True Analog LPs versus Digital Recordings

I have a classical Lp which, according to the jacket, was digitally recorded in 1978. So there ya go - some digital goes back to the 70's.

Old_6,

I think 1978 or so is about the time i recall first seeing the first digitally recorded lps, on Telarc label I believe, but these were quite novel and very few and far between at that time.

Their most distinctive sonic attributes were the dynamics. The grooves in these records were heavily modulated accordingly and presented a challenge for many turntables around in that day to track well without breaking up.

Then, as digital matured, the vendors realized that most systems out there could not handle these kinds of dynamics without distorting severely (be the source vinyl or CD) so they gradually geared things back over time with recordings in general in order to make digital more digestible for the masses.

Conversely, I assume sonic smearing due to jitter was a common problem with many digital recordings early on as Kijanki points out and digital recordings actually improved over time in this regard.

Telarc also made some direct-to-disc recordings in the late 70's - now we're talkin' true analog.

I love the sound of some of my old LP's so this isn't about starting a food fight, but if current LP's for sale , many for $30 - 50 apiece are digital based, what's the big thing about a vinyl re-surgence ? The Lp's then ARE NOT analog which is what makes vinyl sound better in the first place. I would submit that vinyl made out of digital recordings would not be as good as the original digital recording, so why not buy the cd in hi-rez?

Wildoats - good point. I think that the main thing with CDs is really limiting 16/44.1 format. I've never heard 24/192 masters but some people testified here that they sound amazing. SACD should be roughly equivalent to 20/96.