Of course, now we know better. The real reason record companies went to CDs was cost, convenience was the consumer incentive, sound quality wasn't even a factor in the decision. Just hype.
Well, in the last twenty years I have not heard anything to change my opinion that CD was a giant leap forward in the sound quality the average consumer experienced. I still have a turntable and cassette deck, but much, much, much better speakers, amp, and especially room than I had twenty years ago when I switched to CD. Most of my CDs are getting to be about that old, so they are from the early days of digital. All of my LPs are 20 to 50 years old, most well played in their heyday. The CD sound is so obviously better, even when I run the CD out my rack player, using its marginal D/A, back into my rack A/D, to PC, and then out the rack D/A again (which is my usual setup, for convenience of volume control).
I read somebody say recently you needed to drop $1K on a turntable just to start to get into good quality. Well, I can afford the '80s vintage Sony turntable I have, with a brand new $40 stylus I bought, but that's about it. You would either have to have significant high-frequency hearing loss, or just hate transient response in general, to think my turntable is better than my CD player . . .
There are plenty of people in the world that hate transient response. I just read somebody say a Shure SM57 had a less "hyped" transient response than one of my mics

Well yeah, it has none
