CD v.s LP - When comming from the same MASTER

If the master was something higher than 16/44.1 and a lot are 24 bit word length and up to 96k, then CD cannot capture all of that data, so in theory the LP will have the edge...

Except that the LP can't capture all of that data, either. In theory, it can capture some of the energy above 20kHz--but there isn't much, and very few people making LPs even try, for obvious reasons. As for dynamic range, LPs have a much higher noise floor and much lower dynamic range than CD, so the LP loses even more data than the CD does.

Bottom line, a CD will always come closer to a hi-rez digital master tape than an LP will.

Pabelson, are you speaking from a theoretical point of view?

I ask, because had you made the comparison with a high end turntable and CD, you would not make that statement.

All of my recordings from digital masters are better on LP than CD, but then again I have one of the best turntables available. As long as there is an exception, it's wrong to state CD will ALWAYS come closer to the hi-rez digital master than LP.

If your claim is based on components in your system, that's a different matter.

I also have a high end vinyl playback system and I beg to differ. The vinyl that I mistakenly purchased that is cut from digital masters is actually much worse than the CD equivalent because of the increased noise floor for one. Plus digital masters do not and never will have the warmth of analog masters which is the main problem. Cutting in onto vinyl doesn't solve the problem it just makes it worse. Unfortunately I think there are some vinyl folks who are so obsessed with the "superiority" of their kilobuck vinyl spinners that common sense goes out the window. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a vinyl guy and have little use for digital, but for current recordings recorded and mastered on Protools etc. you are deluding yourself with the vinyl versions. The only caveat to my comments is that I do not listen to classical music. I think Stereophile or one of the other audio rags should do an objective story on this.

So Ntscdan, you have NEVER heard an LP cut from a digital master that was better than CD?

Guess you don't have a copy of Alison Krauss, "Forget About It" because the vinyl KILLS the CD.

I too am a vinyl guy and have little use for digital. However, when the original event is recorded as digital and I have (only) choices of having that master converted DIRECTLY to analog at the mastering lab, or lossy reduced to redbook format and then converted BACK to analog at my home, I will take the studio transfer.

There is no way a CD has the same high resolution capability as the recording studio. The CD (redbook) format was settled upon over 20 years ago while modern recording studios continue to push the resolution of digital closer and closer to analog.

Digital is a "sampling" of the original, so the best possible digital would be "unlimited upsampling".

The only available "unlimited upsampling" is analog. These arguments continue because of differences in the resolution of different peoples system.

Regardless of what's in theory. In the end, depends on how the process was done, either one can be better or worst than each format. Even the same album in either format can sound different from the same format. It is also depends on which press it came off. We had the experience with 2 different copies of Nora Jones album in LP format and they sound different. One sound better than CD and the other sound worst than CD. As for CD, it probably had less variation between the press but I don't know the answer to that.