You're still talking about "Brothers in Arms"? Because, as far as I can tell, the mix is pretty much set in stone, differences between the [digital] original and the LP version boil down to changes made to accommodate the limitations of the LP format.
By way of example, "Why Worry" is shorter on the LP version. There probably is less treble and bass on the LP because of cutting limitations. I've heard Brothers in Arms on multiple formats, including the SACD that I still have. Whatever the differences in mastering, if you want a different mix, you'll need the SACD: the different mix is the surround mix. I've got the early CD and a later redbook layer on the SACD. I don't recall a big enough difference as to pay attention. As for the difference between the LP and the Digital formats, it boils down to compromises made with mastering the LP because the LP cannot contain the dynamics or frequency extremes of the digital master. To these ears, the digital issues of Brothers in Arms are right, the LP is wrong. In other words, if you prefer the LP, you don't trust the producers of the original [digital] issues. You don't want the sound Mark Knopfler worked to get on his release. And you don't care if a couple of minutes of "Why Worry" are cut off.
Let me try again…
The musicians we are talking about in this album are top shelf, the sales revenue is high, that afforded great engineering, or maybe the great engineering pushed the sales up.
It is not an embarssment to listen to it on vinyl, or on CD.
It is more of an embarrassing situation to genuinely like music that was poorly recorded, where the musicians were good and had something to say, but the recording process was flawed or second rate.
Secondly:
... You don't want the sound Mark Knopfler worked to get on his release. And you don't care if a couple of minutes of "Why Worry" are cut off.
This thread genreally talks about ”what the artist intended” like they have a say in things.
In this case you have a valid point, and they probably did.
(And also phrases like symbiotic relationship.)
However in a lot of lesser successful bands, I suspect that the musicians were more this farming, where recording engineering, marketing and sales were like a factory or farm production line.
Basically we can take what they offer or not.
And we can talk it on vinyl, then later on CD, then later on SACD.
The reason vinyl exists is because it was part of the evolution from wax cylinders.
I generally detest comparisons of electronics or speakers with cars… but:
It is much the same as how an electric car may be better than internal combustion, but after ~1900 (or maybe a bit earlier), the choice was only ICE for ~80 years.
And we can talk about the romance of the sound of the engines, including the induction sounds, etc.
Technically I suspect that a Tesla beats an Aston Martin DB2 or a Porsche 356 or 911, (Lancia, Ferrari, etc) in most performance tests. But in the 50 through 80s, there was no option for a Tesla.
And the pageantry and ritual of pulling those old car out of garage for drive seems to brings pleasure to the owners.
It is similar to high end vinyl set up, where we have a sighted expectation that it is going to sound different, and sound good.
The psychology is probably why some people think that they sound better.
Hmm, no, it wasn't.
Audiophile mythology != reality.
Please keep up Sir.
We addressed that back in post 1189, it was in the 83-85 range when the CDs arrived.
(Technically Oct 1982, and realistically there was a lag.)
CDs and digital could not superior to vinyl when they did not yesterday exist in the market…
We had one choice`.
