Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?

[Woochifer]

What evidence do you have to support this claim? I see no reason why the redbook specs could not have been set higher. I have never heard any support for your claim. There is plenty of support that people cannot hear better than Redbook sampling.

Plenty of reasons, and they all had to do with what could be feasibly offered to the public given the technology of the time. Terrence already discussed the storage issues. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the proposals for the CD was originally to make it an analog optical format because of these types of issues. The digital recording of that time was already capable of more than 44.1/16 resolution, but that kind of bandwidth at that time could only be supported using magnetic tape. The CD format was finalized based on the limitations of what the carrier systems could deliver at that time. If you think back to the digital technology contemporary to 1979, the IBM PC was still two years away from its debut and modems entailed inserting a telephone handset into a suitcase sized receptacle.

Isn't is obvious that they want to sell you an new format, that---and several other reasons like copy protection--are why they want you to "upgrade".

And you don't notice that the new formats also offer uncompressed multichannel playback, which IMO can be a huge step forward in the enjoyment of an album.

Pro recording equipment does not record at the redbook rate (redbook is a playback format).

Of course it does. Professional digital recorders have used any number of different resolution combinations over the years -- 14-bit, 16-bit, 20-bit, 24-bit, 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 50 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, 192 kHz, 384 kHz, etc.

There is some reason to record at slightly higher sampling rates, for example for increased headroom (this makes recording errors less likely) and also because many recordings are mixed and processed. The mixing process can benefit from the increased sample size. I don't think it is "obvious" that "professionals" are all think a ridiculously high sampling rate is a good idea, and I don't trust those who say it does because they work for the companies that are trying to promote the new formats.

I don't get the impression that you've ever been in a recording studio or actually talked to people in the field because you make it sound like upgrading studio equipment is some big conspiracy. Fact is that even when there was no high res digital consumer format on the horizon, the resolution on the studio masters continually increased, even though the end product still got downsampled to 44.1/16. You can hypothesize that some recording professional out there agrees with your "ridiculously high sampling" rates assessment, but that's not the consensus among the actual practitioners in the field (all you have to do is flip through a trade journal or magazine that caters to sound professionals and see what's actually in use in the field).

Note that the bit-wasting formats go way way beyond what is necessary for even recording purposes. Frankly, I don't care what recording engineers do--I will go with what physics says. And it says we can't hear anywhere near the new sampling rates, musical instruments cannot produce sounds to the new formats, and our equipment cannot reproduce at the theoretical levels of the new formats (no equipment can they would have to be submerged in liquid nitrogen).

Unless you can point out a physicist that knows their way around a mixing board and knows how to properly mic for recording, I would rather rely on people who work with recorded sound for a living than people who are more concerned about churning hypotheticals.

What in the world do you mean by "much closer to the source"? The theoretical frequency response of those formats cannot be heard by dogs, the dynamic range cannot be generated by instruments and were certainly not intended by Beethoven. The dynamic range of the new formats greately exceeds the ability of room temperature electronics to reproduce. Who cares (or even knows) what the "resolution of the source" is, what matters is the resolution of what we can hear.

If a recording was originally mastered and mixed to a resolution of 96/24, and the format allows for a direct transfer of that recording in an unaltered state, how's that not closer to the source than a 44.1/16 format that requires downsampling?

What matters to you is the theoretical arguments. What matters to me is the end result, irregardless of how all of the causal factors play into all of this. If I listen to a DVD-A, and it sounds better than the CD version, why the hell should I care that the DVD-A format requires subzero electronics to reproduce in its entirety?

You are making my point. If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".

No, you were making the point that DVD-A and SACD are useless for any number of theoretical reasons, and automatically eliminating the resolution as a causal factor for any perceived improvements that come out in the listening. I'm merely pointing out that you lack the data to draw those conclusions because you do not have the master sources and encoding equipment needed to do the types of "formal tests" that you demand.

My assertions are based on what is available to an average consumer, and I have not eliminated the resolution as a potential causal factor because I freely acknowledge that I don't have the necessary data to conclude otherwise.

I agree in wanting to improve source material (which has to do with recording, not playback media). After recording, bad multimixing can ruin a records, but often record companies don't even bother to remix for the CD medium (e.g., those that don't say "digitally remastered". Using new formats for previously recorded material is a complete waste of time as you can never improve the recording beyond how it was originally recorded. You seem to fail to distinguish recording media from playback media. Imporving playback media will never improve a bad recording.

Of course you can improve upon a previously recorded album. That's exactly what DVD-A and SACD have allowed for because of what it takes to assemble a multichannel mix, which goes back to the original multitrack masters, not just the two-channel mixdown (which might be the end product of dozens of overdubs and mixdowns, all of which add noise and signal loss when using older analog equipment). In many cases, a new two-channel master got created in the process of mixing together the 5.1 mix.

While I agree with your goal. I don't see the bit-wasting formats as making any difference in that goal (i.e., they offer zero avenues for improving recordings).

I think you are a reasonable person who has a lot of good things to contribute in a forum like this. I hope you carefully consider what I have to say (as I have considered what you said).

I have considered the possibilities and I still am, that's why my mind is still open on the benefits of the high res formats. If the high res discs that I hear represent an improvement over what's currently available, then I will support that endeavor by buying them. If they don't, then I stick with the CD versions. Getting caught up in the reasons why these perceived improvements occur is wasted space IMO. I know that there are many variables, and unless I have access to the tools to find out for myself, I prefer to stick with what I know rather than draw conclusions based on what I don't know.