CDs Vs LPs

CD is fundamentally flawed from a standpoint of being incapable of faithfully reproducing the original analog content without the staircase effect and artifacts. No amount of money spent on transports and DACs will ever change the fact that it uses substandard 44kHz sampling.

This "ragged edge" theory has been around for years and disproved a number of times.  In any case, it is just an opinion and should be stated as such in your post.

Also, while some may find the sound reproduction of analog more pleasing (for whatever reason) digital CD recordings are, and were designed to be, far superior to standard LP recordings in every way that matters.  And, in my opinion, they are.  No amount of money spend on beefy turntables and complex tonearms will produce the dynamic range of which the LP is incapable.

sleepwalker65

CD is fundamentally flawed from a standpoint of being incapable of faithfully reproducing the original analog content without the staircase effect and artifacts.

While this seems intuitively sensible, it’s been proven completely wrong, unless you want to reject science and math.

For those who have any lingering doubts, this excellent video will put the matter to rest. See it for yourself.

dynaquest4

... digital CD recordings are, and were designed to be, far superior to standard LP recordings in every way that matters

That may be true, especially if you think extended HF response doesn't matter.

No amount of money spend on beefy turntables and complex tonearms will produce the dynamic range of which the LP is incapable.

The problem with this claim is that the CD's potential for greater dynamic range (compared to LP) is rarely needed or utilized. In fact, the opposite is the case. As a consequence of the loudness wars, a CD is typically more compressed than its LP counterpart.

In fact, the opposite is the case. As a consequence of the loudness wars, a CD is typically more compressed than its LP counterpart.

Most Jazz and all Classical have never joined the loudness wars.