You mustn’t have been paying attention then? 
I’d say the progress of vinyl playback systems of the last 5-10 years are very, very impressive. At least the ones i have experienced.
And, yes, the tapes (if in good shape, and stored properly) would be a better bet, but i suspect they are very hard to come by? However, the state of the art tape machinery havent changed since digital threw them overbord in the 80’s…
The Studer, Otari, Telefunken etc still rule the roost!
There is some info on the business of this in this article, though its main topic is a different one:
I just look at the site (which is a mixture).
But now I get the point.
Just as you say I think a lot is about the masters and their dynamic range.
Dif you watch the recent Darko video? His rip of the vinyl had greater dynamic range than the high res download!
I admit, I haven’t been paying attention to improvements in obsolete areas.
Well, since 16-bit greatly exceeds the dynamic range of vinyl, that should be taken up with the engineers that master digital.
But then again, I’m not sure why dynamic range should be an audiophile obsession. Not only does it depend on the music, isn’t it just an “m” word?
Blame the loudness wars.
But ‘How much dynamic range do you want?’ is a really good question.
Particularly since along with many others I spend lots of time with compressors getting mixes to sit together well!
And once more: who cares. Yes, it would be possible to master differently for digital (and with more dynamic range than vinyl) but that doesn’t help if it isn’t done and the better master is only available on vinyl.
Of course it depends on the music - if it’s compressed on purpose, then it’s OK. The problem arises when it gets mastered in a compressed way although the orginal wasn’t, and/or against the artist’s intention. I know that you have heard of the loudness war.
Removing dynamic from music where it should exist does not improve fidelity.
Apparently Darko does.
It’s not only that. Even if you do zero dynamic compression, some tracks will/ought to be more dynamic than others. Take the piano vs. harpsichord again. It’s likely you’ll produce more dynamic range with the former when playing the same piece, all else being equal.
But a particular track’s dynamic range is not a measure of fidelity per se, is it? Maximum dynamic range of a medium/encoding is. The more dynamic range you have at your disposal, the wider the range of sources you can capture faithfully. With a cap of about 70dB, vinyl is not exactly the best medium for fidelity.
My point is that the theoretically better source is no help if its advantage is not used and the theoretically worse one is practically better (in some cases) because of the recording it actually contains.
It’s not about what the instrument can express but whether you compress or limit its recorded sound artificially. You can do that with either and hence change how they sound
Of course not. The measure for fidelity is how close the track’s recording is to the natural sound of the instrument (or closer to the artist’s original intention, in the case of non-natural instruments)
Of course, but “can” is not the same as “do”
Dynamic range normally (in this context - of course there is also another, technical, one where it does) does not refer to the absolute maximum difference that the medium can express but to the limiting of the loudness difference inherent to the played music within a track or album.
To avoid confusion, I would use the term “dynamic range” for the measured dB value (of a medium, track etc.) and “dynamic range compression” for the action of limiting dynamic range.
Perhaps there’s an opening if you’re looking for employment. 
Did it? I thought he said that Roon’s analysis said they were both the same. DR 5. Did I misread that?
Who we gonna trust? Roon, on the Roon Forum? Or some offbrand DR measuring software? Pretty big difference between DR 13 and DR 5.
I would say compression obviously limits the dynamic range, I don’t see any confusion there
Hello fellow Roonies! This is my first post…on a debate that feels like it’s age old, even if not.
Sometimes I think we think too scientifically, and rationality is only a little part of our story. I have a record player, enjoy vinyl, and of course enjoy my high-resolution audio via Roon. But if we just focus on the technical differences between them - and indeed come to the conclusion that high-resolution audio flat-out sounds better than vinyl in most situations - we lose the thread imo.
I don’t think dynamic range, or any other such concepts, play a roll in a regular music lover’s life. They don’t know what it means or care (and are probably better for it). They hear what they like and listen more. Vinyl has big art, it’s fun to drop the needle and thrilling to hear the results of the mechanical process of throwing a record on. It’s noisy, but the noise can also be considered a positive in this case. I think it reminds people that there is a real, living, breathing artifact in front of them. With high-resolution streaming (or any streaming), that is replaced by just cold, hard computer parts without any of the romance.
To me, the better question is always “Why do people stream Spotify onto little portable wireless speakers?” or “Why do people stream Spotify?”
And as this is my first post, I’m not about degrading anyone else, only adding to the conversation. This is one I haven’t had in a little while. 
Wanted to add: Concerts are maybe the best place to listen to music imo because of the community aspect and the visceral energy and emotion behind it. Does one tell everyone to shut up at a Sleater-Kinney show because you have to have a low noise floor to enjoy music? C’mon. 
I only get that feeling when listening to Kraftwerk. I’m into computer parts though so I love it anyway.
Well, it’s free, and smaller things are more portable than bigger ones. Anyway, I think they stream music, not “Spotify”.
My hearing is forever impaired because of that.
One of the things about laserdisc was that there was a a very small rental market. In terms of technical quality, laserdisc was significantly better than vhs, but just try renting a laserdisc outside of a major metro market.
I am a baby boomer and had accumulated around a 1,000 LPs by the time compact discs were launched in 1983 in Australia.
I had a very intense love-hate relationship with vinyl records. Apart from taking up a lot of space, they required careful storage and even more careful handling. There was a rang of lotions and cleaners to ensure that they did not attract and retain dust or that any residual dust would be removed during play. Then there was the question of the stylus and replacing it after so many plays. Yet with all the care in the world, you could never totally avoid the unexpected snap, crackle and pop at the time least expected.
As soon as the CD was released in Australia, I paid an extraordinary price for a player and the discs were not particularly cheap either. However, I was soon convinced of the superiority of the digital format. The final test for me was listening to third movement of Shostakovich Symphony No 5 - the epitome of quietness with firstly flutes and then oboe playing above a muted string accompaniment. Not a suggestion of rumble or hiss or the dread of a random crackle and no artificial volume boosting and compression of sound that was required on the vinyl disc. The music emerged from total silence with some passages audible - yet barely so: a totally different experience from hearing the same passage on vinyl.
Yes, there were some dreadful glary and poorly digitised discs in the early days and some quite shoddy remasterings of analogue recordings that were no better, or perhaps, even worse than the vinyl releases.
I have never had the slightest desire to return to vinyl records! In the end, each to his own.
Darko probably wasn‘t bothered to RTFM and overlooked to set the, btw not-so-offbrand, MAAT dynamic range meter software to EBU mode when comparing to Roon‘s readings, but used the crest factor setting instead - HiFi bloggers/journalists, should better double-check on what they‘re broadcasting into the world…
I think it’s about:
Vinyl Nostalgia – Ritual – an event – tactical – Album Art – more senses engages - trendy! …
Hype that Vinyl sound better, more organic, digital is just samples of analogue so is inferior!!!
Only yesterday I had this conversation with a very close friend.
CD/digital files IMHO are superior on spec and to my ear… no turning back to vinyl for me.
However, … we come back to mastering and at times dynamic range of vinyl can sound better that a poor mp3/digital delivery!!!
All that said what ever rocks your world … if distortion and format flavours are your thing then that’s fine.