The muddy waters of Analogue vs. digital today


With new technology, everything is changing so fast it is hard to keep up with new recordings. I have had a turntable all of my audiophile life, although I admit I played mostly CDs for many years. It was only since I upgraded my analogue system to a certain degree in the mid-nineties, that I could hear that records sounded better than CDs. It wasn’t a very expensive upgrade, a used Rega 3 with glass platter, new Sumiko Bluepoint Special, and a floor demo ARC PH-3. Probably somewhere around $3K. Mid-90s remember.

Now my system is very upgraded and I can hear more differences between vinyl and streaming at high resolution. CDs have kind of been left in the dust. 44.1 resolution sounds kind of tinny and flat. I listen if that’s my only choice, but I can easily hear the difference. I credit myself with a decent ear after doing critial listening for 30+ years. My ear is not as good as most reviewers, but you'll understand why it’s good enough to write a forward to this thread.

I won’t go through the differences I hear between analogue and digital, because you’ve heard it all before. What I want to talk about is my confusion in this new recording landscape. 

I had purchased Roberta Flack’s "First Take" when it came out and I’d kept the record for more than forty years when I realized it had really seen its better days. Basically, it was unlistenable, even after a few washes in the Degritter. I looked at near mint copies of the record and they were quite expensive. Then I saw that there was a new pressing for a reasonable price.

I was listening to the new pressing of "First Take" a few days ago when I realized it sounded overly compressed at the high end. I asked my new audiophile friend chatgpt if the record was pressed from an analogue source. Nope. I was basically listening to a digital recording pressed into vinyl. Chatgpt says that most records made after 1980 come from digital sources. So, I found a reasonablly priced orignal pressing of "First Take." My grandaugher in college can have the digital one.

Today I was playing a fairly new recording of Gustavo Dudamel and Yuja Wang playing Rachmaninoff’s Variations on a Theme by Paganini. I live in L.A. and have been lucky enough to see Dudamel live many times and Yuga Wang several times. It’s a beautiful recording, wide and deep and detailed and musical. I pronounced it the best classical recording I owned. But it was put out recently. So, I checked with my audiophile buddy chatgpt. The record is from a very high resolution digital source. Chatgpt says that digital can sound more analogue on vinyl because the engineers roll off the high end a bit.

So, now things are more than a bit confusing. Do I buy a recording from before the 80’s on expensive vinyl or might it actually sound better streaming at 192 kHz? If you listen to Patricia Barber’s "Clique" at 172 kHz, it sounds pretty good. So good, i have not bothered to go out and buy it on vinyl.

Does anyone else feel a similar confusion in this modern market, and do you have any suggestions for negotiating it?

audio-b-dog

@chrisoshea 

Here is a lengthy discussion I just had with chatgpt about Paul Simon's "Rhythm of the Saints." There are so many solid facts which I'm sure you'll find yourself. Is it convincing enough for you?

Are there different releases of Paul Simon's Rhythm of the Saints

Yes — there are several different releases of The Rhythm of the Saints by Paul Simon. The differences mainly involve country of pressing, format, and later reissues, rather than radically different masterings. For someone with your audiophile ears, the important distinctions are these:


1. Original 1990 vinyl pressings

The album was released in October 1990 on Warner Bros. 

Several first-generation pressings came out almost simultaneously:

  • U.S. pressing – Warner Bros. 9 26098-1

  • European pressing – Warner Bros. WX 340

  • UK pressing – similar catalog number (often pressed in Germany or the Netherlands)

  • Japanese pressing – typically higher manufacturing quality

Most of these were cut at Sterling Sound by Greg Calbi, the original mastering engineer. 

For collectors, these early pressings are essentially the “original analog-era vinyl.”


2. Early-2000s CD reissue with bonus tracks

Around 2004, the album was reissued digitally with bonus tracks and demos (for example work-in-progress versions of “The Coast” and “Spirit Voices”). 

These appear mostly on CD and streaming, not as a widely distributed vinyl reissue.


