It is curious since you claim that in your SOTA system the LP and CD sound the same. Even if they're cut from the same 16/44 recording transferred to tape, it's impossible with the steps involved in production of each medium for them to sound the same. Oh and 16/44 can sound pretty damn good.
Well, I never claimed my system SOTA, my claim is that it's very good equipment that's been highly refined. Look, I can be just as analytical about the pro's & con's of my own system, as others.
As far as I'm concerned, CD, when done right, is better than many vinylphiles consider. I think 16/44 is a medium that's been misunderstood in some circles, perhaps let down by questionable musical practices/processing. I arrived at this conclusion relatively recently (I hated CD for nearly two decades) based on a few factors; one being that certain recordings can indeed sound amazingly natural within a very good system. However, the real ear-opener to me was when I started creating & sharing LP-CDRs with others, in which I (we) soon realized that one could in fact copy a LP to 16/44 (arguably, even on a sub-par recorder) and the result will be as good or better than many of the sub-standard CDs available.
Concerning the duplication of Cafe Blue to alternative mediums, well, I can understand how it might be better since perhaps the original 16 bit master was not well represented on the original CD. And the potential also exist that it might not have been properly represented on the FIM version, but I question that possibility considering FIM have a fine reputation of decent transfers.
When I claimed the CB LP & CD sound identical, I should have stated the original CD and the Premonition LP sound "virtually-identical". I have other digital recordings that are similar in nature. The Cowboy Junkees Trinity Sessions for example, yet another 16 bit "natural" recording. I claim "virtually identical" because although differences may exist (mix?), they are relatively small, especially in comparison to the overall difference between my analog rig in comparison to my digital player. In other words, in a blind test (which I'm no fan) I doubt most could reliably tell Cafe Blue or Trinity Sessions apart (CD vs LP) within my system. I've actually done just that (on a very limited basis) with visitors in the past, and the outcome was much the same. That said, I'm certain that even a death mute could decipher the general differences between a great LP on my turntable compared to a great CD on my CDP (most vinyl based audiophiles who visit refuse to entertain anything digital for that very reason (sigh)).
Although the FIM version is certainly better than the original CD, I wouldn't consider it jaw dropping. Perhaps some of the difference could be based on the mix. If my LP sounds different to the original CD in any way, it doesn't do so from purely a sonic point of view, again, perhaps more of a mix issue.
If I may quote Fremer:
Taken on its own, the new mix features a far superior and better integrated reverberant field, which is not surprising. The original's backdrop now sounds a bit hokey and too intense. It calls attention to itself and gives Barber's voice a harsh and sometimes brittle quality, while pushing her further into the backdrop than it should be. Sometimes the reverberant field overwhelms her voice. The new reissue's vocals are far smoother and much better integrated within the context of the atmospherics. You'll hear it immediately on the opening track "What A Shame" when Barber raises her voice to sing the line "fast on that track to decay." I noted that the bongos on that track "popped" better too.
However, if you already have the Mo-Fi 45rpm edition, you needn't buy this one, though the gatefold packaging is obviously superior to Mo-Fi's black box. Overall, these two multi-disc editions sound different from one another in a few key ways.
While the new mix using a superior reverb chamber is better integrated and "cleaner" overall in a modern way, I prefered listening to the Mo-Fi box at 45rpms. For whatever reason or reasons, the Mo-Fi exhibits greater stage depth (could be the amount of reverb). The new mix is flatter-sounding. But what really surprised me—and I noted it immediately—was the loss of transient definition when bassist Michael Arnopol plucks the bass strings with his fingers. What's a clear "pluck" on the Mo-Fi 45 becomes on the new mix, a somewhat muted, less than well-defined transient. It almost loses altogether the sensation of a finger being involved. The instrument itself also sounds somewhat fuller and richer on the Mo-Fi set—more "woody." The remixed cymbals are also either further forward in the mix, or just sound as if they are and they exhibit a harder edge that makes you want to lower the volume.
So ... while I understand the potential for better, often better is just different. And considering the extra processes involved with converting digital to tape, I find it highly unlikely that the RtR version would be anything but different, and potentially it might not be as good. I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I found this quote interesting ...
This time, Anderson transferred the multitrack tape to Pro-Tools 96/24 (the extra resolution can only help) and then mixed it down to 192k/24 bit two channel. From that he also produced a 15IPS Dolby SR analog tape, both of which Bob Ludwig received for mastering.
Jim says he believes Bob used the 192k/24 bit file, which he mastered and sent (at what resolution remains unclear) to Doug Sax for lacquer cutting.
... in that they used the digital file (which makes sense to me) ... and it also makes me wonder if the RtR tape that is now available was based on the 15IPS tape?
tb1