The limitations inherent in the vinyl format:
* 50-60dB S/N ratio at best - noise through the entire spectrum, but particularly..
* Low frequency rumble, even on the most expensive turntable
* Distortion
Unless you have an absolutely perfect record and a perfect turntable, with a perfect stylus and a perfect set-up, the practical frequency top for vinyl is well under 16K, and high frequencies tend to distort more. High frequency and sibilance distortion is a huge problem inherent to the format, often introduced in the mastering stage due to the massive boost in high frequencies required by the RIAA curve.
When it comes down to reproducing a continuous electronic waveform, the limitations of vinyl are orders of magnitude worse than any theoretical on-paper "quantization error" or "horrendous aliasing" in standard CD grade PCM audio. "quantifiable and objective reasons" - I don't buy that for a second.
You can't use the same measurement standards to compare analog versus digital music because they simply aren't relevant to each other.
Signal to Noise ratio: for CD's it's 98 dB, while for LP's it's about 65 dB. On paper, a clear winner for CD's.
But what about analog studio master tapes using Dolby-A noise reduction? They are around 80 dB. They also suffer from wow and flutter and tape hiss. Does that mean that CD's are a lot better than the original studio master tapes that they're made from? Should studios be mastering directly to CD's rather than wasting their time with analog tape?
Frequency Response: For LP's it's about 30 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3 dB. Below 30 Hz you have lots of distortion (low frequency rumble) while above 16 kHz there is a gradual drop off. With CD's on the other hand, the frequency response is theoretically linear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, but that assumes that a perfect brick-wall anti-aliasing filter is used. In practice, compromises are unavoidable and there are many different ways of combining filters and oversampling techniques to partially make up for it. The result is still audible distortion in upper frequencies.
You dismiss these digital distortions as theoretical only and that there is no quantifiable and objective basis to think they make for objectionable music. There are ways of making a fair comparison. My friend's band has just finished recording an album and in a week or so I will have the original master in my possession as a 24 bit, 96 kHz wav file. If I take a short sound clip from that and then make a copy of it re-sampled and saved as CD quality 16 bit, 44.1 kHz then there will be a huge difference in sound quality. The original sounds pristine with no audible distortion. The CD quality copy sounds harsh with audible digital distortion.
Alternatively, If I take one of my LP's and record it into my dedicated recording computer at a similar "master" rate of 24 bit, 96 kHz wav file then take a short sound clip of that it will sound pretty much the same as the record - meaning it will suffer from the same distortions as the original with low frequency rumble and limited dynamic range.
But more importantly these analog distortions from the LP will sound very different from the digital distortions of the CD. Vinyl suffers from certain types of distortion while CD's suffer from another certain type of distortion, and the only way to really compare which sounds better (or worse) is with psycho-acoustic science experiments. These tend to be subjective in nature and, not surprisingly, people who were more familiar with records were less likely to notice analog distortion while people who were more familiar with CD's were less likely to notice digital distortion, even with low quality MP3's.