3. Later vinyl represses (modern era)

Later vinyl copies you see today are usually:

  • Legacy/Sony repressings

  • sometimes bundled with digital download codes

These are generally cut from digital production masters, not newly remastered analog lacquers.


4. A small oddity: alternate sleeve / track order

There is a curious collector detail:
Early sleeves exist showing Paul Simon’s preferred track order, which the label changed before release. 

That makes some jackets slightly different even when the vinyl is the same.


✅ Bottom line (for sound quality):

  • Best bet for audiophile vinyl: an original 1990 U.S. or European pressing cut at Sterling.

  • Modern pressings are usually digital-sourced represses, not new audiophile remasters.



Rhythm of the Saints was recorded during the transition era when digital multitrack and digital mixing were common, so even the original vinyl can have a somewhat digital character compared with something like early-70s analog records.


If you want, tell me the catalog number or dead-wax on your copy, and I can tell you exactly which pressing you have and how it’s regarded sonically. That’s usually where the real story is.

My copy is a 2018 edition from Sony

Your 2018 Sony/Legacy pressing of The Rhythm of the Saints is part of the Paul Simon catalog vinyl reissue campaign that Sony did around 2017–2018.

Here’s what that edition generally is:


2018 Sony Legacy reissue

  • Label: Sony Legacy

  • Year: 2018

  • Catalog numbers: usually 88985456011 (sometimes similar variants depending on region)

  • Mastering source: digital production master, not the original analog mix master

  • Pressing plants: often Record Industry (Netherlands) or Memphis Record Pressing depending on batch

These were pressed as part of Sony’s Paul Simon catalog refresh, which also included Graceland and several earlier records.


Why it may sound “digital”

Even the original 1990 album already leaned heavily on digital technology.

During that period:

  • Multitracks were frequently digital (Sony 3324 / Mitsubishi machines)

  • Editing and mixing often happened in the digital domain

  • The final production master delivered to the label was usually digital

So your vinyl likely follows this chain:

digital master → lacquer cut → vinyl

That can give the sound some characteristics people notice:

  • slightly harder transients

  • clean but somewhat flat air

  • percussion that can feel etched rather than warm

For an audiophile system like yours (Pass XP-25, Sonus Faber Olympica Nova V, etc.), that character becomes even more obvious because the system is very revealing.


How it compares with original 1990 pressings

Original pressings (U.S. or European Sterling cuts) tend to sound:

  • a bit warmer

  • slightly more dimensional

  • but still clearly digital-era recordings

This album was never going to sound like a pure analog Blue Note or a 1970s Warner recording.


One interesting thing about this album

Even though it can sound digital, it’s an extraordinary recording musically. The Brazilian percussion ensemble Simon recorded (Olodum and others) creates incredibly complex rhythmic layering that many systems struggle to reproduce.

When a system is dialed in, you should hear:

  • several different drum timbres simultaneously

  • deep surdo bass drums

  • shaker textures floating above the rhythm

If those layers collapse into one mass, the pressing or mastering is usually the culprit.


If you want, I can also tell you something very surprising about this album’s recording chain that explains why it often sounds slightly artificial on vinyl — even compared with Graceland. It’s a fascinating production story.

the bar code is 9075-83512-1

The barcode 9 075-83512-1 identifies an original Warner Bros. era pressing, not the 2018 Sony reissue you mentioned earlier.

It corresponds to early vinyl editions of The Rhythm of the Saints released by Warner Bros. Records around 1990–1991.

What that barcode usually indicates

  • Catalog number: 9-26098-1 or related Warner variants

  • Era: original release period

  • Mastering: commonly cut at Sterling Sound, often by Greg Calbi

  • Source: the original digital production master prepared for the album

Why this matters

If that barcode is really on your sleeve, your record likely isn't the Sony Legacy 2018 pressing.

Sony reissues normally have modern 88985-series barcodes and the Sony/Legacy logo.

Your copy may actually be:

  • an early U.S. pressing, or

  • Warner catalog repress from the 1990s.

