What LP shows what analog can do?

Steve-If your statement "not all LP's sound good" was directed at me,let me correct you.
I said "I would guess 90% of the LP's I have heard sound fantastic" I stand by that and I do have a very nice system,thank you.
Maybe you need to look at your system since your analog experience is 'hit or miss' I have found some LP's sound better when I have upgraded.Duh..

Dougdeacon...The lack of classical examples is explained by the fact that classical work usually involves wide dynamic range, whereas pop and rock is loud, loud, loud. When classical music enters a quiet passage, the flaws of LPs (LF rumble and HF scratch and pops) become annoying.

In an earlier comment I suggested that some of the very first stereo recordings were the best. (Vanguard put out some good ones too). I think the reason for this was that they said "Stereo...that means two microphones" and that's what they used. 24 channel master tapes came into vogue later, because little care was necessary during the recording session, the idea being that everything could be fixed by the mixdown. The result was often mush.

Also, in the beginning each channel was cut full range (20 to 20KHz). However, this resulted in vertical groove modulation that most pickups could not handle, so it became usual practice to "blend" the Lows (make them mono). Of course we audiophiles have better pickups that are perfectly capable of tracking LF vertical modulation, but usually there isn't anything to track.

I have not purchased any of the (expensive) newly made audiophile LPs. Perhaps these are cut without the compromises necessary for mass marketing.

I find it interesting that many are recommending LPs that are from digital sources. Some of these recommendations are from early digital tapes. Do the posters suggest that LP replay is a panacea for the ills of digital or somehow reverses the damage done? Perhaps an argument for complimentary colorations. Personally, I own over 4000 records and although I enjoy many that are digially sourced, could not recommend even one based on digital tapes for sound quality.
Marty

I noticed something similar to what Marty has said regarding the recommendation of digitally mastered LP's. Nothing much to offer in the way of explanation other than some folks' record collection may not go too far back as some old farts like me (us, if I may).

I wouldn't generalize too much in this area, though. There are a few d to a LP's that sound very good. Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" comes to mind (do yourself a favor and find the Japanese pressing) in addition to several Dire Straits cuts.

Eldartford,
I fully understand the greater challenge presented by the wide dynamic range of classical, since that's all I listen to. Matt clearly understands this too, that's why he's looking for suggestions and not just buying anything. Since that's what he asked for I thought I'd try to respond.

In my experience most well-treated and properly cleaned LP's are reasonably quite, though there are obviously some exceptions. The new audiophile grade LPs (eg, Classic Records) are better and the newest 200gm stuff is ghostly quiet. Highly recommended.

Totally agree with your view on recording techniques. The superiority of two-track, tubed recording is obvious even on CD reissues of Living Stereo recordings (compared with newer recordings on CD). After we played our first one of these and picked our jaws off the floor, my partner asked, "The last recordings like this were made in the early '60's? What happened?!" Everything went to hell when they invented the transistor, multi-track mixdowns and (shudder) digital. The first two can never be overcome. Digital has only started to become listenable in the last few years, sort of.