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

Pabelson, actually the real impact of sampling at a higher frequency is not to extend the frequency response, but to make the implimentation of the anti-aliasing filter simpler, so that a filter with less passband ripple and less phase error can be used.

I agree with you that extra high frequencies above 20kHz do not make a difference.

I think this goes to the heart of your arguments ... in THEORY redbook CD is perfectly capable of producing perfect sound. Provided there is no jitter, the ADCs and DACs are perfectly linear, and most importantly, that you can implement a perfect brick wall anti-aliasing filter in the frequency domain, which creates the sin(x)/x function in the time domain to perfectly reproduce the analog waveform from the train of samples.

It is in the implementation that the CD playback falls short.

I agree with you that vinyl is a deeply flawed format, and I personally think that vinyl and CD replay are roughly on a par, with different deficiencies. I suspect that those who prefer vinyl are in some way more bothered by the distortions caused by the deficiencies in real-world digital recording and playback caused by timing jitter, non-linear DACs and ADCs and approximations to the brick-wall filter.

That vinyl should be considered "accurate" by the same people who argue endlessly about how different cartridges can sound at different tracking weights, how different tonearms sound with a different counterweights is equally ludicrous. But vinyl does have moments where it sounds more real than CDs, so I guess I kind of like the distortion introduced by the medium.

This is a great topic, and something to seriously think about for anyone who is interested in getting into vinyl. Nowdays it seems like the analog 1/2" master is becoming extinct, so therefore it seems logical to think with an LP copy of even a hi rez 24/192 source would only ever sound possibly as good as the SACD or DVD audio of that same source. This is a very thought provoking topic, unless you already have a nice colletion of vinyl or are interested only in picking up older stuff why would you bother with vinyl playback at all.

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.