CDs have better quality than vinyl in every way. If you want the sound of a vinyl, apply the modulation and record the result on a CD.

In practise, popular music recorded on CDs often had poor mastering (see "loudness wars") where the dynamic range was reduced to make the recording sound louder.

> CDs have better quality than vinyl in every way.

that’s an entirely subjective statement which critically hangs on what “quality” means to the audience.

i don’t agree, but then i’m not limiting myself to define quality in terms of how some signal reproduces sounds.

That's why some deaf people feel superior

huh?

Deaf culture, presumably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture

"Refuge from the grinding frustrations of the hearing world", appreciation of the quality of no sounds, sort of like John Cage's 4'33" but quieter.

Dynamic range compression is not "required", it's a choice of the mastering engineer. You can produce MP3 or CD recordings with higher dynamic range than vinyl if you want to.

This is the reason why classical music CDs (and radio) usually sound much quieter. More dynamic range.

Dynamic range compression is often used on most mainstream music because said music is rarely listened in perfect conditions in one's living room. They need to sound decent enough in the street, in a car, on a metro/train during rush hours, in the kitchen while cooking, on the beach, from allkinf of devices from crappy smartphone headphones, phones and computers integrated speakers or cheap bluetooth speakers.

Ideally one would own 2 different recording of the songs they like. One for good listening environments and high quality equipment, one for more hostile environments. Or have devices that apply dynamic range compression on the fly when needed.