Sorry I missed this when first posted. But it needs a response. You say "the resolution is far beyond what the human ear can discern" as though that were undisputed science, which I should simply have looked up. But that is not the case.
You listen to two recordings of a high-hat. One CD, and one high quality analog such as pristine vinyl. And then you tell me you cannot discern the compression on a cd in comparison to vinyl. It's in the highest frequencies that the redbook cd format creates the most audible distortion. (Vinyl has issues too, obviously - but different ones.) But nobody could reasonably claim that redbook CDs are undistorted while vinyl is distorted. Both formats distort sound.
If you can't hear the difference, that's fine, but let's not pretend it is a scientific fact that CDs are somehow "accurate."
Edit: to be clear, I am not talking about frequency (highs and lows), I am talking about frame-rate. And I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible in "digital sound reproduction" I am talking about what is implemented in the standard format for audio CDs sold today.
Regarding reel-to-reel, I bet you're right! But it's not for me.
If you grew up in the era of records, I dare you to go find a record of one of your favorite recordings that you currently listen to on cd.... go find the record and listen to it. I dare you.
There are plenty of reasons to listen to vinyl and it's fine if you are doing it to be hip. I do it because of the sound quality. CDs were invented in the 1980s. The digital resolution is simply not very high. Remember what the first digital cameras looked like next to film? That's the CD next to vinyl. And MP3s and AACs are so much worse.
It's like comparing a compressed JPG to an Ansel Adams print on a gallery wall.
In theory newer digital audio formats should be able to get a lot closer to the sound quality of analog soundwaves perfectly preserved in wax and traced by a diamond needle. But I've not heard a digital format yet that quite captures it. Hopefully one day there will be. But we're not there yet, not to my ears.
Listening to digital formats is wonderfully convenient but you are simply hearing a pixelated approximation of your music. You're trading audible detail and richness for convenience. That's no crime.
But if you love music, I mean LOVE it, you owe it to yourself to give vinyl a try.
I do the same. But I've figured out it's a leftover habit from the olden days when macs used to crash all the time. I kept my mouse moving to know there was still LIFE beneath that screen. Pointer used to freeze when the system did. God, I'm old.
You listen to two recordings of a high-hat. One CD, and one high quality analog such as pristine vinyl. And then you tell me you cannot discern the compression on a cd in comparison to vinyl. It's in the highest frequencies that the redbook cd format creates the most audible distortion. (Vinyl has issues too, obviously - but different ones.) But nobody could reasonably claim that redbook CDs are undistorted while vinyl is distorted. Both formats distort sound.
If you can't hear the difference, that's fine, but let's not pretend it is a scientific fact that CDs are somehow "accurate."
Edit: to be clear, I am not talking about frequency (highs and lows), I am talking about frame-rate. And I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible in "digital sound reproduction" I am talking about what is implemented in the standard format for audio CDs sold today.
Regarding reel-to-reel, I bet you're right! But it's not for me.
If you grew up in the era of records, I dare you to go find a record of one of your favorite recordings that you currently listen to on cd.... go find the record and listen to it. I dare you.