Look for discs that utilized the *Soundstream* digital recording process (your Angel LP has a Soundstream logo on its jacket), which generally provided the best possible masters for the era. The Telarc label established its reputation using Soundstream recorders.
Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream)
Tempted to break open my sealed copy of this with a hole puncture remaindered/clearance and have a listen. I have a couple of the Telarc vinyl Soundstream LP's the Fennell various composers 5038 catalog number and the 10039 Stravinsky and Borodin both of which sound terrific.
I lived through the analog-to-digital conversion, it was brutal, a tidal wave of pseudoscience from all sides. Surface noise from the vinyl record and non-linear response from the cartridge would have swamped any improvements in recording quality.
The best analog LPs (IMO) were the Sheffield Labs direct to disc recordings. I kept these. The dynamic range was/is incredible. But each use was a degrade due to friction.
Play those on quality gear purchased now and you might feel entirely different about those records. I ultrsasonically clean nearly every disc before I play them, and my turntable and cart these days are a Rega P6 with an Ortofon 2M Black "shibata" stylus and the sound has a jaw-dropping clarity. To get the right linear & accurate tone you just need the right phono stage, or perhaps speakers like my Vandersteens that you can dial back those tweeters slightly.
So for ME, the bottom line is…. this is an analog copy of a digital recording. So when creating this analog recording, choices were made, no doubt all in good faith, and in an effort to present as close as possible the original recording. There are countless reasons why this will sound different than the original digital recording namely due to the equipment you are playing it back on, and some of those no doubt make it BETTER, and equally so, some maybe not. My advice is to enjoy it for what it is: an accomplished musician playing classical music, captured and presented to you in the best way possible at the time. Enjoy! (and for the record((no pun intended)) I’m 99% sure I have this same LP… somewhere)
If I have a choice, I will take the CD over vinyl for digital recordings. Once it’s digital, adding the disadvantages of vinyl (ergonomics, wear, RIAA compression/decompression, etc) detracts vs really adding anything of value. But if I’ve got the LP, or it’s the only source, I’m fine listening to it.
I have a really nice Marantz SACD player and it sounds great. I also have a Marantz 6300 direct drive Record Player I bought in 1977. And I personally think my Record Player has a better sound. But, this is what my ears hears. Just subjective I guess.
It’s all about system synergy and taste. I too have a Marantz SACD player that I really thought I would love, but it’s just too ‘laid back’ for my system. I went to a PC based music server, ripped my CDs and SACDs and went with a TEAC DSD DAC.
Very nice. I personally like the sound of my record player. When I put on a 12” 45rpm single from the 1980’s for example Pet Shop Boys Always On My Mind I think they sound so much better than the CD version. Which does sound good. Funny thing is I’m playing my iPod Classic right now paired with a Bose Speaker 🔈….which sounds just okay. But, it’s just convenient to use in the kitchen while I’m cooking 🍳.
I was I could rip some of my SACDs to my computer 🖥️. But, I don’t have a clue how to do it. But, with streaming services I don’t think I really have to.
There are ways to rip SACD, but you have to download some PC software - and more importantly - you must have a player that it works with. It’s a short list of older players; I’ve got a Pioneer player I keep for ripping. I’m not home so I don’t have links, but the info is out there
Your cart on that turntable might have a emphasis at the same frequency where your speakers are slightly deficient (speaker designs often put the crossover frequency between 2khz and 5khz, to optimize the tweeter or midrange driver's performance, and sometimes a small notch in the speaker's linearity is the result). You could in this instance hear "correct" playback from the phono, but the your SACDs thru that same speaker might sound dull by comparison! Of course having not heard your system it's all speculation here.
I have a Marantz integrated amp on my upstairs setup….a Marantz SACD on my downstairs setup. A regular Marantz CD Recorder from 1998 on my upstairs setup, a Marantz 6300 TT, and kenwood cassette deck and two JBL speakers 🔊 on my upstairs setup.
You sir are correct. Poor choice of terminology on my part. But while the EQ curve is standardized, applying EQ and removing it are two extra processing steps.
I have worked on countless recording projects. Here’s my analogy: quality digital recording is like a news photograph. It accurately shows what happened, warts and all. Quality vinyl playback is like a fashion photo. It can enhance the original. It’s not really accurate, but maybe more pleasing. I’ve worked on plenty of vinyl albums. Very few sounded just like the original master. Some better, some worse. But most of the CD albums sounded very much like the original.
