Topic: Comparing original vinyl to digitized versions

[it-goes-to-eleven]

For those of you who have made an effort to 'rip' your vinyl using a high quality workflow, what sort of differences have you been able to discern when comparing the original vinyl to your high quality digital version?

Doing a blind test of this would be difficult without help.

[Gutbucket]

The obvious and overwhelming difference is a massive loss of hipster cred.  There is no lossless transfer for coolness. 

[Fried Chicken Boy]

The obvious and overwhelming difference is a massive loss of hipster cred.  There is no lossless transfer for coolness. 

Having worked in the mecca of hipster-dom (Williamsburg, Brooklyn) for several years, reading this made my drink just shoot out of my nose.

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

For those of you who have made an effort to 'rip' your vinyl using a high quality workflow, what sort of differences have you been able to discern when comparing the original vinyl to your high quality digital version?

Doing a blind test of this would be difficult without help.

The mastering of the vinyl is (usually) a lot better than the CD/MP3 mastering. The CD version usually suffers from the loudness war mastering.

I prefer to listen to the vinyl version when I'm at home, but in the car I prefer the CD version since I'm battling road noise.

[audBall]

The obvious and overwhelming difference is a massive loss of hipster cred.  There is no lossless transfer for coolness. 

Well, you could always transfer at a really low bit-depth and sample rate to make it "lo-fi".  Hipsters will surely be more accommodating once these measures are taken. 

[Fried Chicken Boy]

^^ Wrong.  For the hipsters to truly appreciate a "lo-fi" format, it would have to be on cassette tape. 

[Chilly Brioschi]

For those of you who have made an effort to 'rip' your vinyl using a high quality workflow, what sort of differences have you been able to discern when comparing the original vinyl to your high quality digital version?

Doing a blind test of this would be difficult without help.

The mastering of the vinyl is (usually) a lot better than the CD/MP3 mastering. The CD version usually suffers from the loudness war mastering.

Let's agree to disagree (perhaps even strongly) on this issue.
Vinyl's range and mechanical limitations heavily constrain a properly mastered vinyl pressing.
I was taught this at IAR in the mid-seventies, and although newer (slightly) better cartridges allow a bit more resolution, it can never be the flat, broad spectrum which digital provides.

You are 100% right about loudness wars on CD and digitally-compressed materiel.
Worse is the mastering for the digital version that gets applied to the CD release for cost control.

The simple truth is that people like vinyl better because it is easier on the ears.
The analog RIAA EQ curve has an interesting psychoacoustic effect that some people enjoy:



Let's face it, vinyl IS fun, but I'm worried that it may hurt the MP3 industry.
If we stick to one format, it becomes better and less expensive over time.                   
 

[H₂O]

^^ Wrong.  For the hipsters to truly appreciate a "lo-fi" format, it would have to be on cassette tape. 

+T

Hipsters don't buy vinyl - they buy cassettes!!!