Vinyl v digital

This site has finally reviewed an album I actually like…

Compares vinyl with various digital options, looking at dynamic range, frequency range and other temporal measurements.

Spoiler alert: buy vinyl :joy:


I’ve not looked into the site but do they ever compare an all analog recording vs it’s digital counterpart?

Is much recorded in analogue nowadays?

1 Like

You can’t really compare the DR like that. Done like this vinyl almost always shows more DR when often it simply isn’t there.

Some vinyl is as clipped as the digital, Metallica Death magnetic:


It will still show a much higher DR.

Apparently they used ‘Pro tools’ on that recording. Hence the clipping on Digi and vinyl.

Its just clipped, if the master or the original track was clipped, that’s what you are going to get. No reason Pro Tools would clip anything, its just lousy work.

My point was most of the time the vinyl comes from the same source, so its the same lousy rubbish, it may sound better because of vinyl’s inherent faults, but digital lps are the devils work.

1 Like

More and more analog studio’s are opening up but I fear a lot of the black arts are lost and the equipment perhaps not in spec with the golden era.

1 Like

I think we are driving at the same point. The benefits of vinyl as a medium are handicapped by digital recording.


When I got back into records, my plan was just to buy pre 83 stuff, sort of worked… But I do have quite a bit from post 83,so actually, it didn’t work.

Hth :+1:


Not sure. 24/192 (or higher these days) done right without any clipping would be fine, but what’s the bloody point, just listen to the digital file.

I don’t buy any remasters/rereleases unless it explicitly says “all analogue” like say Analogue Productions.

New stuff I buy the LPs as they are nice to fondle.


Fine / adequate / OK Art.

I think that I’ve heard enough digital sound absolutely fantastic that I’m convinced it’s the mastering process that makes the most difference, not the basic format.


Well it’s probably better than all but the very best 2” tape looked after by the best engineers.

I’ll stick to muh 50s Jazz/70s flute rock though.




Mostly I would say the digital re issues of originally recorded analog recordings sound worse. Compressed, sterile, or somehow lacking ‘Verve’. The exceptions would be recordings originally put out on styrene, flimsy oil crisis vinyl, recycled vinyl or poor pressings.

The Abbey Road so called audiophile releases are an example half speed mastered but digitally processed. Playing a mint solid air next to the Abbey Rd the ‘audiophile’ pressing sounded like it’s chi had been sucked out of it.

I’m not sure I’m prepared to lay the blame of all that on “digital”

But I don’t disagree, most remasters/rereleases are dreck.

1 Like

Fair point.

Some analogue recording remasters/remixes are done digitally but are better than original recordings. This isn’t a popular belief but modern processes, done well can have a beneficial effect.
I refer to Steven Wilson remixes as an example.

Analogue recordings, if recorded/mastered poorly, will still be poor.

Digital recordings simply recorded on vinyl are mostly dreadful.

1 Like

I have flimsy early 80s records that sound fantastic. I don’t buy into this 180g malarkey, if its not produced, mixed or cut well, putting it onto heavier vinyl won’t sort anything.


All it’s good for is to help avoid dishing.

Makes no odds to the sound.

1 Like

I’ve compared 180g and normal copies of The Works by Queen. No difference to the sound as far as we could tell. Both sounded great