Maybe if they had a functional vinyl rig running in the store, they'd have some demand. But why do that, when it would mean they'd have to do setup, and educate the user? It's alot easier to just sell them an expensive CD player which would be embarrassed sonically by the presence of nearly any record player in the store. If I made my living by selling expensive CD players, I wouldn't have any analog rigs around either!
As for demand, the change was forced on the public by the music companies, and there was no "vote" on what was going to be the main consumer media. They announced it and called back the vinyl, and made all new media on CD. If you wanted new music and wanted to buy it at the local store, you bought CD, period. That was done to us, not us requesting it.
I'm not attacking Vader or his system, I'm just making some information known, that many already know.
The part that really gags me, is the discussion of "ticks and pops", as if that is the only difference between analog and digital, where the digital doesn't have them, so it's better. The "ticks and pops" are minimal if you care for and clean your records and have a decent rig. But the fact is that the musical information on the CD is lacking compared to vinyl. So to eliminate a small problem of an occasional noise, people sacrifice musical content. Oh, I know, no digital user wants to admit this, but it is all over this forum. "How can I make my CD player more analog sounding?", and "What's the most analog sounding digital player?", "If I get a CD player with a tube output stage, will it sound more like analog?" are themes that pop up regularly on these forum pages. This really isn't a discussion about which one is better sonically, because the answer is clear, and well known. All that ever comes up are the "red herrings" about record noise, convenience, software availability, remote control, etc. Notice that the sound quality is rarely, if ever, brought up in these discussions. That's because digital loses on sound quality. And it loses badly.
So if convenience and easy buying of CD's in the store is your bag, then fine, use digital. But if the criteria is audio quality, then analog takes the pot. And this is nothing new, it has been this way since the introduction of the CD, and it is still that way, even with the new formats of SACD and DVDA. The fact is that for top level performance, digital has never made the grade, despite all the promises to the contrary. No matter how expensive the player is. In fact, it amazes me that anybody is still buying into this digital stuff for audiophile use. It has never been what they tried to say it was. And even right now, you can buy some basic, entry level analog gear that will snuff about any digital player ever made. In fact, recently I read right here on Audiogon about a guy who bought a sub-$1k Music Hall TT and it burned his $6k digital player to the ground. Oh yeah, those nasty clicks and pops again. If you want quiet, just turn off your rig and it will be real quiet. If you want music of the highest caliber, then put on the ol' licorice pizza, because that is where it is, and there's no little shiny disc or player that has ever changed that fact.
If people would be more forthcoming with their real reasons for wanting digital, like convenience, then there wouldn't be any argument here. But, for some reason, there is this compelling desire to try to convince themselves and others that digital is just as good as analog, but is quiet and convenient. Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. It might be "good enough" so that the convenience makes you prefer it, but not on sound quality alone. I think this is the crux of the argument, and if you base your decision purely on sound, then analog wins hands-down. And we are audiophiles, right?
