What is the point of vinyl if the recording was made digitally?
That's an interesting philosophical question. One could also ask the converse: "what's the point of digital if the recording was made analog?" The answer lies in how much importance you attribute to the medium apart from the recording.
Younger people have rediscovered the joy of pulling a 12" disc out of a colorful jacket and putting it on a turntable. Who am I (or Billie Eilish) to deny them that pleasure?
On the flip side, some dear friends recently gave me the latest digital vinyl remaster of
Revolver. I'm in the midst of rediscovering The Beatles' U.S. Capitol catalog on vinyl, so I was really looking forward to this one. However, I found that the sound, while "improved", changed the impact of the album for me. I didn't mind that when the CD version first came out in 1987. In fact, it was a revelation finally to hear all of the nuances. But my ears still expect vinyl to sound analog.
Unsom will rightfully point out that I play my turntable through my computer, so it's not really analog. Fair point, so perhaps part of my reaction is emotional rather than rational. That may be, but I still appreciate the sonic "artifacts" (some might call them defects
) inherent not only in the vinyl itself but also in the obsolete styles of mixing and mastering back in the day. I don't mind John and Paul in one channel and George and Ringo in another because that's the way I remember them. It would be like "helping" Monet by photoshopping in some "purer" colors.
So my bright new copy of
Revolver (Capitol 0602445599691) went off to Amoeba and I will buy as nice a used copy of ST 2576 as I can find. And don't get me started on how much better even the catalog numbers were back then.