A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..

There are so many mistakes in the information of the infomercial that it made me laugh.

How many of you have actually had an analog master, not a copy but a master. Then listened to a comparison between the original master tape, a lacquer, and a CD on a great system. Unless you have, how can you support your claims or statements. I have done this. The answer is even the best CD transport an DAC will not compete with the master tape. If you cannot pick out the difference go get your hearing checked. You ask about my experience, I come from the days before digital. On the other hand I was recording digital data before CD's were available.

No matter what the resolution and data rate a digital representation of a sound, it will always be an approximation of the original event. Whether or not you can detect the difference is a question of psycho-acoustics and has a lot to do with how good a persons hearing is. So if you start with a digital recording of "Red Book" specifications don't bother with a vinyl pressing.

Lol. Yawn. 

No matter what the resolution and data rate a digital representation of a sound, it will always be an approximation of the original event.

+1,  Tom1000

I have some vinyl albums that sound much better than the redbook cd. I also have many (not all) hires/dsd that sound much better than vinyl. When I hear a great sounding MQA mix, this is much better than vinyl.
my analog setup costs over 3x more than my digital setup

If you oriced they video did go in to issues with digital.  Mostly compression and the overly mastered music to ale up for the compression.  Without getting in toy which is better, I wonder if someone who has spent 30 ears doing digital can master an analog recording properly ithout bringing gains way up in fat sections.