Funny how streaming/digital still chases that analog benchmark.

"The standard has, for decades now, been digital. 17-year-olds do not even know what you are talking about."

.............

That’s hilarious. Kind of proves the point that analog is the standard digital attempts to copy.... flattery as its known.....

Something is wrong with this explanation. It has2be.

"But here is reality....most 17 year olds don’t know wt_ they are talking about let alone understand any of us.... head down face in the phone with ear buds on.....yeah ok....."

Maybe they would understand older people better....if older people made sense.

The opposite is also true. Vinyl analogue is working really hard to achieve what a quality digital stream finds easy. By spending the thick end of £50,000 on hardware and another £50,000 on records, plus a load of fiddling, you might get close to a Qobuz stream’s absence of surface noise, lack of rumble, lack of wow/flutter, stereo in low frequencies, zero pops and crackles, dynamic range, consistency in source quality, diversity of source music, and fidelity to the sound as recorded. 

Keep saving, spending and trying, vinyl lovers - you may overcome those challenges in the end. 
Not sure where I read the story, but apparently Michael Jackson had a two day long strop when he was told he couldn’t have a bass-heavy track positioned last in the running order of Thriller. The design limitations of cutting vinyl simply wouldn’t allow it. It had to be track 1. My how times have changed. The desired running order now wouldn’t be an issue at all.  Maybe Thriller should be reissued without the loudness war changes and in the artist’s desired running order. 

...except that those who want a plastic copy of this will have to listen to a toned-down version designed by the cutting engineer.

If sound quality is all that matters to you in your music enjoyment experience, then we can indeed continue to debate the issue of digital vs analog. My system gives exceedingly good quality sound with either format, to the point that this is no longer the most relevant issue in my music enjoyment.
But a well designed streaming system does something that neither LP’s or CD’s can do alone. Namely it allows me to quickly and easily enjoy the music on many other levels. I can for example:
1) read notes on the album
2) read a biography of the musician(s)
3)find out what other albums they have out, who they were influenced mostly by and who followed them.
4) explore related artists.
5) skip over to allmusic.com or anywhere else on the internet to enrich my experience and understanding of the music
6) tag things I want to revisit or skip or reorder my listening
etc. etc.
This is why streaming will replace both the LP and the CD.

Streaming can’t replace record collecting. It will never happen.

Records have value, and prices goes up in time for rare stuff, people with quality records are rich in a good way. It’s an investment.

One rare record even in VG condition can cost more than turntable+amp+speakers or your entire digital rig.

How your free digital library can replace collection of original records? Yes, you can listen to digital, so what? It has no value at all.

It’s like a piece of art (original) versus digital print (a copy).

Music on background and record collection are two different things.
And quality is not what collectors are looking for, audiophiles are sick about quality and this is what makes them extremely boring sometimes.

You can answer for yourself one question to understand who you are... If you can only choose one, do you want an original vinyl if it will cost you more or you are ok with free high resolution digital copy of that album?

If you don’t need an original vinyl then you’re a typical audiophile, in this case you’d better not talk about vinyl, you will never understand why there are people who collect vinyl, get your digital copy and shut a ..... ..p.

P.S. For me digital is a key to discover music I want to buy on vinyl (originals, not a re-issues), often from the 70’s. Digital file in whatever resolution is nothing for me. 

"Records have value, and prices goes up in time for rare stuff, people with quality records are rich in a good way. It’s an investment."

That is true, but you have to sell it.

While investing in it, you may need to consider the market size for that rare stuff. There is a possibility that, as people age, there is less and less potential buyers of high-priced rarities.

If you do not sell it just at the right moment, at least while you are still alive, you may lose a large portion of your investment. As record collectors near the end their own life cycle, or cross over into eternity, more of the rare records may come to the market. Having less buyers and more rare records to be sold may not increase the price.

In short, if you want to get rich on records, sell them now.

If you are collecting them just to collect them because that is what makes you feel good, bring them on. Just do not convince yourself that you have something immensely valuable. No matter how rare your record collection is, you are not collecting dividends on them while you are staring at them at home.