A good read: CD vs Vinyl

[Donald Thumb]

Just wanted to share my little grain of salt:

Yes, it's true that most studios have very crappy AD converters, even today, and that impacts a lot on the sound result.

But today you can rent (don't need to buy) a top spec AD converter, like Weiss or Lavry, and digitalize all the vinyl collection to 24/96 WAV, then use something like a Metrum Adagio ("perfect" preamp and state of the art NOS DAC) and you can be sure that it will sound better than a 30k vinyl setup.
The problem is that almost all times, people compare the CD (different master, 16/44) to vinyl (usually better master, 24/96), and mastering quality trumps format, not a fair comparison if you ask me.

Another benefit of digitalizing analog yourself is that you can buy some master tapes and convert them to digital, then no vinyl setup will sound more "analog" than your DAC (top performance DAC like Metrum Adagio or Linn Klimax Katalyst DSM), because it has the possibility to play a much better analog master (tape has far less processing and much more dynamic range than vinyl).

 

[atmasphere]

tape has far less processing and much more dynamic range than vinyl

This statement is a very common misconception. Tape is traditionally the limiting aspect of older LP recordings. Its the noise floor and its the bandwidth limit, as well as the source of much of the distortion on the disk. When you make direct to disk recordings that's when this is really made apparent.

The reason analog tape often sounds better than the LP is not because of the limitations of the LP but because the industry (like its been doing with the CD) tends to use limiting and compression even though the source does not call for it, all in the name of expediency.