Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

jafant - Marston records can be found at https://www.marstonrecords.com/ He has won Grammys for his work on other labels and does many Naxos label CDs. The defunct Romophone label and nearly so Biddulph were great sources of excellently remastered 78s. Pearl label didn’t remaster, just copied with all the record noise remaining.

Inna-who says that 78s aren’t audiophile quality? The late great Michael Lane made early acoustic 78s of pianists sound like great 50s mono, limited in bandwith but gorgeous sounding mids and dynamic. He made junky labels like Remington and Plymouth sound audiophile-like on his fantastic equipment. 78s often sound quite audiophile-like on my equipment as well. Stereo recordings sound more impressive if recorded and mastered well too but so much of the recordings of the past 60 years sound mediocre to awful. I’ve sold 18,000 records which I found lacking in performance and/or sound quality. I’ve kept 32,000 records in my permanent collection (7,000 CDs). I’ve found it easier to find great sounding CDs than records, mostly based on who did the mastering.

Watch out for those English jazz box set knock offs such as RealGone Jazz. Sure, they’re cheap and comprehensive but often use bad LPs as source material poorly copied. I’ve purchased two dozen of their sets. Some are quite good. None which are CD copies are as good as the original CDs. The Chico Hamilton set is excellent with some really great sound. The Ramsey Lewis sets have some truly awful LP copying on some of the CDs. Many CDs on the sets sound compressed and/or harmonically thinner than the originals.  It's obvious that they don't license the original material despite claims of "remastered sound." 
I try to buy the original/licensed CDs or the original LP (which can be difficult and/or expensive such as Blue Notes and Pacific Jazz labels).  

fleschlerThank You for the hot tip. 7000 CDs is not bad at all.  Happy Listening!

Dear friends: This thread as some others ones shows the wide/big diversity of opinions or audio references or way of thinking on each one of us something like a Babel’s Tower and is impossible to have a true agreegment between 5-6 gentlemans.

We are in an audio analog forum and analog and digital we use it to listen MUSIC but on all this thread no one of us speak about MUSIC, no one speaks why digital or why LPs preferences against near field live MUSIC as a reference. Many not even has a refrence or the reference is other LP or other CD. The reference almost all of us have has nothing to do with live MUSIC at near field position.

If we can’t understand or even not experienced live MUSIC seated at near field position then our way of thinking always be and will be: " that’s what I like it " and we are and been not MUSIC lovers but only " sound " lovers that means almost nothing ! but the ones that like " sound ".

Digital and LP/analog technologies are only the " media " to really enjoy MUSIC not only to just listen " sound ". Of course that some of us only target is to listen " sound "  with out care about the Sound of MUSIC.

Both technologies has its own trade-offs and like many of you I enjoy digital an analog.

The OP thread tittle is rigth: digital crushed analog with out doubt and not because I said or say that but because exist facts behind the digital superiority against so many analog trade-offs facts.

Yes, I love the art work in the LPs but this fact makes no MUSIC, I like R2R analog " sound " but is imperfect and inferior to digital, I like what surrounded the analog experience at home but I like it not for make " sound " but to stay nearer to the near field live MUSIC always.

The digital and analog recording proccess are not exactly the same as are way different the digital and analog playback overall proccess.

If we try to understand  those digital and analog recording/playback proccess then all of we could speak more or less the same language that’s the live MUSIC language and not only speak of sound.

Reading through this thread many of us have some kind of misunderstood on all those proccess and we speak according to those misunderstood of facts.
Example: LP’s samples never are " original " and faaway from been " Original master recording " but a copy of. Digital always is the master not a copy.

Seems to me that even that we are in an analog forum our targets are way different and not always related with near field live MUSIC experiences and nothing wrong with that because it’s a privilege for each one of us to decide about.

In the latest years my main target is to stay truer to the recording that permit me to stay nearer to the near field live MUSIC.

Today my room/audio system is not just a hooby but a lot something " else " something more than a hooby because MUSIC is an important part of overall way of life.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Btw, some one said in the thread that the ones that likes digital are " stupid ", well then I'm " stupid " and so what?. That person is less stupid because dislike digital? . Maybe the other way around, ignorance/poor knowledge levels always exist.

R.

I agree rauliruegas. I like both when they recorded and mastered correctly.

When I record a chamber group and choirs, I use a near field technique. When I record an orchestra, I use a mid-field technique but close to row 3 through 7. I do not place mics above the orchestra 10’ like so many current recording engineers do.

I do not record in the Yarlung recording method which is so amophous sounding compared to the classic Decca, Living Stereo and Living Presence techniques.  Yarlung records deep into a hall and way above the musicians heads.  Yuk.  But they do master what they've recorded well (especially Steve Hoffman work).

I once considered CDs inferior sounding, until about 1995 when I acquired higher end CD playback equipment. By 2005, I fell in love with well mastered CD sound as much as LPs..