Digitally recorded lps?


I have found several lps in my collection are touted as being digitally recorded. This was considered a selling point at the time. I must say they sound good. I don't notice any digital glare. I would guess they are from the late 70's or early 80's.

What is the deal? Were the original master tapes done in digital. Kind of like a DDA or DAA recording? If so, why wouldn't the faults of digital be apparant?

What does the cognoscenti say about these?
dolifant
The advantages of digital technology for recording and mastering are many. Just a few examples...
Of course it put an end to tape hiss, and/or the various signal processing methods like DBX and Dolby used to minimize it.
The musical performance almost always needs editing. Cutting and splicing mag tape was never fun.
Multitrack recordings can be exactly synchronized for mixing purposes.
Analog master tapes deteriorate with age. A digital file, particularly when encoded with error correction, does not change.

Much of the criticism of digital sound technology relates to the 16-bit 44 KHz CD available to the end user. Professional digital technology, even years ago, was comparable to what we now call high resolution.
OnHwy61, I noticed you've got quite the turntable, far more expensive than my VPI Scoutmaster. You included the evergreen condescention, "spaciousness and warmth" in your description of vinyl : ), let me repeat that __ : )__ but how does one explain vinyl's far better bass in terms of quickness and authority? For example: Durufle's Requiem on Hyperion, (digital '86), has moments where there are soft, low and deep "taps of the foot" on organ pedal in eight-notes, (about two notes per second). No CD player I've tried, up to $3500 is "quick" enough to get them to sound fulsomely and with accurate pitch. On the Hyperion Lp, they are reproduced effortlessly.

Another surprise was what I call "textural differntiation:" the ability, esp. in the octave below middle C on the piano, to separate and sort out different instruments. A stunning example for me is Shostakovich' Symphony #11. I've owned them all on CD since discovering the piece. Having listened to the light tympani strokes in the first mov't for the first time on vinyl, I was stunned to hear that those tympani strokes are accompanied by plucked harp bass notes!

Another surprise was the better "planar imaging:" the better imaging of not only single instruments, but also the placement of whole sections; one can hear groups of Celli separated from Violas and String Basses.

A caveat: I've been sorely disappointed with Columbia and later RCA pressings of just about the whole Classical Catalog, esp. Bernstein and Ormandy. I wouldn't recommend anyone bring these albums to test a turntable! But there are literally millions of clean European pressings that routinely stun my ears, whether digital or analog, even back to '54. I also have NO experience with pop/rock/jazz/soul recordings on CD or vinyl, so my comments are limited to Classical.
jdaniel, all very good points, but if a recording was orignally done digitally and then transferred to vinyl it stands to reason that the recording won't gain any added fidelity. It may sound different and that difference may even make it sound more "realistic", but it's still a by product of various distortions added in the transfer process. It's also hard for a consumer to make truly accurate comparisons since analog and digital recordings of the same performance may have different mixing/mastering chains. A little EQ and small level changes can have dramatic sonic effects. You just don't know what was done to the recording. Again, I'm not touting any specific technology, but just making the point that the skill of the engineers is the most important element in sound reproduction.