Analog vinyl records are not more accurate than digital.

[MattiasNYC]

so i am not going to quote and do that thing as my point seems to be not taken at face value.

a cd has a fixed amount of range but a record does not.

You have dynamic range ("volume") and you have frequency range. From Wikipedia on Dynamic range: "Vinyl microgroove phonograph records typically yield 55-65 dB" and "The 16-bit compact disc has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB". Which has a wider range?

And if you're talking about frequency you said "no real point over 24bit 96 and even that is overkill" so what point is it having frequencies that we can't hear? If you're going to say that 24/96 is overkill then clearly going above 44.1kHz is of no value which in turn means that it can't be the frequency range that is the problem.

So what "fixed amount of range" is it that CD is missing?

with a cd if you want super bass like most modern stuff has you have to sacrifice the quality of the high end, but a record you can have both (or more of both.)

Where did you get that from? Try cutting a vinyl record with lots of low-end bass in stereo.

and with 32bit i was ogling the wave forms from fixed point

Not sure what you mean. There are virtually no a/d/a converters that run 32bit fixed point. And the majority of 32-bit floating point usage is in the act of processing digital audio. So when I work on something my computer will take data stored at 24-bit, convert to 32-bit float on the fly, process it, and by the time it's done and it reaches my converters it's back to 24-bits.