The vinyl vs digital is best compaired like a painting vs a photo of an event. The painting is not accurate, the photo is. But some will still think the painting is more beautifull than the photo, even if it's not accurate. It's not accuracy they want, but a nice view. Here on this forum most want accuracy, so you may not get the point, but that does not matter. Go listen digital and leave the vinyl for those "idiots" who love it (i'm one of them btw) and don't care that much about accuracy if it sounds good to the ears.
The photo/painting analogy is a good one! I'm surprised I don't remember seeing it before.
Keeping in mind we are talking broad generalizations, and from the point of view of someone enthusiastic about the sound of vinyl....
The way I'd take the analogy further is:
I grew up drawing and painting and also went to school for film and photography. I've long noticed the "advantages" paintings seem to have over photography. The very artifice and materials involved often makes paintings more vivid than photography. I always find this too when I go to art museums.
I love the photographs, but they always look somewhat pallid compared to many of the paintings which look much more rich and vivid. A couple of reasons I surmise this to be the case: Contrast. The contrast of a photo is often highly limited to the contrast of the film used for the photo, and to the photo paper etc. Photos on paper generally have a relatively low dynamic range (which is why photos look more vivid on many higher contrast monitors).
Whereas the painting isn't mediated or limited by the dynamic range of film or paper. The artist chooses a deep black paint and bright white highlights and they are as black/white as the paint, nothing taken away. So you can have very large ranges of contrast in paintings - you are staring directly at the materials used so it has a very vivid, immediate effect. Also of course, the texture of brush strokes can add more sense of detail or textural immediacy.
I'm often struck at how, with one of those great old paintings, it's like you can walk right in to the frame it's so immediate and "there," vs the photos that appear more flat and almost hazy in comparison.
In fact, my best friend growing up is an incredible artist, a painter, who paints still scenes. He finds intriguing areas of buildings - a hallway, an exterior corner etc, takes photos, and paints from the photos, in an almost photo-realistic way. The difference between looking at the original photos and his painting is amazing. The photos look flat and 2 dimensional. The paintings are so vivid it's more like you are peering right in to a hallway, or examining the crust on the side of a barn.
So to the analogy: The photograph he is painting from may be more accurate, and may even contain some level of detail he missed. But the end result of the painting process, even though you can spot the artificiality if you want (brush strokes) feels more vivid, more like the real thing...or just more pleasing.
This is analogous to what I have often perceived when comparing vinyl to my digital music: I can hear the slightly higher accuracy in the digital, and I can note some ways the vinyl departs, but there is a texture and tone to the vinyl which can feel more vivid, more "there" and more "convincing" more "solid" in that aspect, to my brain. (Again...not always....but often enough that I enjoy it).
www.wideopencountry.com