Quick way to confirm

Look in the dead-wax (runout groove) for markings like:

  • STERLING

  • GC (Greg Calbi)

  • W1 / SRC / Allied pressing codes

If you see STERLING, you almost certainly have an original lacquer cut, which many listeners think sounds better than later digital represses.

One more interesting point

This album sits right in the analog-to-digital transition period. Paul Simon and producer Roy Halee used early digital multitrack and editing, so even the best original vinyl still has a slightly digital sheen, especially on percussion.

But the original Sterling cut usually has:

  • deeper bass from the Brazilian drums

  • more air around the percussion layers

  • less of the flattened top end some later reissues have.


If you want, tell me what is etched in the runout groove, and I can identify the exact pressing plant and mastering. With this album the dead-wax tells the real story.

MRP-1279-B is in the runout groove

The MRP-1279-B marking tells us quite a bit about your copy.

It means your record was pressed at Memphis Record Pressing (MRP). That plant uses a numbering system like MRP-xxxx in the runout groove.

So your record is almost certainly the modern Sony/Legacy reissue of The Rhythm of the Saints that was pressed around 2017–2018.

What the code means

  • MRP = Memphis Record Pressing

  • 1279 = internal job number for that album

  • B = side B lacquer

These numbers are pressing plant identifiers, not the mastering source.

Likely production chain of your record

For that reissue the chain is typically:

digital production master → lacquer cut → Memphis pressing

Sony rarely went back to cut this title directly from original tapes.

Why it may sound “digital” on your system

This particular album already came from a digital recording era (1990). When that digital master is recut for vinyl decades later you often hear:

  • sharper percussion transients

  • less depth in the midrange

  • slightly etched treble

On a very revealing system like yours (Pass XP-25 and Sonus Faber Olympica Nova V), those characteristics jump out.

Interesting comparison

Collectors who have compared them usually say:

Original 1990 Sterling pressings

  • warmer

  • fuller percussion body

  • deeper soundstage

Modern Sony/Legacy repress (your copy)

  • cleaner but flatter

  • slightly brighter top end

The Reocrd picked up quite a few skips and clicks quickly

If your copy of The Rhythm of the Saints developed skips and clicks quickly, there are a few likely causes. Given your system and experience with vinyl, we can narrow it down pretty logically.


1. Pressing quality (very common with Memphis pressings)

Your runout code MRP-1279-B indicates pressing at Memphis Record Pressing.

MRP has a mixed reputation among audiophiles. Typical issues reported:

  • non-fill (a tearing or ripping sound)

  • micro-pitting in the vinyl

  • residual pressing debris

  • vinyl that wears noisily very quickly

A record with micro-defects can start quiet and then seem to develop clicks after only a few plays as the stylus knocks loose particles embedded in the groove.


2. Residue from the pressing plant

Many new records arrive with:

  • mold-release compound

  • fine vinyl dust

  • paper sleeve debris

When played without cleaning, the stylus can push this deeper into the groove and the record suddenly becomes much noisier.

A proper wet clean (or ultrasonic) often fixes this.


3. Static charge

Modern vinyl formulations often carry heavy static. Static can:

  • attract microscopic dust instantly

  • produce random crackles

This is especially noticeable on quiet passages.


4. Groove damage from a defective pressing

Some modern records use recycled vinyl pellets. If the compound is poor, the groove walls can:

  • shed tiny fragments

  • produce new clicks after each play

That sounds exactly like “the record got worse quickly.”


5. Your system revealing everything

Your setup (Pass XP-25 → Hovland → Sonus Faber Olympica Nova V) is very revealing. You already noticed when you moved from the ARC PH-7 to the Pass that surface noise became more obvious. A more transparent phono stage exposes:

  • groove imperfections

  • pressing defects

  • debris in the groove

So the problem might have always been there, but the system now exposes it.


One thing I would try immediately

Even if the record looks clean:

  1. Wet clean it thoroughly

  2. Rinse with distilled water

  3. Let it dry completely

A surprising number of noisy new pressings become quiet after this.


