Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Vinyl does not inherently sound better. The bottom line to all of this depends on the care and time put into the mastering process. Vinyl usually had 2-3 times more mastering time on them than CD. That is why most CD's of that period were inferior to their CD counterparts. Nowadays, I would put any DVD-A or SACD that I have worked on against any LP, and would worry one bit about the comparison. Well mastered vinyl is better than mediocre mastered CD. But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance
I think we got a winner.

Most of these format arguments consistently neglect the fact that nobody except a recording professional has access to the original master tapes. I think that people often confuse personal preference for their favorite type of sound with something that sounds most transparent to the source.

The issue with vinyl is that it has to be extensively tweaked during the mastering process. For example, if the original master has too much headroom, then compression has to be applied. I've heard too many good and bad LPs, and good and bad CDs to attribute everything that I hear to the format alone.

An LP in the hands of virtuoso mastering engineer can sound incredible. But, is this actually the most transparent playback to the original source, or just a well done job at tweaking the sound to play optimally with a particular medium? And with LPs, you also have the issue with how variable the pressings can sound from copy to copy. If you have the misfortune of buying an album that got pressed from a worn out stamper, then you'll hear distortion and sibilance galore (and this increases as the needle gets closer to the end of a side). All the wet vac cleaning and the best turntable rig on the planet cannot save an album in that condition. And back in my LP heyday, I'd estimate that I returned roughly 1 out of every 10 albums I bought because of defects of some kind.

Similarly, I've heard enough well done CDs to know that the gratingly harsh and "metallic" sound that was common with a lot of early CDs was not due to the format itself.

The new Neil Young Greatest Hits CD-96/24 DVD package is great example of how much a reissue can improve upon previous versions with just a little care taken during the mastering process. (The remastered CD already sounds at least as good as any vinyl playback I can recall, and the 96/24 DVD is yet another step above) And Classic Records' 96/24 high res discs benefit from not only higher resolution, but also involvement by the original recording engineers, research into the processing used during the original sessions, reference playback of first production library copies, and simple attention to detail. This typically results in the best available playback quality, including comparisons to LP versions. Is this format/resolution driven, or a byproduct of good mastering? Who the *uck cares, it sounds good!