Toss 'em - try finding a drive for them lately?

(But then I still have my 33 RPM record albums)

This is, in fact, untrue.  Vinyl definitely has a different sound than CDs (at least for many recordings), but few realize that the difference is due to the MASTERING process.  Masters for vinyl are made with the limitations of vinyl in mind.  They are equalized differently, and dynamically compressed.  This will certainly sound *different* than a CD, but that's largely because the masters themselves sound different.  Some people prefer the sound from LPs vs. CDs, probably because they are used to the modifications necessary to get adequate reproduction out of vinyl.  But a *preference* for vinyl isn't the same as vinyl having more potential fidelity than CDs.

In truth, both formats have their limitations, but the only real advantages vinyl has is the larger cover art and the ease of mechanical manipulation for DJ-type "mixing."  In every other way, they are eclisped by CDs.

-Troy

Well, my first career was as an Audio Engineer, and my turntable (direct-drive, linear-tracking) has a $400 [b]cartridge[/b] in it (circa 1986), and sounds, given it's limitations, fantastic.

But here again, you are making characterizations of the CD format based (at least sometimes) on poor mastering.  Well, duh, if the master is crappy, then of course the duplicates of that master will be.

The true test is to create an LP and a CD from the SAME master.  Of course, the natural dynamic compression you get from vinyl will still change the perceived sound, and there are certainly those who have a preference for that sound, but again, that isn't the same thing as fidelity.

I take hyper-good care of my vinyl, as a lot of it is irreplacable and the music will never be available on CD.  Much of it has only been played a couple of times, to transfer the music to another medium.  Still, there are clicks, pops, hiss, and other noise, limited dynamics, and don't forget that vinyl degrades every time it is played.

Could CDs be better?  Yes.  It would have been great if they had STARTED with the quality of SACD or DVD-Audio.  But very, very few people will actually care enough at this point to purchase either format.  There just isn't a big enough market for it, given the quality of the sound system AND listening environment required to tell the difference.

For example, of the over a hundred car stereos I've ever heard, less than five of them even approached decent, balanced sound.  Most people's home stereo speakers are placed in locations that are convenient, regardless of sound quality.

But all that is okay.  CDs still sound pretty darn good, assuming the person making the master knows what he's doing.  Any format can sound only as good as the master it is attempting to reproduce.

-Troy

Well, we're now in the realm of opinion and preference, given that you aren't talking about measurable data, but rather perception.  No question that whenever two things are different, you'll have some people who like one over the other.

And, no, I don't use crappy cables.  I use decent, though not "ultra-high end" cables, which are generally way overkill for the current and frequencies traveling through them.

Keep in mind too that the sound in any pro studio is patched in via 20ga twisted-pair wires, not $3/foot Monster Cable.

I concentrate more on speakers (and their placement) than anything else, because they have by far the largest impact on the sound that you hear.  I always laugh when people fight over .002% THD between CD players, but they're listening though their brother's hand-me-down Kenwood speakers that came with his all-in-one-box stereo in 1982.  [:)]

-Troy