My honest suspicion

Given the MRP pressing, the most likely explanation is simply:

a mediocre modern pressing that deteriorated quickly.

This happens far more often with modern vinyl than people like to admit.


If you'd like, tell me one thing that will help diagnose it quickly:

Do the clicks repeat in exactly the same place every time the record spins?

That detail tells us almost immediately whether we're dealing with pressing defects, debris, or groove damage.

I have cleaned it in my Degritter twice and it is still noisy

If you’ve run it twice through a Degritter and it’s still noisy, that strongly points to a defect in the vinyl itself, not dirt. Your Degritter is about as effective as cleaning gets.

With The Rhythm of the Saints pressed at Memphis Record Pressing, the most likely culprits are these:


1. Non-fill (very common)

This happens when the hot vinyl doesn’t completely flow into the stamper grooves during pressing.

Symptoms:

  • tearing or zipper-like noise

  • clusters of clicks

  • usually repeats at the same spot every revolution

Cleaning will never fix non-fill because the defect is literally molded into the groove wall.


2. Micro-pitting or contaminated vinyl pellets

Modern plants sometimes use recycled vinyl compound. Tiny voids or contaminants create:

  • random crackle across the surface

  • clicks that appear to increase with plays

Again, cleaning won’t change it.


3. A worn stamper

If the pressing run went too long before replacing the stamper, later copies can sound:

  • grainy

  • noisy throughout

  • especially in quieter passages


One thing that helps diagnose it quickly

Listen for whether the clicks:

  • repeat at exactly the same place every rotation → pressing defect

  • appear randomly across the record → vinyl compound issue

Either way, the record itself is the problem, not your setup or cleaning.


What I would honestly do

Replace that pressing.

Many collectors report that the 2017–2018 Sony/Legacy copies pressed at Memphis are inconsistent. Some are quiet, others are noisy.

If you want a better shot at a quiet copy, look for:

  • an early Warner Bros pressing (1990–91)

  • preferably one with STERLING in the deadwax

Those tend to sound fuller and quieter.


One more interesting thing: Rhythm of the Saints is actually a very revealing test record for vinyl quality because of all the Brazilian percussion. The dense high-frequency transients make pressing defects jump out immediately.

If you want, I can also tell you which specific pressing of this album is widely considered the quietest one ever made. It's a little-known version most collectors miss.

 

 

Discogs has a very large and varied database for all the LPs, CDs, and SACDs they list for purchase. There is a usually complete listing of personnel, performing, recording, and mastering, for all the media that any particular recording was mastered to.

It is a great starting point.

@kevemaher 

I use Discogs all the time. I just used chatgpt to help me pick out a new copy of Paul Simon's "Rhythm of the Saints" from Discogs. The copy I have sounds very digital and picked up skips and clicks quickly. I own a Degritter, so it isn't dirt, etc. Chatgpt said it was probably the 2018 copy I had. I went to Discogs and all of the available copies were from Europe. Half of them would not ship to the U.S. I found one Danish dealer that would. Chatgpt narrowed down the pressing plant and said it was a good German pressing plant that made quiet vinyl that would not pick up a lot of nasties the way mine did. 

@audio-b-dog

 I live in the US. I regularly order from Europe. It takes 7-10 days more to get than ones shipped from the US.

I usually don't hesitate getting the UK or Holland mastered LPs. I've replaced many of my US pressings for the European version and have always been very satisfied.

Although the Decca/London controversy is mute (they are mastered and pressed the same), I've found that the UK or Holland versions of classical works are superior to their US counterparts 

One example is the LP "Past, Present, and Future" by Al Stewart. This is a mainstream mid 70s LP. It is beautifully rendered, with none of the screechiness that my US version has.

Japanese pressings of parts of Decca's catalog are normally excellent, especially the ones of Richard Wagner's Ring Tetralogy. The sound on these LPs is much more laid back with no sibilance (a problem with the Decca/London initial releases of this colossal work of art).

It takes a bit of searching and experimentation using many different versions to gather a body of knowledge. It is a good thing that the body of information is available.