Does digital mastering/remastering "ruin" LP's?

Yup, it ruins them if you believe digital sound on cd's ruins them

IMO only those possesed of misplaced values would ever eschew music because of digital sourcing in the recording process. The music is the foremost reason to buy a performance! I've got numerous classical lp's sourced from digital recordings and I love them immensely. Perhaps they aren't the sonic equal of the best all analog recordings, but I NEVER think about their recorded origins while listening to them I assure you. To answer your concerns, no I haven't found the ones I own to sound like cruddy early cds. Perhaps the conversion of digital bits to vinyl waveforms in the mastering renders the harsh artifacts less obtrusive? I sure those more immersed in the technical minutae of audio will enlighten us.

After my initial response, your query really got me thinking about this and I went over to Audioasylum's "vinyl" section and searched "digital mastering." There's a lot of interesting reading and opinions there on the subject. One thing I hadn't thought of is the fact that much material was digitally remastered in higher resolution than standard redbook. When an engineer converts from the digital domain to vinyl analog, they can take advantage of the lack of need to go down to redbook. It's not a question that can be answered simply, many different factors come into play.

Yes, IMHO digital mastering/remastering does degrade the sound. I own some LP's from the early 80's that were 'digitally mastered' that sound pretty close to cd like quality. There is nothing quite like a pure analog signal.

John

Basically... to my ear, YES.
But the newer remastering of the Rolling Stones ABKCO records with DSD were very fine indeed and few of us own a full set of minty fresh UK originals.

What I also find curious is how a home recorded CD from a good vinyl, off a solid TT sounds better than a store bought red book CD everytime!

Happy Listening! 0100101101010001111011011010100110101010101000011000

An interview with Bob ludwig (I think) mentioned that there is a full extra octive of upper end info on LP's cut from 96K digital sources compared with the CD version.

Also many new LP's signal path becomes digitized in the lathe, even is fuly analog before that, which is a bummer.

the 80's would be a bad way to judge anything digital.

Your answer is that it depends. Like analog mastering you can get something that sounds great or terrible. there is no hard rule. The best way for people to judge this is if they don't know how the material was sourced and mastered.

Sometimes you get a mixed bag. The soul-jazz label reggae issues certainly seem digitally mastered and god knows where the masters are from. They are enjoyable enough though as the originals are often quite muddy and distorted. So, you trade one evil for another.

I agree with Mothra, there's no simple rule about it all. I have some LPs that were originally digitally recorded, and they sound really good. They're maybe not quite as warm and mellow as a full analog chain, but they are very musically satisfying. To paraphrase Michael Fremer, with a digitally recorded LP, you're hearing an analog master made from a pro-quality ($20K and up) D/A converter working from the original sampling rate and word length. With a CD the digital master has been dithered down to 16/44.1. The LP sounds better, period.

As to digital RE-mastering, I'm not sure. Some probably make things sound clearer, some may make them sound thinner. I have little experience in LPs made from digital remasters.

But I have a few digitally recorded LPs and I like them. These include the soundtrack to O Brother, Where Art Thou?, a digital Angel direct-metal-mastered LP of The Planets, and a Fantasy jazz LP of Hank Crawford and Jimmy McGriff. All sound fabulous with the warmth of LP AND the sparkle of digital.