Although many records do sound better than some CDs, let us not forget the mastering trends. As stated before, mastering was different for vinyl. The initial CDs put out in the 80s of 60s or 70s rock music were, in some cases, rushed into the digital format with poor results in some cases. I concur with many of you about surface noise driving me crazy. I have only one record of the Firebird Suite by Stravinski where the noise was impressivly low. But when compared to the SACD recording, there is not much difference to my ears and on my system. Modern mastering (and a good mix) makes it possible for the CD formatto sound quite good. Let us also not forget the fact that as the stylus approaches the center of the record, there is a drop in higher frequencies. This is gradual, but play a CD and a record with the same content and you will notice the difference yourself.
As far as the digital world goes, I notice more clarity and detail going from 16 bit to 24 bit word depth than doubling the sampling rate...go figure...
An interesting experiment we did in the studio was to record a short piano passage at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 192 kbps at 24 bits, then downsample all into 44.1/16 and the most noticable improvement was going from 44.1 to 48. Not what we expected. Itdid sound better as the sample rate went up, but the increase from 44.1 to 48 was the least amount of an increase, yet it was most apparent.
I do have some LPs and do play them, but that's only because I don't have the CD... As bandwidth increases, the excuse for compressed formats goes away. HD tracks offers recordings which are downloadable at much better sample rates than CDs. One day I hope to have a music server and would love to listen to 88.2/24 or other hi-res formats....