Early digital recordings on vinyl vs. CD?


There are many late 70's and early 80's classical recordings that were recorded digitally and released on vinyl, and then subsequently on CD when the technology became available.
Is there any reason to avoid digital vinyl given that these were early digital recordings?
To put it another way, for these early digital recordings, is there any advantage to getting them on vinyl as opposed to sticking to CDs?

In collecting vinyl I have stuck to analogue recordings and avoided digital, but this means I have avoided some outstanding performances.

What are your experiences, and what do you think?
toronto416
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.
The early Soundstream digital recordings are primarily what is available...this technology dates from the mid 70s or earlier...with 16/50 resolution downconverted to 16/44...they even had superior sampling back then...ha
I have many and probably most of the early Telarc vinyl releases, and indeed many of them are outstanding.

Much of the credit for their sonic quality can be attributed to the "purist" microphone techniques they used. Rather than placing a forest of microphones in close proximity to the performers, as many of the major labels did, they used just two or three or so high quality omni mics placed at significantly greater distances. In addition to the inherent sonic advantage that approach can provide regardless of the recording technology that is used, it reduced the amount of high frequency energy being picked up that might otherwise have brought out to a greater degree some of the shortcomings of digital recording technology, especially in its early implementations, such as the effects of sharp-rolloff anti-aliasing filters.

I should add, though, that in a few of their releases that relatively distant mic placement resulted in what I found to be disappointingly "swimmy" acoustics.

A few other classical labels that come to mind as having in those days put out some very good digitally recorded classical releases on vinyl, if memory serves, were Hyperion, Chandos, Nimbus, and Deutsche Harmonia Mundi.

Oh, and if your system can't handle brief dynamic peaks that may reach 100 db or more at the listening position, without amplifier clipping or other issues, beware of that Telarc bass drum!

Regards,
-- Al
Although I would strongly disagree with Doug that digital recording is not inherently flawed, I do agree with him on his digital vinyl selections. Al also has some great ones, and he is spot on in his discussion of why the Telarc recordings were better. Many musicians still consider those some of the best digital recordings ever made. I would certainly say that early digital sounds better on vinyl. The performances are always the top priority for me, and really should be for any music lover, and there are a great many of them. Two from the early digital years that immediately come to mind not mentioned so far are Claudio Abbado's Mahler cycle (DG, not known for their sound quality, in fact sometimes the reverse) and also Charles Dutoit's many excellent recordings with the Montreal Symphony.
Often, the extreme macro dynamics are the most distinctive feature about most early digital recordings on vinyl such as several from Telarc that I recall compared to others, including same recordings on CD, where the format puts a limit on dynamics to some extent.

Some of the early Telarc recordings on vinyl are very good test records to determine the tracking ability of a vinyl rig. IF they do not mis-track totally, break-up or audibly distort during the loud passages, your vinyl rig is in good shape as well as your amps ability to drive your speakers in terms of dynamic headroom.