[JohnBooty]

If you care about this stuff...

(and there is absolutely no reason to care, but you are making a comment, so you seem to care a little)

...the tradeoffs are really fascinating. Don't think of it as one being better. It's just a different set of tradeoffs. CRTs are objectively better at some things, and are of course also objectively worse in a lot of obvious ways.

I would say that LPs and tube amps are objectively worse than their modern counterparts in every way. But the tradeoffs involved and the subjective issues are cool and sometimes do make for a better subjective experience in some ways.

[rubatuga]

Tube amps are amazing for distortion effects, no doubt. But for a 1-to-1 reproduction of audio signals, it's not great.

[JohnBooty]

For sure. The even-order harmonic distortion can sound "good" though. It's not my cup of tea but I wouldn't say somebody's crazy if they prefer it!

LPs are a slightly more interesting discussion IMO. Objectively inferior to Redbook audio by a mile. But, given the 30-40dB noise floor even in a "quiet" room, and the THD added by the loudspeakers, I think their real-world performance competes very very well with digital audio...

[viler]

A lot of the differences people ascribe to CDs vs. LPs may not be due to the medium, but to different paradigms used when mastering audio for one or the other.