A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..

There are so many mistakes in the information of the infomercial that it made me laugh.

How many of you have actually had an analog master, not a copy but a master. Then listened to a comparison between the original master tape, a lacquer, and a CD on a great system. Unless you have, how can you support your claims or statements. I have done this. The answer is even the best CD transport an DAC will not compete with the master tape. If you cannot pick out the difference go get your hearing checked. You ask about my experience, I come from the days before digital. On the other hand I was recording digital data before CD's were available.

No matter what the resolution and data rate a digital representation of a sound, it will always be an approximation of the original event. Whether or not you can detect the difference is a question of psycho-acoustics and has a lot to do with how good a persons hearing is. So if you start with a digital recording of "Red Book" specifications don't bother with a vinyl pressing.

"Isn't that true for analog (vinyl in most of the above posts), too? It is an approximation, attempt to reproduce, the original event. "

The microphone to the recording system, what ever it maybe is an analog device. There are no steps, no divisions, or resolution with analog, but there is with digital. This is what I was pointing at. There is no Nyquist theorem, which based on an approximation. 

A recording will not be able to truly duplicate the original performance. But you can tell the difference between an analog original and a digital original. On the other hand, these days I am not sure you can really call the recording engineers produced in a trade school an engineer. Engineering schools are ABET accredited, are there any trade recording school that can meet the criteria? I don't know of any.