Am I assuming too Much?

Yes...and no. Both analog and digital have their ups and downs. It's all a matter of priorities. What you mean by "better" may not mean much to someone who values silent backgrounds, no wow and flutter or rumble. It sounds to me like you have discovered the virtues of vinyl - good for you! Personally, I enjoy them both. If after a long night of spinning records I decide to pop in a CD it sounds plastic by comparison. Go for that Music Hall TT - I personally think your assumption is correct and proper. btw my CD player is an ARCAM FMJ CD23 and TT is a SOTA Star Sapphire/Premier MMT/Sumiko Blue Point.

Rgds,
John

There are many out there that believe one cannot replicate music on a cd as well as an lp. I am not capapble of making the argument either way. There are times when I think my cd's sound good, and then I put an lp of the same album on and it totaly blasts the cd out of the water, the blankets come off the speakers. There are also numerous versions of the same lp's out there, many, many times more than any cd, yet another variable, some are amazing and some stink. For kicks check out the steve hoffman forums at http://www.stevehoffman.tv/ . there are wild debates about this stuff. it could ruin you.

Artemus 5, I don't think that should be the assumption. In
the old CD vs LP story I think the most important thing that
will tip the balance towards analog is the quality and
condition of the LP recording. Secondly, even with a good
recording, analog front ends that you are describing can
be bested now by CDP at the same price (assuming CD was well-recorded). When you get into better analog (eg >$2000
used) setups with decent software then this will be pretty
hard to beat by digital at any price. My 2 cents.

All digital recordings deal only with finite numbers such as number of samples, start finish... i.e. all digital recordings have a "Floor" and a "Ceiling" meaning that nothing goes either bellow or above audiable freequencies in digital recording/reproduction. In analogue reproduction nothing is finite. Analogue record can contain even 5Hz or upto 42Khz of unaudiable information that will basically signify the image of original sound source and define the original tembre or "colour" of the sound.

If I'm speaking in front of you, you can clearly hear where the sound is comming from and you can literally difine the tembre of my voice because not only audiable freequencies are presend in audio signals. The same way it could be heard from the analogue record. There are even sounds that still nearly impossible to record with digital recorder such as bird songs in the forest.

To say for the conlcusion you can upgrade your digital setup untill you hit the "Floor" and/or the "Ceiling", but you can infinitely upgrade your analogue and maybe(certainly with proper speakers and room) you'll rich whatever record can deliver.

Marakanetz, please offer some clarification. Your point is clear regarding the fact that LP can contain higher frequency info than Red Book CD. However, what do you mean by "In analogue reproduction nothing is finite."?

From what I understand, at some point digital can store more information than actual physics will allow to be stored on an LP. The materials involved in the manufacture of an LP will dictate that there is always a finite limit to how much information can be stored.