will say i can tell the difference sometimes.
my vinyl copies of "purple rain" sound better than the CD copies.
my vinyl copy of MJ's "bad" sounds better than the CD pressing.


i actually prefer the remastered version of "let it bleed" over
the vinyl copy. same goes for "abbey road". these copies seem "brighter."



whether or not this is all in my head, i will never know.
i've never taken part in a double blind study.
but i try to be as "objective" as i can about these things.


i think that there IS a difference between vinyl and mp3s,
but i usually don't notice. for example, the bass line to "billie jean" sounds best
on the 12" single version, on vinyl.
it doesn't seem to kick the same way when i play it in digital formats.
that may be because my vinyl setup is better than my mac setup, though.


anyway, if i can hear a difference on SOME records,
i have to assume that somewhere, there is a difference.



mp3s sound just fine to me though. especially
when i play them in the car or on my iPod at the gym.
that being said, i love the ritual associated with playing vinyl,
and sometimes, i buy new music on vinyl.
but not because it sounds better... there are just certain albums
that i want to own on vinyl b/c they are the type of album i like to listen to
when i'm playing vinyl.

"continuum" and "my beautiful dark and twisted fantasy" just FEEL like albums
that should be on vinyl. i do have my digital copies on my iPod, though.
just because of the conveinence. they sound just fine either way, IMO.