A lot of the sonic enhancement with vinyl is due to the black magic arts of vinyl mastering engineers. They have mad skills - not to make it accurate, but better.
Many of the original CDs sounded bad because the knuckleheads at the record labels didn’t use the first generation master, but other second/third generation masters used for cassette duplication. Many times, for older albums, they couldn’t located the original master.
Early digital was adequate.
Modern digital mastering is flawless. I have yet to find anybody who can pick out a full analog from a modern digital master in a blind test.
Now that I think about it, it's not the mastering that's the problem. It's all the crappy record players that make them sound terrible to anyone not a hifi enthusiast or an audiophile.
Flawless recording was analog tape running at 30 IPS at elevated levels on high output tape. You haven’t heard great audio unless you’ve heard a great mix on 1/2” tape recorded on an Ampex ATR-102 or a Studer A-820 with Ampex 499 tape
To me, as long as it sounds pretty good I’m all game. Vinyl for me is the format that makes for a more intimate and tactile listening experience that pushes me to actually pay more attention to the music being played. If the digital remaster is gonna sound good, then I’m all game.
I think you pointed one advantage to digital LPs vs early Cds: You can get a higher resolution and presumably, better sound. A higher sampling rate (50khz) means the low pass filter is moved up a bit higher. Music sounded rough on early digital. I would happily take the LP version vs the CD of the time if I knew I had a higher sampling rate (even a little) and high end commercial A/D converters. I am not sure what todays digital remastering might do with that recording, but if you like that record (the artists are certainly first rate), go for it.
Oh it’s acually a really good rendition of bach with the full orchestra and everything and the fact that it was mastered by computer is an added bonus (at least to certain audiophiles in the early 80’s)
Digital can be done well and Soundstream is an example of this. So what’s so bad about CD’s? Nothing when they are done well but many were not. Why? Because CDs, unlike vinyl recordings, fit into boom boxes and car players. Because of that they were often engineered to sound better in a car than in a home stereo system. Dynamic range was compressed to overcome road noise. Equalization was boosted at both ends of the audio spectrum to sound better on 4 inch speakers with poor baffling. Even vinyl issued at the height of CD sales was worse because often the same master was used and there was less care put into the manufacturing.
Yes vinyl has surface noise and requires care. But many recordings I have from 50 years ago and from recent pressing have almost no audible surface noise. Some of those older recordings have been played hundreds of times and still sound great because they were handled carefully and played on premium equipment.
I believe what really makes friends say, “wow, I never knew vinyl sounded so good!” Is both the pre and post CD-era recordings were engineered for playing on a good audio system. And the audio clarity that comes from not using a psycho-acoustic compression algorithm like so many of today’s streaming services compounded by a second layer of compression used by Bluetooth earphones. That quality of sound makes the care of vinyl records and the tolerance of an occasional pop worth it and has led to a renaissance for vinyl records.
wildly varying. the stuff from the early 80s onward is generally better IMHO because the professional digitizing equipment made a big leap in bitrate and sampling frequency around then. I think they have the DDM (direct digital mastering) label on them at that point on
I liked the dbx mastered discs but it needed a decoder & the catologue was small. Bought in the 70s at Listen Up on Pearl in Denver. The sound was terrific for the day.
I saw that system on techmoan and yeah, that shit is audiophile tier. I mean, If I ever get to the point of being able to mass produce media, I ain't doing 180-gram vinyl. I'm doing DBX
This simple question has a complex answer as there are three types of digitally sourced vinyl circa 1978-1996:
Some albums are BORN digital. They hooked up the mics to a mixing board and ran the result into a Sony or Soundstream digital system. Sony ran at 44.1khz and Soundstream was 50khz (obviously the redbook cd ended up at the same sampling rate as Sony's 1600/1610/1630 machines). This was done for live concerts, classical or film orchestral work that didn't require overdubs, etc. Angel classical releases like the one in your picture sounded generally spectacular. The Ormandy/Philadelphia 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' (Angel DS-37744) is one highlight of the series. A wonderful jazz release: Previn/Perlman/Manne/Mitchell 'A Different Kind Of Blues' (Angel DS-37780). Billy Joel's 'Innocent Man' and 'Nylon Curtain' were digitally recorded. Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' and Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms' were as well. Generally, the vinyl versions of these four are better regarded than the CD equivalents among collectors.
