CD vs. Vinyl

I've personally had to opportunity to listen to identical music on vinyl and CD on an extremely high end system, possibly a seven figure system, and certainly recognized the stark difference between the vinyl sound and a CD.

What makes this difference? Here are three situation to consider assuming the same piece of music:

(1) An original analogue recording on a vinyl vs. an A/D CD

(2) An original analogue recording on vinyl vs. an original digital recording on CD

(3) An original digial recording on CD vs. a D/A recording on vinyl

I wonder if the sound of vinyl is in some ways similar to the "color" of speakers? It's not so much of an information difference, just the sound of the medium?

Any thoughts?
"Is this perhaps part of why many high end audio buffs are so pro vinyl and anti CD? Hundreds of dollars is certainly not high end, right?" - Mapman

You are arguing about preference and the discussion is about formats. People might prefer french fries over asparagus but any nutritionist will tell you that the asparagus is better in many ways for them. As far as "easy" is concerned, why would higher-end have to be difficult? Doesn't make much sense.

It is a bit more difficult to argue the facts. CDs are more durable, smaller in size, playable in cars and portable gear, more accessible from retail stores (even gas stations sell CDs), and have advanced features like shuffle/repeat/program. Preference doesn't dismiss these attributes.
"As far as "easy" is concerned, why would higher-end have to be difficult? "

Because it is always harder to do anything really well.

Take a look at some of the high end systems on this site and what the owners have gone through to get where they are and it should become clear that high end often means complex and hard. Not always, but I think there is a general case to make based on the evidence that this is an accurate assessment.
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?

"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.