Does vinyl only make sense if they're pressed from analog tapes? If it's pressed from a digital master, is it kind of pointless? Aside from any arguments for preferring having your music on a physical format, looking at large artwork, etc., which are valid arguments, I'm looking at it only from a purely sonic perspective. I catch myself occasionally thinking that vinyl really is a pointless medium if the album was tracked digitally then pressed from a digital master, that the medium really only makes sense if pressed from analog tapes. But that leaves out most new releases. There are some albums that are still being tracked to tape, but more often than not, they're tracked to tape then dumped into protools for preservation. You still get the tape sound, but the all analog chain has been changed to analog --> digital. However tape was a part of the tracking process...so it's preserved. If you knew that an album was tracked in this matter, yet was pressed from a digital master, does that affect your thoughts on purchasing the record? I also know that there are new converters on the market that are so good that they actually sound as if everything was tracked to tape while tracking 100% digitally to protools. That raises an interesting question because a lot of studios are slowly transitioning to these new converters. They get an amazing euphonic, tape-like sound but without actually using any tape or having to deal with hiss. I have some of these albums recorded this way and they sound fantastic on vinyl. But is that pointless? Should I just not bother with the format and stick with FLAC? Sometimes I wonder if vinyl itself is imposing it's own sonic characteristics that are somewhat hard to describe. To me vinyl has a very "smooth" sonic property that's hard to pinpoint. Your thoughts?