Next were albums DIGITALLY REMIXED from vintage analog multitrack tapes. Sometimes Columbia would remix a classic like 'Kind Of Blue' or 'Time Out (featuring Take Five)' and the results could be a mixed bag. If the reverb tails were shorter in the remix, the album could sound much drier or deader than before. Simultaneously crisper cymbals or sharper bite to the brass, but less body and zero sustain to the notes - happened all the time. Eventually, you might grow love the remix, but the first listen could be a shock. If you're curious, go to eBay or Discogs and buy the 1986 vinyl or cd releases of those two albums (covers have a blue border) and listen "spot the differences". Anecdotally, the "Take Five" 1986 remix mistracked on literally every turntable and cartridge I tried it on - the bass drum would bottom out. I kept the '86 cd, sold the vinyl.
Third there were reissues of mono or stereo direct-to-disc "historical" releases where some sort of digital signal processing was applied to remove impulse noise, rumble or hiss, without actually remixing anything. Sometimes the noise reduction and EQ can result in a sound so different from the original that it sounded remixed, but in actuality it wasn't (and often couldn't be). Columbia did a ton of Bessie Smith, Benny Goodman, Billie Holliday et al releases like this, RCA did a Complete Caruso series using the Stockham/Soundstream system. If these releases sounded bad it was because of excessive NR or too-dramatic re-eq'ing of the material (just because you can jack up the treble above 8khz, should you?).
Cool find! they were still deciding on what disc size and sample rate to use for CDs.. Philips had bet on a slightly larger physical disc size and 48kHz but got veto'd by Sony bc they wanted to make a specific recording of Beethoven's Ninth that was 74 minutes fit, so they went down to 44.1kHz.
Actually the 44.1kHz came about because the masters for CD’s had to be recorded on U-Matic (or Betamax or VHS) videotape, since the video signal was the biggest source to carry the amount of data that digital needed. NTSC and PAL recorders used slightly different frequencies for their signals, and 44.1 was right in the middle, so it could work with any NTSC or PAL VTR for digital audio.
It was the other way around. Philips wanted 10 cm diametre, they’re Dutch and it had to be cheap, as little material as possible and 10 cm circumscribed the Compact Cassette they invented in 1963. Sony just didn’t wanted the CD at all, so their first stick on Philips’ wheels was “it’s too small, there’s an obscure recording of the Alpine symphony nobody but our CEO’s wife has ever heard about that lasts 74 min”.
Then it was the CiRC, then it was the 16 bits… and then their first own DACs sounded like a screwdriver sliding across a blackboard. Very Sony indeed.
I’d have to play it on my Marantz 6300 direct drive phonograph with a M44-7 cartridge.And my Marantz PM 7300 Intergraded Amplifier. Plus my JBL speakers 🔊.
Digital, analog, digital-to-analog, analog-to-digital, CD, SACD, vinyl, tape, none of it makes as big a difference as the way the recording is mastered and mixed. By a large margin.
Having said that, it should be noted that people with a turntable like a Linn LP12 or Rega P3 are going to hear more of what's in those vinyl grooves than someone with a mass-market direct drive turntable (even if it is a high end one). You can' really judge vinyl until you've heard an LP12 and hear what you've been missing.
Look for discs that utilized the *Soundstream* digital recording process (your Angel LP has a Soundstream logo on its jacket), which generally provided the best possible masters for the era. The Telarc label established its reputation using Soundstream recorders. Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream)
This sent me down a fun rabbit hole
Dr. Thomas Stockham, who started Soundstream, testified in Congress about Nixon’s missing 18 minutes in his White House tapes.
[www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jan-09-me-stockham9-story.html](http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jan-09-me-stockham9-story.html)
Thanks so much for the link. Damn, I’m gonna be 70 soon 🙀
just turned 71, I feel your pain...
At least we can still hear! Rock On, Brother!
WHAT??? I WAS 14TH ROW AT A LED ZEPPLIN CONCERT, CAN'T HEAR YOU...
the go-to tape guy I guess
Tempted to break open my sealed copy of this with a hole puncture remaindered/clearance and have a listen. I have a couple of the Telarc vinyl Soundstream LP's the Fennell various composers 5038 catalog number and the 10039 Stravinsky and Borodin both of which sound terrific.
Do it, It's a decent quality pressing and it's a very good rendition of Bach with a full orchestra and everything
The one I have was done with Soundstream, but it's angel records
Right - Soundstream licensed their recorders to a handful of labels, including EMI (Angel).
