Early digital recordings on vinyl vs. CD?

Some of my favorite performances are on such records, for example, nearly all of Hogwood's output on l'Oiseau Lyre and most of Harnoncourts's survey of the Bach cantatas. I have both CD and LP copies of many such. In my system (listed) not only is the vinyl far superior to the CD, it rivals or exceeds the best analog-recorded LP's. I routinely use such recordings for critical listening, equipment comparisons, etc. They're among the best LP's I own.

Its an error to assume that *recording* digitally necessarily impairs sonics. Most of the problems we hear result from flawed *playback* technologies, not from the recording. The worst case, obviously, is highly compressed MP3. Next worst is Redbook CD. SACD is better. At the top end, I have DVD-As, Blu-ray HD discs and digitally recorded LPs that rival or exceed any analog-recorded LP for sonics. There's nothing inherently inferior in a digitally recorded source.

Vinyl mastering/cutting engineers could and did ignore the bit-rate compression and brickwall filters mandated by the CD Redbook standard. Those are the primary causes of crappy CD sound. They don't affect vinyl releases at all.

I have ~4,000 LPs and many of the best were recorded digitally. Don't hesitate.

What exactly was Neil Young comparing? Source tapes? MP3s? CDs? Without knowing what he was talking about his remark was cute but meaningless. If he thought he was describing *all* digital, he was just wrong.

With regard to Dire Straits, I agree that their digitally recorded LP's sound like ice cubes vs. water, but that's not true of classical recordings from the late 70's and early 80's. Whatever mistakes Dire Staits and their studio made were not made in those studios. Every such LP I own sounds better than the same recording on CD.

Note to Toronto416:
The complex harmonics of early/Baroque instrument recordings present a fierce challenge for a vinyl setup. In fact, they're one of my acid tests and most components fail.

It took my partner and me years of work and not a little cash to get a rig and phono stage that could reproduce baroque instruments decently. Beware, if those instruments sound strident or squawky on vinyl compared to the CD it's not the fault of the vinyl. It's the fault of the vinyl playback system. Be prepared for some hard work, but once you get there it's worth it.

At Easter I played Hogwood's rendition of Handel's 'Messiah', a digital recording on six LP sides. The tears were streaming down my face, but not from any problem with the sonics! ;)

+1 to Phasecorrect's and Arh's posts. Outstanding stuff and often available for peanuts.

Fangroups everywhere, true enough. Believe it or not, some people are even fans of Neil Young! :-D

As I suspected, he was talking about CDs, which doesn't address the OP's question. I wonder... did Neil what'shisname ever hear a Telarc or l'Oiseau Lyre LP record?

+1 on the Keith Monks. I use a "cheap" knockoff, the Loricraft, and yes... we're all crazy.

Learsfool, I agree there are inherent flaws in digital recording technology, as there are in every technology. Sorry if I gave a different impression. The last thing I'd want to be is a digital apologist, lol!

Of course there are flaws in analog recording technology too, albeit different ones that are less objectionable to many ears. Still, if I play an analog recording for a young person, the first thing they invariably notice is the tape hiss. Most of us grew up hearing that and we listen through it without even thinking, but if you've never heard it before it really grabs your attention (especially if you have a youngster's HF sensitivity).

Anyhow, we all seem to agree that early digital recordings of classical on vinyl are highly listenable. The flaws noted by Almarg in a few Telarc LPs were flaws of microphone selection and placement, not anything inherent in digital or analog recording.