Analogue from Digital

@mikelavigne  I agree.  I have 28,700 LPs/7,000 CDs/7,000 78s.  I stopped purchasing jazz LPs (so many great but expensive recordings) and substituted CD versions.  So many are absolutely wonderful.  I have good quality audio gear and a great room so that's my advantage.   I intend to eliminate about 8,000 LPs and 2,000 78s over time (I've sold 18,000 records over the years) as I am a listener and not a collector (hence like @millercarbon, I listen to music almost always absent doing chores, just in the listening room).  

Like it or not most analogue vinyl records are made from digital files. I have always tried where possible to buy LPs that came from tape - ie closer to the source. On the whole they just sound better and not in a hifi way just more immediate and musical. I read this podcast from 'the Part Time Audiophile' about how LPs are made and was shocked when the expert guy said 'it was easier' (for him) to use digital files than tape to make the LP. This attitude will be prevalent imho in this dumbed down world we inhabit https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2021/10/14/how-records-are-made-the-occasional-podcast/

Digital transfers are done in High Res, 24/192 or better. This is invisible.
Nobody that I have done that AB testing with has been able to repeatedly identify the vinyl or it's 24/192 copy that I made with the Pure Vinyl program. But, since I can not make a record I can not go the other way. All I can do is compare commercial Vinyl and digital versions of the same piece but as Mike L indicated you are now dealing with different masters so all bets are off. Here are some very recent examples.
Little Feat, The Last Record Album, the vinyl sounds positively dull with too much bass and no treble. It does not even out at high volumes. It is obviously a terrible mastering job. The Digital is gorgeous in comparison. I chucked the record. Next is Jethro Tull, Heavy Horses. Vinyl is excellent the digital has almost no bass. Another obviously terrible mastering job. I chucked the file. Next is Stevie Wonder's Hotter than July. The vinyl is a MoFi release. These two are close. The MoFi is a little more dynamic but the digital has these beautiful black spaces between the instruments and voices. They are both good in their own way but I lean towards the digital. It is impossible for me to know if the vinyl was from a digital master but my intuition is that vinyl sounds like vinyl and that a record from a digital master is going to sound like vinyl. I have many recent recordings that I know were recorded digitally and the records are great as long as the pressing is decent and an unfortunate number of them are not, even the 180 gm "Audiophile" versions. That is certainly one thing you do not have to worry about with digital files.

Enjoyed Bruce19's thoughts. My source for new music is digital these days now that I'm older and simplicity, cost and convenience are important. I have built my current system out to bias toward an "analogue sound" and yes, coloration is built in with my chain of tube gear, but what matters is how it sounds to me. Most of what I seek in recording/mastering excellenceI I find in music from independent studios. Big Name labels, to me, are full of things like getting overly happy with recording software and what sounds like ham handed compression. The smaller producers just seem to care more about the sound and the process being the avenue to a stellar listening experience, with the added benefit that it's easier to learn about their methods, production people and artists. I find a lot of good music that way as well.