[Sol_Zhen]

Isn’t the whole point of getting into vinyl nowadays to get away from music that’s been messed with digitally? I’ve seen quite a few “digitally remastered” LPs out there and that leaves me scratching my head.

What’s the verdict on these suckers?

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

That doesn't make much sense to me either. If there's digital anywhere in the creation of the tracks, doesn't that defeat the point of analog media (i.e. LP's)?

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Well, my definition of a "digitally remastered" LP is as simple as that particular LP was mastered from a digital copy of an analog master tape.

 

[fewtch]

Well... if the mastering was done at 24/96 or better, you're getting potentially better sound than from redbook CD (16/44.1). Also, you avoid the additional digital to analog conversion step necessary with CD's (and SACD/DVD-A, for that matter). But I agree that analog generally sounds best all analog (AAA) without any digital processing steps in there.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eagle_Driver Well, my definition of a "digitally remastered" LP is as simple as that particular LP was mastered from a digital copy of an analog master tape.

I know. But, why get an LP if it's ADA? In that case, I'll just get the CD (ADD). I just don't get the point of an ADA LP.

 

[chadbang]

Yeah, I saw a Steely Dan LP I wanted then spotted the proudly proclaimed "Digitally Remastered!" sticker. I had the same thought, "who the hell want's that?" I guess it's akin to most people as plastering "New and Improved!" on a product.

 

[zowie]

It makes sense.

They were using digital in the studios before CDs were around, and while LP still sold widely. If they are doing a digital remaster, they might as well release it on all formats, rather than do the job twice or leave the LP with the older and presumably poorer job. Most digitally remastered LPs are from when the LP was still a mass format. There are digitally remastered cassettes too.

As for today, there are those who believe that the benefits of high quality digital remastering (24/96 or whatever) are better preserved for home playback on vinyl than by dithering down to the 16/44 limitations of CD.

 

[Czilla9000]

If the digital remastering is at 24/192 or 24/96 it would make sense.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Because the tools are (a) cheaper and (b) better (arguably; for the same price, anyway). Blacker blacks, perfect sound forever, etc. Remember, the average layperson has been sold off on this long ago (1980's), so this is a selling point, not a point of detraction.