It all depends on the mastering process used on the CD. That Tull CD was mastered at the worse possible time for CD mastering, the early 80's. The engineers didn't know how to master for CDs at the time. But worse, many of the recordings that were re-released on CD in the 80's were not created from the original master tapes. The record companies were scrambling to re-release everything and they didn't worry about finding the original masters so they used whatever copy they found first which was often a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.steve_1979 said:Some CD's have limited dynamic range deliberately recorded onto them because of the loudness war. Have you ever heard the RHCP album 'Californication'? The CD is almost unlistenable because it's so bad but if you hear the the pre-mastered studio version the quality is much better.lindsayt said:If digital music has better sound quality than vinyl, how come my vinyl version of Jethro Tull's Broadsword and the Beast sounds better than my CD version in my system? The CD version sounds as if an incredible shrinking man was given one of those metal scouring pads and then shrunk down to size and given the task of scrubbing all the grooves.
Recording and mastering are very important factors of the sound quality. But all thing being equal digital is much more accurate than vinyl can ever be.
If you want to know which format sounds better, vinyl or CD, compare recent releases. If you primarily listen to pre-1990 music, then vinyl is a very good choice.