Larry Kellogg said:
I think vinyl is different than CD, not always better or worse, just different. I think too much is made of declaring something as the winner. I don't believe vinyl playback or film is going to disappear from the planet tomorrow.
Exactly right. Regardless of what silly alleged audiophiles will tell you, no vinyl record that has ever been pressed is "better" than the CD made from the same source. Not even the first time you play the record, when its virginal and hasn't begun to lose fidelity due to wear, is it "better" than the CD. It loses on every single count, in a physics and acoustics sense. But, it does have a different sound, and some people (including me) sometimes prefer it. They just shouldn't fall into the trap of claiming it's better.
With cameras it's opposite but the same: digital camera sensors lose (though not by much anymore, on the high end), if you compare apples-to-apples (ie, high MP with good glass to a film/glass combo that gives you a rough equivalent in lpm). They simply aren't capable of capturing the same range, yet, particularly on the high end (the dreaded blown highlights). A good sensor will do better than crap film behind a plastic lens, but that's not apples-to-apples.
But, just like some people enjoy vinyl because it sounds "organic" (ie, it crackles and pops, or maybe one is hypersensitive to the vibrations caused by the mechanism itself), and some people prefer CD because it is more accurate; various people have different opinions about the different qualities of film and digital.
It makes for a good discussion but a bad argument, same as vinyl vs CD, because once it becomes an argument people want to "prove" their subjective response to a stimuli by inventing spurious facts.
