I know this has probably been discussed...

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.