Just a note, as a vinyl audiophile, on why audiophiles continue to buy vinyl since the article barely speaks to it.
Vinyl records are a pain in the posterior to maintain. But with a good turntable and high-end audio setup the resolution, immersion, and palpability of music from a record still can't be matched even by loseless digital formats played through the best DACs. I wait for the best digital gear to sound as good or better than my turntable setup. Ain't happened yet but digital continues to improve and is getting close.
My guess is that vinyl would be useful only if the recording was made using analog equipment.
If a band records using computer/digital equipment, I'd rather have the original/lossless stereo or surround mixdown wave/flac files.
"high-quality 256 Kbps audio" is an oxymoron. Unfortunately, we are raising a generation of listeners who really can't tell the difference, or can and prefer the lower-quality sound that they are used to.
@Nick_C Chances are you wont hear the difference on the el-cheapo crap quality speakers/headphones/earbuds that are so common today. But if played on a high quality audiophile system like tmshdw has (and like I have) - you CAN tell the difference.
Id love to see what amazon produces for the SACD titles I bought over the past few years
@kittle - so you claim. Can you be sure that you are not simply suffering from justification bias having spent so much on the system? Any testing that is not double blind may suffer from pre-disposition bias from participants.
Yeah got an email from them saying I could download the Jimi Hendrix album I bought from them on vinyl. Cool concept, but I would much rather just torrent higher quality files of the albums I already bought for when I need them on the go.