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

I am missing something here. If the master was recorded digitally there is zero point in buying a vinyl pressing.
If you think I am kidding go and pick up a couple of 80s CBS Half Speed Masters. Some genius thought it would be a good idea to digitize an analog master and then cut vinyl from it. The results are dismal as is all vinyl cut from a DAT or other digi source. Why would you want to add all the inherent problems of vinyl to ones and zeros? As for the "shorter path to vinyl from a digital master" claptrap in my opinion. Anyone that buys vinyl mastered from a digital source is a sucker, as are all the chumps buying little wee files on itunes that aren't much better than AM radio. But that's another topic.

Short answer the LP, period. If the master was something higher than 16/44.1 and a lot are 24 bit word length and up to 96k, then CD cannot capture all of that data, so in theory the LP will have the edge since it was converted to analog directly from up to 24/96, and the cd must first be down-sampled to 16/44.1k, then converted to analog.

I would have agreed with NTSCDan, but I listened with my ears, and lots of digital LPs do sound as good or better than CDs. This is with my focus on classical music. Electronic, amplified, rock, or pop music from digital masters might not far as well on LPs as pure acoustic music does! Sad but likely true!

I agree with Albert that I'd rather have the mastering lab to the D-to-A conversion for me.

If the master was something higher than 16/44.1 and a lot are 24 bit word length and up to 96k, then CD cannot capture all of that data, so in theory the LP will have the edge...

Except that the LP can't capture all of that data, either. In theory, it can capture some of the energy above 20kHz--but there isn't much, and very few people making LPs even try, for obvious reasons. As for dynamic range, LPs have a much higher noise floor and much lower dynamic range than CD, so the LP loses even more data than the CD does.

Bottom line, a CD will always come closer to a hi-rez digital master tape than an LP will.

Pabelson, are you speaking from a theoretical point of view?

I ask, because had you made the comparison with a high end turntable and CD, you would not make that statement.

All of my recordings from digital masters are better on LP than CD, but then again I have one of the best turntables available. As long as there is an exception, it's wrong to state CD will ALWAYS come closer to the hi-rez digital master than LP.

If your claim is based on components in your system, that's a different matter.

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.