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

"Better", or "different"? That there are differences cannot be argued. Of course the two products were mixed down differently, perhaps even by different people. For the LP there must be RIAA equalization and blending of the LF material to mono (to avoid vertical groove modulation) and in most cases there will be peak limiting and compression so that the softer passages are out of the noise floor. (Remember, Albert, that not all people have $75,000 turntable systems that miraculously remove surface noise, and they buy most of the LPs).

So I conclude that there will be differences, and some will prefer the LP version.

Apart from the theoretical arguments about whether or not LP's mastered from digital sources sound better than CD's from the same sources, as a pratical matter, even if you have the "best" playback systems made, you have certainly set it the parameters for your "best". The variables available in turntables, IC's, cartridges, motors, power supplys, etc, far outstrip the variables in digital playback. Based on that conclusion, it is totally reasonable to me that Mr Porter would be able to tune his analog system to sound "better" than CD's, without regard to the software issues involved.

I agree with AROC, once it goes to CD medium which is limited to 16/44.1, something is lost in the mix.

While it is true that the entire 24/96 digital master would not be fully transferred to the analog master, I would argue that the lost is not as significant in the analog domain.

I have a couple of digitally recorded classical LPs, which actually sound better than the analog recordings of that period, but when transferred to CD, sound lifeless. Whereas the LP version is a completely different story.

The sense of continuity in the music is better preserved in analog, whereas down sampling corrupts this flow and the music becomes disjointed.

In my system:

Sarah McLachlan Afterglow sounds ***much*** better on LP
Radiohead OK Computer sounds better on CD