The honest case for digital

I am a vinyl lover, which is exactly why I owe digital its full case before I disagree with any of it. And it is a strong case.

Objectively, digital has higher fidelity, with wider frequency and dynamic range and none of a needle's physical limits in a groove. It does not wear, there is no surface noise, no pops, no crackles, and millions of songs sit on your phone, heard as the artist mastered them. Many modern records are cut from digital masters anyway.

The vinyl chain is not as pure as its fans claim, either. Bass has to be limited at the cutting stage so the needle does not jump, and the highs are boosted by up to 20 dB during cutting and pulled back down during playback, which adds noise. The stylus has mass and cannot track perfectly, especially on the inner grooves.

Here is where I stop agreeing. Digital is measurably more accurate to the master tape, but the chain is not neutral: the conversion, the filtering and the reconstruction of the waveform all add their own character. It's not a transparent window despite the marketing claims, and on a revealing system with carefully curated records, the record is still the one I find more convincing.

Digital wins the argument on paper and most evenings on the sofa. It just does not win the claim that it adds nothing.