This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly
implemented CD technology.
Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release,
but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release,
natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same.
The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the
past.
By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using
the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no
clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class.
Our ears are analog however, so the frequency response problems, ringing
effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record,
and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to
state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up.

Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Carl Valle" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of
dual-format
--- snips stuff ----
presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that
can't
be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).
---- Snips stuff -----

So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original
issue analog LP?

Carl