Quote Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod View Post
I wouldn't pay 30-50% for a negligible difference in quality even if that was only a $1 difference, it's very poor economic skill. Thus, that large an increase of filesize without an significant gain is quality is just dumb.
Negligible to you. I can clearly hear a difference.

Analog recording vs. digital recording - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The assertion is that the 'analog sound' is more a product of analog format inaccuracies than anything else. One early supporter of digital audio was the classical conductor Herbert von Karajan, who said that digital recording was "definitely superior to any other form of recording we know".
And the vinyl itself isn't better, how can a large rip of one be justified then?
Karajan might've been right if he was talking about DVD-audio (I definitely can't tell a difference between the audio straight off the turntable and my rips of them), but CDs are . And new vinyl is definitely superior to CDs. If you think otherwise, either your turntable is or you haven't heard good new vinyl. To be fair, some record companies just use the same mix for both CDs and vinyl which is just ty, but good vinyl is sourced from significantly higher quality recordings.