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

I also have a high end vinyl playback system and I beg to differ. The vinyl that I mistakenly purchased that is cut from digital masters is actually much worse than the CD equivalent because of the increased noise floor for one. Plus digital masters do not and never will have the warmth of analog masters which is the main problem. Cutting in onto vinyl doesn't solve the problem it just makes it worse. Unfortunately I think there are some vinyl folks who are so obsessed with the "superiority" of their kilobuck vinyl spinners that common sense goes out the window. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a vinyl guy and have little use for digital, but for current recordings recorded and mastered on Protools etc. you are deluding yourself with the vinyl versions. The only caveat to my comments is that I do not listen to classical music. I think Stereophile or one of the other audio rags should do an objective story on this.

So Ntscdan, you have NEVER heard an LP cut from a digital master that was better than CD?

Guess you don't have a copy of Alison Krauss, "Forget About It" because the vinyl KILLS the CD.

I too am a vinyl guy and have little use for digital. However, when the original event is recorded as digital and I have (only) choices of having that master converted DIRECTLY to analog at the mastering lab, or lossy reduced to redbook format and then converted BACK to analog at my home, I will take the studio transfer.

There is no way a CD has the same high resolution capability as the recording studio. The CD (redbook) format was settled upon over 20 years ago while modern recording studios continue to push the resolution of digital closer and closer to analog.

Digital is a "sampling" of the original, so the best possible digital would be "unlimited upsampling".

The only available "unlimited upsampling" is analog. These arguments continue because of differences in the resolution of different peoples system.

Regardless of what's in theory. In the end, depends on how the process was done, either one can be better or worst than each format. Even the same album in either format can sound different from the same format. It is also depends on which press it came off. We had the experience with 2 different copies of Nora Jones album in LP format and they sound different. One sound better than CD and the other sound worst than CD. As for CD, it probably had less variation between the press but I don't know the answer to that.

I used to subscribe to that theory too, it's just didn't pan out that way when I actually listened to some digital vinyl. To me most digital vinyl just sounds more dynamic and natural than most CDs. Too bad I don't have duplicate copies on each format to compare. But you can't write off digital vinyl on theory alone. It sounds like NTSCDan has actually listened for himself, which is good. I respect that. To him the hightened noise floor in unacceptable. To me the increased naturalness of the digital vinyl is more acceptable that CD. We must listen for different things. Too bad we cannot afford the Meitner CDSD/DCC2 or Reimyo cdp-777. Then maybe I wouldn't need digital LPs of things I can find on CD for less.

Two comments, the D/A converters used in mastering houses (dCS, Prism, Apogee, EMM, etc.) are readily available to well heeled audiophiles. Vinyl is a pale comparison to the analog master tapes. If redbook digital sucks, then vinyl just sucks a little bit less.