[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:03:15 -0700, rtweed wrote
(in article ):

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:

- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).

Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recording of
the LP.

My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities of
the analog original.

I've done that. And yes the CD sounds identical to the Classic Records LP it
was made from (as one would expect). The point is not that LP is superior to
CD, it's that individual instances of either can be superior to the other in
EXECUTION.

For instance, I have the famous Marc Aubort/Joanna Nickrenz set "Ravel, All
the Works for Orchestra and Piano and Orchestra" With Skrowaczewski and the
Minnesota Orchestra recorded for Vox/Turnabout in the early Seventies. The
original release, on a vinyl "Voxbox" set sounds lousy due to the poor
quality of the Vox pressings in those days. Yet, I have had the pleasure of
hearing the original master tape at Mobile Fidelity's mastering studio in San
Francisco and its gorgeous as is the SACD of the "Daphnis et Chloe" that
Mobile Fidelity released on SACD as well as the earlier re-packaging done on
Vox CDs when the Vox catalogue was owned by Moss Music Group.

If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.

That's the whole point. Just because digital is more accurate than analog,
doesn't automatically mean that a CD will necessarily sound better than an LP
of the same performance.