I know this has probably been discussed...

But I can't seem to find the answer to this question:

If most if not all recordings are done digitally now, doesn't that defeat the purpose of vinyl?

If someone could point me to the thread/s on this subject I'd be most grateful.
A lot of the current audiophile reissues from labels like Music Matters, Analogue Productions, Mofi, and even mass market labels like Warner Bros are puttting out jazz, rock and pop reissues that are sourced from the original master analog tapes. These are typically expensive and involve a select few mastering engineers like Kevin Gray and Steven Hoffman or Stan Ricker and a few others who are viewed as the go to guys. You are probably right that for the majority of the mass market new issues, labels are recording in the digital domain to begin with. That's why the mass market new issue stuff goes for $10-$20 per Lp whereas the audiophile reissues sourced from the analog mastertapes and done by one of the big mastering engineers go for $25-$50 per Lp. The audiophile reissues also use higher quality vinyl pressing plants like RTI and Pallas in Germany.

I am sure more knowledgeable folks than I will chime in with a lot more detail and substance to answer your question. Hope this helps.
That definitely helped. The main reason for the question is to see if I really should be buying any new indie records, or stick to albums pressed pre-digital. I've been A-Bing a lot of my new records (Arcade Fire, Iron and Wine, for example) and comparing it with their CD counterparts. Obviously, the gear I have will change the sound, but overall I "think" that records sound more "natural." I'm wondering if it's in my head, and if it isn't, what happens during the pressing of a record that changes a digitally recorded work in to something that sounds less "digital," than the CD counterpart.

Cmalak: Do the labels list anywhere on the album if it is sourced from analog masters?
I'm in the group that finds that I like more of my old all analog albums.When you don't have a choice,being that is was only mastered in digital,vinyl still gives one less D/A in the process.
I can remeber the controversy over: "Digitally recorded LPs will destroy turntable bearings."
It was a big deal that turned out to be totally false, but was one of those 'the sky is falling' Chicken Little sort of things.
I have 6,000 LP and do not care if it is from a digital source or not.
Most of my Lps are pressed before the 1980's anyway, but those from after and are from a digital master do not bother me at all, since the problem is all in one's head anyway. (feel free to thrash me for this observation)
Elizabeth, how exactly do you want us to do it?
The bottleneck is most likely redbook CD format, not digital in general.

Digital masters can be very high resolution and very good quality these days, I believe. Those that get transferred to vinyl may not be affected by the same limitations as CD redbook versions.

This is a weird reason - Even the mass-marketed digital LPs will probably outlast their CD counterparts.
To thrash me, use your imagination. Draw (preferably with crayons) a picture of what you imagine I look like. Then put it up on a wall. shoot darts, water ballons, bullets (it's YOUR wall) smear it with evil unmentionable stuff. Use a high voltage transformer and zap the picture with 20,000 volts. put in in a plastic zip-lock and suffocate my picture, cut it up while laughing an evil laugh.
I am certain folks can think of all sorts of nasty things to do.
Then later you can feel guilty over what you have done.
Good luck.
Try the new John Mellencamp CD. Recorded in mono, on an old Ampex reel-to-reel, in historic venues with everyone standing around the same mike, and no mixing or dubs afterwards. Thirteen songs written in thirteen days. Kind of upside down and backwards from the question but new stuff like this gives me more reason to keep listening-as if I need more motivation-not!
Elizabeth, how 'bout I bring it over to your house so I can hear it on your fine system? I know you have some cool stuff, too.
Elizabeth, I don't know about my imagination but yours appears to be quite wild and developed. I doubt that you need to actually listen to music - you could have it in your head directly. I have no bad words for you.
I agree with Elizabeth. Not about thrashing her, but that for teh most part teh technical difference, though they certainly exist do not really matter much.

The purpose of having a hifi is to listen to music.

Just do it.

If it doesn't sound good, then fix what you can or stop listening and get another hobby.

You can't change how someone else produced a recording forget about that. If you don't lke a particualr one, don't listen again. If you do, then buy 10 different master versions and enjoy them all.
Elizabeth, I agree totally with you. Most of my over 1000 LP collection was mastered before the digital stuff but I have some that were digitally mastered. If it sounds good, lose the snob appeal of only a pure analog mastering will do, I say! And just so you know, I just burned you in e ffigy, not due to any bad feeling or disagreement, but just cuz it was fun! LOL
Aren't some new recordings done on analog tape or has everything gone digital?
As a side note it was refreshing to hear Dan D'Agostino acknowledge during a recent web interview that vinyl yields far greater bandwith than digital. Vinyl lives!


"I came up in Kansas City when the joints were runnin' full blast from 9pm to 5 am. Usual pay was $1.25 a night, although somebody special like Count Basie could command $1.50." - Charlie Parker
If you really think about it, the purpose of vinyl is to provide a recorded medium for those that prefer to listen to music on a turntable, that's it!