A lot of confusion here...
The lossy / lossless debate is relevant when comparing digital files - some being lossy, i.e. using psychoacoustic algorithms to eliminate some low volume frequencies at some times, like MP3) and some being lossless (I.e. pure digital samples without such compression, e.g. FLAC files or Redbook CD).
Vinyl is analog, not digital. By proper digitalisation with both appropriate horizontal resolution (>40khz, since we can't hear above 20khz, and Shannon tells us to use a sampling frequency at least twice the max) and vertical resolution (16 bits with proper dither like properly produced CDs, or 24 bits), you will restitute perfectly all the audio information contained in the original vinyl. Of course if you use proper equipment along the way, and especially a good Analog/Digital Converter.
Vinyl can definitely sound very good, but digital can do just as good. The vinyl revival is emotional and artistic (nice 12'' art covers) but not rational.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. There some seem to be this romance to hang on to older technologies. It’s a bit like photographer and a resurgence in film. Not saying it’s wrong, just interesting.
www.ianlewisphoto.co.uk
Actually old technologies still rock.
Vinly has very good sound qualities, can restitute sounds up to 50khz which is more than enough.
Cassette recorders are less good (up to 18khz) but far from ridiculous. The DS bootleg from Paris 1981.06.17 recorded on a Sony TCD-5m has little to envy to modern digital.
Traditional photography works great.
Digital is superior, no that much in quality, but in practicality of recording / playback and above all distribution. A digital copy is identical to the master one, even from the 1000th generation. Anlog copies degrade with generation.
But analog is by no means primitive - our ears and eyes are analog ! Are we primitive ? Well, maybe
