Re: CD vs Vinyl
Measures and ears..a very old debate. What we should have learned from past history (remember the Japanese amplifiers with zero point zero zero zero...distortion and a terrible sound?) is that if our ears disagree from measures, there's something to investigate..with measures.
I remember beeing very skeptical about the sound of cables, dismissing it as commercial hype..until and old Physics student of mine who had got an hifi shop convinced me to try some cables: and I had to believe to my ears; so I went back to theory and discovered cables are not pure resistances but also capacitances, impedences, and all of that less than pefect.
So if listening to vinyl we find it better than CD (not always, but a lot of times), there's something we are missing in the theory..
and of course there is: Shannon's theorem (or Nyquist-Shannon if you prefer) applies to an ideal sampling made with infinite samples (and the resulting limited bandwidth): in real life you have nothing like that, and there's no antialiasing filter that can solve the problem: it's just a bandaid. So also in theory the CD (and even SACD) has a lot of limitations. (It's not by chance that also in CD players you have to spend a lot of money to get a good sound...)
I also agree that many problems with CDs come from horrible masterizations-but you can say the same of a lot of LPs; but when you get the same good master pressed on vinyl and CD-the vinyl sounds better!
And, by the way, just forget about hiss and scratches: that's old time legend; with modern phonopres you have a much higher acceptance, so all the impulses coming from dust are no more amplified; they just disappear or are very low-and on a good record you have a real 'black' background. Yes, you have to pay for that...but still you can get a very decent system with no more than a thousand bucks...and already appreciate vinyl over CD.