Do cd's store a more exact copy of sound than LP's

As with most engineering problems the answer does not lie in the underlying theory, but in the ability to best implement an approximation to the theory. These threads always get caught up in various misunderstandings of Nyquists sampling theory, quantization noise etc etc. I believe that the theories don't help us to explain whether redbook CD is better or worse than LP, since implementation of digital systems introduces errors (jitter being the main one) that are not accounted for by the simple theoretical models.

A sampled and quantized signal can IN THEORY exactly represent a bandlimited, limited dynamic range analog waveform, such that there would be absolutely no difference between the reconstructed analog waveform and the original waveform.

So, that said, I firmly believe that, in theory redbook CD can more accurately represent the sound of the master tape, since it has better linearity, dynamic range, signal to noise, channel separation etc etc etc than vinyl. Whether this is borne out in practise or not depends on many many real world variables, such as the quality of the ADCs and DACs, the mastering, the levels of jitter in recording, mastering, playback etc, anti-aliasing filter in the ADC, the implementation of a reconstruction filter.

However, those who write that digital can never be as good as analog because the digital signal looks like a little staircase (quantization noise is the technical term) are missing the point. Don't look to the theory ... look to the implementation.

I guess I should be clear that the point of my post is to say "That's a very complex question with an extremely complex answer, and I really don't know enough to know the answer". However I do know that there isn't a simple answer, so don't let anyone tell you there is.

I think the previous poster said it all ... let your ears decide.

So having said that the theory may not be conclusive, and that the implementation may be the key I would guess that redbook CD would store a more accurate copy of a recording than vinyl.

Now here's my getout clause: I'm somewhat familiar with the imperfections of CD recording and playback, being an EE by trade and having done some signal processing (though not much .. I'm mostly a software guy). Vinyl on the other hand I'm not very familiar with, though I do know that the medium presents physical limitations that require a pre-emphasis/de-emphasis curve, that it suffers from surface noise, and that, like all mechanical systems, it requires very precise setup. Although I enjoy my LPs I've always suspected that this may be due to an agreeable coloration of the sound on an LP, versus the cold, harsh reality of CDs.

At the end of the day I like listening to both sources, though I tend to favour CDs for classical just because of the quiet background. And finally I'm a firm believer that the medium (whether it be CD, vinyl, or horror ... cassette) is less important than the rooms (recording and playback) the quality of the microphones, and the diligence of the engineer.

Hey all .. found this interesting link ....

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page1.html

It blurs the distinction between digital and vinyl in an interesting way