CD vs. Vinyl

The most important part prior to any playback is the source of the sound. I don't think anyone mentioned here.
Vinyl has the least compression vs any digital medium.
Assuming if you have the same master tape source, it is then remastered to output to reel tape, vinyl or CD or SACD or DVD-A.
Even within vinyl, there are 78 rpm, 45 rpm and 33 rpm format as well. This all has to do with compression ratio.

The less you compress the data onto the output format the better it suppose to sound.

So there are suppose to be more information on vinyl vs typical CD.

Your friend rejected your assesment is correct. Vinyl can definitely sound better IF only IF the source is better. THe master tape from the recording studios also have duplicate copies. Obviously the first original was the best. You can see some LP would label which version of press ( typical for classicals where the performers already dead )

This is why some folks pay big dollars always for the first press copy of vinyl reproduction. This is what seperate true audiophile with unlimited pocket.

take a look at following example of first press beatles asking for $25,000 with 4 offers. Don't tell me that your friend is one of the bidder?

:)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Beatles-Introducing-LP-Factory-Sealed-/400118661550?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item5d28ee41ae

"Vinyl has the least compression vs any digital medium." -S23chang

Yes, but if we also factor in artifacts and noise, the vinyl comes up short. Even when I deep clean my records, the clicks and pops are gone but the noise is always there without exception. Sure, it is barely noticeable, but I can hear it very clearly with good headphones.

"Because it is always harder to do anything really well." - Mapman

Not always. As a designer, I always strive for ease of use and a great UI. If equipment is difficult to use, consumers gravitate to the competitors. Look at the success of Apple. Quality products, great design and interfaces on their products. I wouldn't say a Dell is higher end than Apple because it's more cumbersome and difficult to use.

S23chang, unfortunately that is a very bad example and for a couple reasons.

First, this particular album, "Introducing the Beatles" is basically a sonic nightmare to begin with. First pressings are no better than later pressings.

Second, there are many original copies of "Introducing the Beatles" floating around. The very rare and collectible versions have back covers not often seen. The first is called the "ad back" cover and the second is called the "blank back" cover. Do a little digging and you can learn more about these covers and the history of the album. The information is readily available; the album has a fascinating history.

Hope that helps.

I am not even referring to playback experience. It is true that bad press makes bad playback just like any CD recordings as well.

A better MC can track way better than the low end MM. We don't need to open a can of warms here as you want to compare it to the digital artifact.

As far as example goes, you can find the TAS recommanded list from the earlier recordings which never made to digital format.

sounds like some folks here are more interest in personal opinon rather than the facts about the source.