>>45948893>vinyl has better sound qualityYes, but the average listener probably can't hear the difference. Play a CD on a good set of linear sounding speakers (real stuff that costs hundreds, not muh $50-100 consumer shit) and I doubt they're gonna hear any improvement on the vinyl record.
>>withstand the time way better than cdsThis is outright wrong. Vinyl records warp and melt in heat. Granted it takes a lot of heat, but still happens.
>>45948877The real advantage vinyl has is that you don't have to worry about the same lossy compression you get with CDs because Vinyl isn't digital media. But nobody is gonna hear that unless they're an audio professional or have high quality headphones or speakers (I mean studio monitors and the like, not Beats shit and whatever other "professional" consumer grade trash people buy). There's also the issue of how your speakers colour the sound. 20-30 years ago people used big speakers that lacked mids and highs, now a lot of speakers lack lows and mids, or just have recessed mids where the frequency response is a V shape. This actually affects how music is mixed, that's why music had very boosted treble in the 80's and 90's, it was to offset the lack of highs in the speakers. How the speakers colour the sound will be way more important than the vinyl vs digital issue.
Basically, the way the music is mixed and the quality of the listening environment is way more important than anything else considering 44.1 KHz sample rates contain all the frequencies the human ear can hear, and it'll take a trained ear to actually hear differences between mediums (besides tape, but that's a whole other issue).
The reason why a vinyl record will probably sound better is because of the older speaker style with the big ass woofers and the quality of the CD (as in sample rate and bit rate, as well as general .mp3 compression). If you're listening to uncompressed digital audio, it's not gonna sound too different depending on how you listen to it.
