New LP's made from analog or digital masters

It's not uncommon during the vinyl master cutting session for there to be an analog to digital and back to analog conversion stage. This conversion is not really necessary, but many mastering houses use it to add a delay to monitor the input signal in order to prevent cutting head overload and to maintain proper groove spacing.

"Sounds like the vinyl would still have higher fidelity over the cd's in most cases."

I have not drawn that conclusion yet in regards to new vinyl. The vinyl format is capable of higher fidelity perhaps, but the question is how often it is actually accomplished, especially when digital is involved in the mastering process anyhow.

Agreed that higher res digital mastering can be very good and could be preserved to the vinyl better than redbook CD format allows, but is it and how often?

I've heard too many stories on this sight about bad quality of new records to feel inclined to test the waters in general unless I know up front that the product I am purchasing at a premium is superior to the alternatives.

Also, I find the overall quality of CD recordings these days to be much better than many vinyl enthusiasts tend to give credit for. CDs are not perfect either though, so I know that the format alone does not always determine overall sound quality or value in any specific case.

Mapman,
You are correct that we vinyl enthusiasts are a little harsh on CD. It's payback for CD being so harsh on our ears for 20 years, I guess.
I think I never forgave the record industry for forcing CD down our ears and having the nerve to tell us it was "perfect sound forever" when, in fact, the sound was awful and CDs scratch just as easy (if not easier) than records.
CD quality has improved markedly since 1982. Some LP's that I buy contain a the CD of that recording. In many cases, the difference between LP and CD is quite small. Usually the difference is most apparent in the bass. With bass, the CD will have "thwack" and the record will have "thump". Many will prefer the "thwack" as it is more exciting and attention-getting, but "thump" is really closer to what that instrument sounds like.
On "Together Through Life" by Bob Dylan, I compared the LP and CD. Very close, but while the bass sounds good on CD, on vinyl it's extremely obvious that a large, wood-bodied instrument is being played.

Cheers.

I have a few Clearaudio LPs from digital master, Anna Netrebko's La Traviata from Salzburg Festival and her duet album with Villazon and it sounds a bit different from my music server playback via Berkeley DAC but certainly not better.
Recently I also picked up several new Japanese Deutsche Grammaphone reissue of Karajan's old recordings such as Mozart's Requeim (Tomowa-Sintow, Baltsa etc), Brahms's Hungarian Dances etc, presumably digitally remastered (sorry I could not read Japanese) but they all sound rather dry and about the same sonic quality as many other DG digital master LP from the 80-90's :(

for me its simple the one difference between digital and analog is that the digital mastered records don't get played like my analog ones do ,(they can sound ok but)i just don't reach for them because don't feel or sound the same.
to really go out there i will say the true analog is like a finger print of the performance it hasn't been freeze dried then reconstituted like digital. in other words because it has never been taken apart you can unwind analog back to the moment.its whole.
so even for the best of the digital my head might get a hit because its so clear but it misses the heart.

if every one could hear a clean Hank Williams "moaning the blues" mono lp from the 50s and play it with a mono cart like the premium made by Miya-jima through horns this would be an non issue.