CD v.s LP - When comming from the same MASTER

I think the point missed here is the fact that regardless of which format (digital or analog) the master is recorded, the mix down to the end user takes a VERY different path, depending on which format were talking about.

If the event must begin as digital, I sill prefer high resolution digital converted directly to analog by the mastering lab. The conversion is one step and there is no deliberate "lossy" re sampling as with Redbook and SACD.

I have thousands of LP's, most are analog source. Music released in the last decade are all over the place in terms of what the recording studio used. I suspect the latest releases such as Alison Krauss (one of my favorites) was recorded to a hard drive rather than tape. That particular recording is the work of Doug Sax, so likely the master to analog was done in the most direct way possible.

I have no doubt that any one of us with the master digital hard drive (or tape) in our own system, would hear performance above and beyond anything we have ever experienced.

The argument comes from differences in opinion as to what quality REMAINS after Sony and similar vendors convert that original digital format DOWN to comply with Redbook or SACD standards.

In my opinion, the studio conversion from the best available digital format, direct to analog is still the best representation of the original event. This is the shortest path to analog that we all experience when we listen.

Cmk: I mentioned summing bass as an example of the alterations (distortions, if you will) necessary to cut a vinyl record. I agree that it is not audibly significant in most cases. By the way, the reason bass often sounds directional is because we aren't listening to pure tones, and sonic components that are higher in frequency can provide directional cues. It also helps to know that back left is usually where the bass drum is.

Sean: I'm not arguing that CDs can theoretically reproduce sound perfectly. They can't. I'm arguing that, practically, they come close enough. Yes, there is jitter, but all the research I've seen suggests that the level of jitter in a typical (and I do not mean high-end) CD player is an order of magnitude below hearing thresholds. DACs and anti-aliasing filters have improved since the early days, and I haven't heard or heard of a bad one in the last 15 years--except at the high end, where occasionally a designer is too busy being innovative to get the basics right.

The proof of this is in the listening. Remember that this thread started from the premise of a digital master tape. I would argue that you would have to listen very hard to discern a real difference between that master tape and a CD played on a $100 DVD player. Whereas it would be relatively easy to discern a difference between master tape and a $10,000 vinyl rig. That tells me that the implementation of digital, while still not perfect, is pretty darn good.

And, to get back to the original point, that means it's probably not the flaws in digital, such as they are, that are responsible for the fact that many listeners prefer the vinyl version. It's more likely that the technical flaws of vinyl are, counterintuitively, part of what makes that medium sonically appealing.

I don't quite follow the point about the necessity of summing deep bass to 'fit it on a record'. A full wavelength at 20Hz on a 33 1/3 RPM record traces 10 degrees. Put another way, you can fit 36 wavelengths of a 20Hz signal around a groove. Together with RIAA deemphasis, ~20db at 20Hz, this wouldn't seem to be a problem. What I don't know is what physical groove modulation is needed for a 0db level at 20Hz. Perhaps you're right.

At what frequency do they start summing to mono for LPs?

This of course completely begs the question of the necessity for stereo bass that low, unless of course your listening room is the size of a football stadium.

I think, it can't be answered in general.
The Problem with CD has nothing to do with the digital Master in general, most differences are made through the next processes. High speed burned or low speed burned, with or without reclocked burners and so on. It is more or less endless ( check out all these "remastered" issues, sick ).
Some CD's sound very good, some not and I think, it is the same with Vinyl, which has it's source from a Digital Master. Some CAN sound very good and some don't, depends on the Mastering Lab I guess.
Anyway, here I go for the CD, when I am not sure about the result, then I don't waste time on it.
( You know, I can freeze it, or paint the outer ring with a text marker or I can cut the outside for a better angle or ..... )