Do cd's store a more exact copy of sound than LP's

Great care must be taken with each to get anything thats even close to the real thing. I have listened to great recordings on tape, vinyl and cd and doubt I could ever pick a clear winner in my mind. If you like vinyl..go for vinyl and don't even worry what someone else thinks is best.

This forum along with all the others I visit have a constant stream of threads from people asking: Whats The Best? Well, the best is what YOU like IMO.

Dave

As with most engineering problems the answer does not lie in the underlying theory, but in the ability to best implement an approximation to the theory. These threads always get caught up in various misunderstandings of Nyquists sampling theory, quantization noise etc etc. I believe that the theories don't help us to explain whether redbook CD is better or worse than LP, since implementation of digital systems introduces errors (jitter being the main one) that are not accounted for by the simple theoretical models.

A sampled and quantized signal can IN THEORY exactly represent a bandlimited, limited dynamic range analog waveform, such that there would be absolutely no difference between the reconstructed analog waveform and the original waveform.

So, that said, I firmly believe that, in theory redbook CD can more accurately represent the sound of the master tape, since it has better linearity, dynamic range, signal to noise, channel separation etc etc etc than vinyl. Whether this is borne out in practise or not depends on many many real world variables, such as the quality of the ADCs and DACs, the mastering, the levels of jitter in recording, mastering, playback etc, anti-aliasing filter in the ADC, the implementation of a reconstruction filter.

However, those who write that digital can never be as good as analog because the digital signal looks like a little staircase (quantization noise is the technical term) are missing the point. Don't look to the theory ... look to the implementation.

I guess I should be clear that the point of my post is to say "That's a very complex question with an extremely complex answer, and I really don't know enough to know the answer". However I do know that there isn't a simple answer, so don't let anyone tell you there is.

I think the previous poster said it all ... let your ears decide.

The prevailing opinion of those professionals who regularly compare live to recorded sound, namely recording engineers, is that digital, even in the 44.1 format, is a more accurate representation of the sound actually produced by the musicians in the studio/concert hall. That said, a majority of engineers prefer analog tape to digital recorders because even though it isn't as accurate, it simply sounds "better". Whether or not you prefer the euphonic inaccuracies of vinyl is a personal choice, but digital is typically closer to the actual sound of the master tape.

BTW, I actually agree with Nrchy in that the red book digital standard is flawed, but anybody who actually understands how vinyl is made also knows how totally inadequate it is as a medium for conveying the sound of the master tapes.

Seandtaylor99, I think you are right about people getting hung-up in theory, although a good theory is a very practical thing. The implementation is of utmost importance. There are radicals on both sides of the great divide. The little staircase argument is always a good one and leads to the smoothness/continuousness vs. the harshness/ “something is missing in this music” position. Strangely enough if one stops to think about it, the way an LP works can also be thought of as a number of discrete vibrations of a stylus that has to get to some sort of "discontinuousness" at some point.