Does it make sense to buy vinyl if the source is digital?

[denti alligator]

I suspect a lot, if not most, of recent music is recorded with digital equipment. Is it even worth getting the analog medium (vinyl LP) for such recordings? Or would one be getting just as good if not better fidelity for a digital medium (CD or high Rez digital files)?

I ask in particular because I try to buy all new music on vinyl, but now I'm wondering if that even makes sense. And recently I've found an LP-only release by an artist I adore, but found out that it was recorded digitally. Now I'm wondering why it is only being offered in this medium.

 

[4krow]

The only thought that comes to mind is- If you can insert analog into the process, it ends up a little less digital.

 

[matthewmckay]

Not my intention to plug a specific music vendor, but if you buy your vinyl from amazon, they automatically give you the mp3 version of the record for download, as well.

I found this out when they first started offering their cloud service a year or two ago... records that I didn't even remember purchasing from them in the past were made available for download, as well.  I don't think they are high bitrate copies, but I am stoked to have the extra music for the mp3 player.

 

[earwaxxer]

Sam... shuch.... dont say that. Dont interject logic into religion....

 

[denti alligator]

So when did most studios switch over to digital? Early 1990s? You could, I guess, figure this all out that way...

 

[Grainger49]

I have been thinking on this.  Analog is like infinitely sampled digital.  But if you have a master at 24/198 unless you can get a high res copy buying lower res digital is a step backward. 

If the vinyl is cut from the highest res master it will be preferable to a lower res digital copy.

Just my thoughts.

 

[richardl]

The original recording equipment for digital was often quite good.  London produced a number of excellent vinyl records with digital masters in the early days.(all things digital were supposed to be better.  ;D ;D)  However,the original Sony equipment for recording was in fact pretty good.  Analog recordings at their best are better but, the digital Londons are pretty good and if it is rare music, the London digital is not a bad way to go. 

Richard

 

[denti alligator]

I still don't get it. If the music is recorded digitally, its samples are limited. Why not just release that music on a medium with the same limitations? Vinyl will not reveal more information.

Now if the digital was recorded at rates higher than redbook CD, I can see a little why vinyl would be preferred. And yet, it would seem to me to make much more sense to simply make the music available at the sample rates at which the music was recorded.

Analog is another story, of course.

 

[xcortes]

It's much easier to have a good sounding vinyl setup than a good sounding digital one. Assuming the studio or mixer or whatever that does the dac to feed the cutter lacquer has a good sounding dac it makes sense buying the vinyl assuming one's dac is not that good.

Mis dos pesos.

 

[denti alligator]

Isn't it the other way around? I good turntable and cartridge start around $1,000 or so, and that's the low end "good."

 

[xcortes]

I guess it depends on your definition of good. The only digital rig I've been able to live with cost me thirty times that. And it only surgived in my place for a few months before I just got tired of it. Hopefully the new Bh is a game changer though. Although it will be in the same 1k range

 

[denti alligator]

You can see my setup in my sig. I don't even have an external DAC, and yet my Rega is not too much better than digital. It's better, to be sure, but not a game changer.

I, too, am looking forward to the BH DAC!

 

[Roger]

In many cases I find the vinyl to sound superior. Why? I guess that, in many cases, the vinyl is mastered differently. CD's sound more compressed and limited due to "the loudness war". Am I wrong?
Roger