Old vs. new

"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.

Just last week, I pulled out a copy of The Rolling Stones Exile On Main St. bought on July 3, 1982, German pressing. It is a well-used but also well-cared for record(s). Looking at it, you might be fooled to believe it is close to never-played. I had not heard it in at least 10, but more likely 25 years. I compared it to a recent CD.

In any review in audio magazines, CD would wipe the floor with that record. "More dynamic", "less muddy", "clearer highs", "tighter lows", all those things and then some. Hey, even the words are clearer. It is simply better presentation of everything.

In my review, the record sounded "better". It is a joke of a recording/pressing/whatever else, but it is just more pleasant to me.

The only reason I can think of why I prefer clearly inferior item is that I grew up with it. In my mind, it is the way it should sound. Everything else is fake. To me, not for real.

So what did I do with that marvel of analog technology? I digitized it (DSD) and may never play the record again. It sounds close enough to avoid the trouble of dealing with the record. In fact, it sounds the same to me and to a friend of mine also very familiar with the album, but I will not claim it would to everyone.

Well, I may play it again, I probably will. Not for the sound. I love watching that yellow label rotating. Nostalgia, or whatever you call it. You know, analog love. The things I think I love.

@cleeds 

You're mistaken - there are several companies manufacturing new pressing machines, such as Viryl and Record Pressing Machines.  

And who use them ? 

A few points to consider.   1)Others have pointed out that most current reissues/remasters/repressings are sourced from a digital file. 2)Original pressings may be compromised in a few ways.    Both points are related.

1)  Moving to a digital master file is ultimately cheaper for a record label.   Tape deteriorates over time, and each pass through a deck accelerates deterioration.   Better to create a new master that will not change and can become a new baseline.   Keep the tape in a climate controlled vault, then use the digital copy for all future reissues, without any deterioration of the baseline.  And a digital file can be sent virtually if needed.

The problem is the nature of the digital copy.  From carefully reading reviews, and keeping my ears open, it has become obvious that very few digital masters are high-rez.    It seems counterintuitive that one would not use the best possible resolution to create a new master file, but most labels are content to use 16/44 or 24/48 resolution.  Very few use 24/96, and fewer still use 24/128 or higher.   Digital will always be the parabolic curve that approaches but never quite touches the horizontal line of analogue.  However, high-rez digital comes very very close, and in some applications may be virtually indistinguishable from analogue.    But 16/44 or 24/48 ?    You CAN hear the difference on a system of at least medium quality.

2) Back in the day LPs were pressed to ensure playback by the maximum number of people.  Do you press to accurately reproduce the master tape, understanding that very few people owned a TT system that could actually play the LP ?  Or do you press to ensure that a teenager with an all-in-one system, or someone's hand me down from 1955 can play the LP ?    Labels want to sell LPs, so you know the answer to the above question.    For this reason, it is possible for a reissue to sound better, in some cases much better than a regular pressing.   Original Mobile Fidelity, Half Speed Masters, many Japanese pressings are proof that the master tapes contained much better sonics than what a commercial LP offered.   So the expectation is that a new "premium" reissue should sound better- the potential is there.  But see point 1 for the reason why this is often not the case.   Yes, you get a darker background and tighter bass.  But the tighter bass also sounds more mechanical.  Treble response may be cleaner, but you lose extreme overtones and some sense of air and space around the musicians.  Shoddy 16/44 transfers can make cymbals sounds like rustled tin foil rather than carefully tuned brass discs.

I'd love to find the article from a UK hifi mag (few years ago) where a great case was made about digital sourced vinyl sounding better than CD or other digital versions of the same thing. It made sense although it shouldn't, and I can't remember why...I have the LP of the Cooder "Bop" album and it sounds fine...it could have something to do with the fact that it's a great album...