Are Digitally mastered LPs any better than CDs?

It's not like every LP you put on is going to be ridden with surface noise and tics and pops. In fact, the digitally mastered LPs I have are particularly quiet. I like all-analog LPs the best, but I have gone out of my way to buy digitally recorded LPs of which I already had the CDs because I like the sound better on vinyl.

For 15 years or so, most albums have been digitally recorded at high sampling rates--88.2, 96, 176.4, 192 KHz, or DSD at 2.7 or 5.4 MHz, and 20 or 24 bits if pcm. When you get an LP so recorded, there's a really good chance the D/A conversion is from the recording's native mode at that high sampling rate and if applicable, the longer word length. The D/A process is also handled by a multi-thousand-dollar pro D/A converter. If you buy a CD, the hi-rez master is downconverted to 44.1 Khz/16 bit rendition, and the D/A is handled by whatever you have on your equipment rack. I'll take the LP.

I respectfully disagree. I have done 4 comparisons of digitally-recorded Lps that sounded better than their CD counterparts in each instance: Wergo recording of Koechlin's Persion Hours (Herbert Henck, piano); Szymanowsi's Sym No. 2 (London, Detroit Sym/Dorati); American Music for String Orch (Barber, Diamond, etc.)(Nonesuch, LA Chamber Orch/Schwarz); and Bax's Tone Poems, Vol 1 (Chandos, Thompson, Ulster Orch.). In each instance, the sound on the Lp was more full-bodied, and more detailed, such that, in particular, strings did not sound as edgy, like some digital mass, but instead sounded richer and better differentiated. To the best of my recollection, all comparisons were done with a GNSC-modified Wadia 860 for the CD's and a Linn LP12 with Koetsu Black, via an EAR 834P phono stage with stock tubes. Since the sound of the GNSC-modded Wadia is probably not familiar to many readers, I would call it a richer version of the stock model, with somewhat smoother highs. I preferred it over my Linn CD12--a bit better detail, and no significant loss of warmth, for my taste (and more solid bass as well).

These were late-production records against early production CDs (of course). Chandos re-issued the Bax recording mentioned above, and made a big deal out of the reissue being remastered at 24/96. The reissued CD has more "information" on it than the old one. This leads me to assume that at least some early CDs tended to lose information in the mastering and/or manufacturing process...but I don't know enough to explain it. Also, as most of us know (to our regret and annoyance), early CDs often didn't sound so great compared to later ones. Finally, I have no idea if the original recordings of any of these albums was made with a higher bit rate than 16/44. I understand that at least Telarc was using a higher bit rate even in the early days.

Finally, it would be easy to assume that the Koetsu (generally considered a warm-ish sounding cartridge) might be the explanation for the difference. Maybe so--though I don't think so, b/c it wasn't just timbral, it was detail as well.

But the best way to decide is to make the comparison yourself.

Thanks for the responses. I didn't realize most recent recordings were recordede at hiogher data rates, and wasn't aware of the ultra-high data rates mentioned by Johnny B. Does this also apply to the pop / rock (i.e. U2) recordings I hear are being made available now?
I own a GNSC modded 850,so am familiar with the sound.
I would love to listen for myself, and am slowly getting my vinyl rig in shape.

There have have been numerous digitally mastered classical albums from the 80's (mostly Phillips and London) popping up in the local record stores I've been buying for about $1-3 each. While they might not have the warmth of the best all analogue productions, they certainly don't suffer from the deficiencies of 80's digital either. The quality of the vinyl surfaces are fine, no gripes about noise (unlike many contemporary rock vinyl releases.)