Old vs. new


I have a simple(maybe?) question for you guys, I have some new versions of albums that I’ve replaced from older vintage records that I’ve  had thinking they would sound better than my older ones, but they don’t, since vinyl  has made a comeback , we’re the older versions engineered and mixed for vinyl and now the new recordings not mixed to favor vinyls characteristics?
128x128wownflutter
@chakster  The cutting engineer is indeed very important. Harry T Moss did some fabulous work with the Beatles original LPs.

So far, I don't think anyone has quite matched him in their subsequent transfers. At least to my ears, there's something very lacking in the 2009 CDs.
I’m always surprised at how good bop til you drop sounds, given that it’s supposedly the first digital LP. It doesn’t have that shimmery flourescent sound I associate with so much 80s era recording. Maybe a lot of the bad digital sound of the early days really does come down to poor or lazy mastering, or otherwise inadequate implementation 
chakster
all the pressing machines, cutting lathes... are all vintage, they can modify it with new parts, but these equipment is no longer made.
You're mistaken - there are several companies manufacturing new pressing machines, such as Viryl and Record Pressing Machines.
The 3M digital recording system was a 32 track 16bit/50kHz tape recordings paired with a digital mixer and 4 track mastering deck.  Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" used this system.
"And artists like Michael Jackson were early adopters of digital."
I remember reading an interview with Bruce Swedien, Michael Jakson’s engineer. It was in late 1980s, maybe 1991 the latest. He said he was changing approaches (digital vs. analog) often. I think he even said during same song, but that I am not sure (I read it in previous century, forgive me). He definitely said he was changing microphones and cables during songs, depending on what he had wanted to achieve.

He might have been really finicky, but he was not joking with his work.