And maybe this is exactly why vinyl is popular, it's nothing to do with sound quality (despite what people might even tell themselves), there is a tactile feel to vinyl and a sense of being part of a club that is different to us proles that are happy with computer based audio (or, shudder, even CD's).
This, again, goes back to my first post where I pointed out that people are generally poor at psychoanalyzing someone else's choice that they don't understand. So for instance, JJB70, it seems you are so keenly aware of the technical deficiencies of vinyl that you presume someone else won't *really* have "sound quality" among their reasons for choosing vinyl.
But they can. And they do.
I've already explained why I have often preferred many of my vinyl records over digital. Vinyl often sounds different, and if you *enjoy* that difference, it's a nice place to visit. Even if one also enjoys digital like I do.
I'm not lying when I say this. It's an honest report of what I believe I perceive. (And in my case it doesn't come with any claim of vinyl's technical accuracy).
If you really want to understand the popularity of something, you should listen to what people actually tell you as to why they are buying it.
Over and over you, from young to old vinyl buyers, you will see reference to a preference for the sound of vinyl - constantly mentioning the "warmth" of the sound, and other purported attributes. I've read so many articles where vinyl buyers young and old have said when they play vinyl it sounds "more life-like" "I heard things I didn't hear before" and "it just sounds better/nicer."
The fact that their appraisals of vinyl sound quality may be mixed in with all sorts of error - e.g. faulty technical understandings of analog and digital, as well as sheer listener bias expecting vinyl to sound 'better' for one bad reason or another - may often be the case. But that's an entirely different issue from the actual motivations they believe they have. Many *are* motivated by their belief that to them vinyl "sounds better" or that they prefer the sound.
What I object to is the Fremer's, Guttenberg's, Darko's etc of this world pushing all sorts of spin and bollox to try and pretend a choice based on a perfectly reasonable personal preference for how something feels or looks (or just wanting expensive stuff) is sonically superior.
Agreed that Fremer et all push irritating B.S. about vinyl.
However, again, I personally think it would be conceptually cleaner to replace your last phrase "sonically superior" with "more accurate."
Because the phrase "sonically superior" is most often used to denote how something sounds to human beings (because "superior" is a value term). In which case, someone can make a case for vinyl tending to be "sonically superior" insofar as it does certain desirable things sonically, whether more accurate or not. Again, see my previous discussion using EQ and mastering to deviate from the original in accuracy, yet arrive at something people would generally agree to be "sonically superior" or "better sound."
I have been told by one or two members that "sonically superior" here is used to denote technical accuracy, not subjective impressions in how something actually sounds. That is fine as far as it goes; one can make clear arguments so long as one defines one's terms.
It just seems to me, though, to be unnecessary. Why use a term that has different connotations attached to it than the one you want to give it, and hence risk confusion, rather than simply using a more direct term like "accurate?"