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

LPs were a compromise development as well.  78s could have killed the sound quality of LPs (note the high end pressings at 45 rpm) but marketing/listening considerations won out.   Edison invented a 6 minute 10" and a 10 minute 12" 78 rpm record in 1910 and made about 300 sides.  Marston Records has released some of these recordings. 

Using current recording, mastering and pressing technology. 78 rpm records on vinyl could sound utterly magnificent with shorter playing times as the only constraint (minimal RIAA correction with more stereo bass under 50 Hz with the appropriately larger stylus size).  

No one is considering this.

However, I share my love for the LP and CDs despite their shortcomings.  I do not like MP3s because they are missing too much information.   I do like well recorded 78s for their dynamics and tone quality (after eq corrected).  I've heard 15 ips master tapes in studios and they sounded outstanding.  The LP playback chain has probably hit it's limit in technology. The CD playback chain probably has not. whereby further technology improvement can render it more analog-like (humans have analog hearing so more analog like is a positive premise for reproduction of music).  My own recordings using RR tape have been fantastic even at 7.5 ips 1/4" 2 track while everyone also appreciates my 2 track 16/44 digital recordings.  

I’m always a little surprised to almost never encounter any reference to the top (or really any other) audio reviewers when sound quality is discussed in AG forums. Valin (perhaps the most respected) of Ab Sound has said digital can sound excellent but is no match for analog as far as low-level information is concerned in numerous areas.

john,

From my post on page 2, here is what Valin said about the MSB Reference DAC and Transport in this month’s TAS. Any gap that vinyl has over digital is becoming very narrow and in the real world where we don’t listen to state of the art systems, it’s a matter of preference and skill in assembling a system to play one or both formats. You and everyone else are free to prefer vinyl without being constantly reminded that it's an inferior format. I just wish you would grant the same consideration to people who prefer digital.

Valin:

"As I just said it wasn’t as if Connick and Marsalis had developed the body and bloom of an LP on voice and sax. And yet, in spite of this, the MSB gear reproduced both singer and sax with such supernaturally lifelike immediacy, resolution of performance detail, neutrality of tone color and dynamic range that they sounded ’there’ enough to astonish me."

"To be frank, when it comes to digital sources, I ain’t no Robert Harley. Still, I know real when I hear it, and with the Reference DAC/Transport I heard it to an extent I wouldn’t have thought possible the day before this MSB gear arrived - and I heard it on CD, SACD, high-res streaming, and (par excellence) MQA streaming."

why is it always about what sounds better, both have their merits both can engage the listener. For those that have no vinyl then yeah digital makes more sense but for those of us who have collected vinyl records for decades then vinyl makes sense as well. I like both and use both depending on what format I have the music I want to listen to on, or maybe convivence like casual listening. I also, gasp, listen to MPR radio that stuff over the air waves I know shocking. why do we have to have two camps lets all listen together can you Imagine (pun intended).

Music isn’t about logic.  It is a feeling transmitted to you.  So until an engineer can measure the ‘feeling’ I get, it’s just talk, imo. 

Exactly and I "feel" that CDs sound way better than vinyl :-)