"Really good" is subjective opinion. I find older Rolling Stones record not so great sounding but have 2010 remasters that sound much better. Early Beatles recordings sounded just horrible, but to my surprise some people find them great sounding. Even Beatles, after recording first LP in Abbey Road Studios realized how much better it can sound. There might be some exceptional older Jazz recordings or exceptional pieces of equipment, but you can find even better recordings and amazing hardware today. Digital is not better - nobody claims this. It is getting on the par with analog playback but is much more convenient.
Is It Ironic?
There's a type of thread on Audiogon where somewhere asks "is this piece of equipment obsolete?" Or a similar type of thread where the question is "has there been progress in some equipment category since" some arbitrary date. The consensus answer to the former is usually yes, the equipment is obsolete. That's even when the equipment in question is only ten years old. The consensus to the latter question is always that there's been significant progress in equipment. Digital is better, loudspeakers are better, amps are better, cables are better, etc. What I find ironic is that much of the music used to ascertain the improvements in equipment was recorded fifty years ago. The touchstone recordings by RCA, Mercury, Columbia, Decca and Blue Note were made with equipment that was being retired as obsolete when Brian Jones was the guitar player with the Rolling Stones. We're using newer and newer equipment to find out that old recordings made with "antique" equipment actually sounds really good. Ironic?