I also prefer the sound of jazz vinyl from the late 50s through the mid-70s. 

I have never thought/considered one thing better than the other ... for example, if I take 4 recordings of Le Sacre du Printemps by different conductors, you end up enjoying the interpretations at various instances in the music, and I am not sure that having it recorded for vinyl, or digital, would make a difference, and this was experimented with one conductor (Stokowski) that was famous for changing the orchestra's sitting positions to better illustrate what he wanted to detail in his conducting ... this was not exactly done, even later, though things kinda changed to something he brought out ... how different instrument combinations made the music so different, and you can see this in how Bernard Herrmann used his own combination of instruments to create some really far out stuff, specially the Sci-Fi materials.

To me, music has a visual, and it doesn't matter if it is vinyl or a CD ... the same visual is still there and Steven Wilson making it look like the instruments were placed differently, didn't exactly improve anything for me ... it only felt unnecessary, although many of the artists, thought it was neat, as it brought up a "new" way of recording, more or less, that was not available 50 years ago ... but if it changes the music ... I'm not sure that is a good thing, though sometimes different interpretations have a tendency to throw us off ... and I have a really good example here ... find the best "tenors" from the 20th century and play one aria from TOSCA ... and you will find that the voices really throw you off, and that the conductor details of the specific recording ... kinda made you feel different about how it came out ... which for opera is a good thing as it livens it up some more, something that a lot of rock music can not do, or won't do! And it being vinyl or CD won't matter at all ... the voice itself (and the music) carries it to your heart, not the medium!

I think we have to separate the MEDIUM from the MESSAGE, to use an idea used for something else ... the medium is the recording ... the message is the music itself, and I have not felt that the MESSAGE changed because it was done in digital, instead of analog ... 

Hi,

I think that I am coming to the conclusion that the folks that are thinking the analog recordings are better, are folks that never had a good listen with an outstanding system. I got, in 1976 a Pioneer Turntable and a Stanton cartridge ($350 then!!!!!) and it lasted 30 more years ... but the kicker was I had a massive receiver and ESS Heil AMT 1 speakers, which means that in terms of listening to anything I was in the top 10% or so ... more or less. Listening to the stuff on a system like this made your heart melt ... and my first comment about Apple (specially!!!) in the early days, was that the digital stuff on their website was crap ... very cheap mp3 type quality, which a lot of stuff these days is still given/sold cheaply ... I bought an album on bandcamp and the mp3 was low quality ... and this is the digital that folks are hearing, and of course, the analog sounds better, but in the end, it also says something IMPORTANT about the music itself ... why are you worrying about digital or analog, and not talking about the music itself?

The music should live (as in living!), be it live or memorex (as it used to advertise!) and in this case analog or digital ... is not important ... the creator only had one "vision" (so to speak), and what the argument suggests is that the creator is an idiot and would not know the difference in his mind and gut when composing things! It's an argument that is insane, and lacks respect ... for the artistry of the music ... 

On top of it ... we're talking about something AFTER the event itself ... and we think one is better than the other ... which I prefer to say that listening is no longer a priority ... being told by some goon is!