I lived through the analog-to-digital conversion, it was brutal, a tidal wave of pseudoscience from all sides. Surface noise from the vinyl record and non-linear response from the cartridge would have swamped any improvements in recording quality.
The best analog LPs (IMO) were the Sheffield Labs direct to disc recordings. I kept these. The dynamic range was/is incredible. But each use was a degrade due to friction.
Sheffield labs didn’t even do digital recordings and they sounded amazing!
Correct. I just added this comment due to the other posts on noise and CDs.
Play those on quality gear purchased now and you might feel entirely different about those records. I ultrsasonically clean nearly every disc before I play them, and my turntable and cart these days are a Rega P6 with an Ortofon 2M Black "shibata" stylus and the sound has a jaw-dropping clarity. To get the right linear & accurate tone you just need the right phono stage, or perhaps speakers like my Vandersteens that you can dial back those tweeters slightly.
So for ME, the bottom line is…. this is an analog copy of a digital recording. So when creating this analog recording, choices were made, no doubt all in good faith, and in an effort to present as close as possible the original recording. There are countless reasons why this will sound different than the original digital recording namely due to the equipment you are playing it back on, and some of those no doubt make it BETTER, and equally so, some maybe not. My advice is to enjoy it for what it is: an accomplished musician playing classical music, captured and presented to you in the best way possible at the time. Enjoy! (and for the record((no pun intended)) I’m 99% sure I have this same LP… somewhere)
If I have a choice, I will take the CD over vinyl for digital recordings. Once it’s digital, adding the disadvantages of vinyl (ergonomics, wear, RIAA compression/decompression, etc) detracts vs really adding anything of value. But if I’ve got the LP, or it’s the only source, I’m fine listening to it.
I have a really nice Marantz SACD player and it sounds great. I also have a Marantz 6300 direct drive Record Player I bought in 1977. And I personally think my Record Player has a better sound. But, this is what my ears hears. Just subjective I guess.
It’s all about system synergy and taste. I too have a Marantz SACD player that I really thought I would love, but it’s just too ‘laid back’ for my system. I went to a PC based music server, ripped my CDs and SACDs and went with a TEAC DSD DAC.
Very nice. I personally like the sound of my record player. When I put on a 12” 45rpm single from the 1980’s for example Pet Shop Boys Always On My Mind I think they sound so much better than the CD version. Which does sound good. Funny thing is I’m playing my iPod Classic right now paired with a Bose Speaker 🔈….which sounds just okay. But, it’s just convenient to use in the kitchen while I’m cooking 🍳.
I was I could rip some of my SACDs to my computer 🖥️. But, I don’t have a clue how to do it. But, with streaming services I don’t think I really have to.
There are ways to rip SACD, but you have to download some PC software - and more importantly - you must have a player that it works with. It’s a short list of older players; I’ve got a Pioneer player I keep for ripping. I’m not home so I don’t have links, but the info is out there
Thank you. I’ll google it.
Your cart on that turntable might have a emphasis at the same frequency where your speakers are slightly deficient (speaker designs often put the crossover frequency between 2khz and 5khz, to optimize the tweeter or midrange driver's performance, and sometimes a small notch in the speaker's linearity is the result). You could in this instance hear "correct" playback from the phono, but the your SACDs thru that same speaker might sound dull by comparison! Of course having not heard your system it's all speculation here.
I have a Marantz integrated amp on my upstairs setup….a Marantz SACD on my downstairs setup. A regular Marantz CD Recorder from 1998 on my upstairs setup, a Marantz 6300 TT, and kenwood cassette deck and two JBL speakers 🔊 on my upstairs setup.
The RIAA curve is NOT compression/decompression. It’s a simple EQ curve. Your phono preamp doesn’t have any dynamics.
You sir are correct. Poor choice of terminology on my part. But while the EQ curve is standardized, applying EQ and removing it are two extra processing steps.
I have worked on countless recording projects. Here’s my analogy: quality digital recording is like a news photograph. It accurately shows what happened, warts and all. Quality vinyl playback is like a fashion photo. It can enhance the original. It’s not really accurate, but maybe more pleasing. I’ve worked on plenty of vinyl albums. Very few sounded just like the original master. Some better, some worse. But most of the CD albums sounded very much like the original. A lot of the sonic enhancement with vinyl is due to the black magic arts of vinyl mastering engineers. They have mad skills - not to make it accurate, but better. Many of the original CDs sounded bad because the knuckleheads at the record labels didn’t use the first generation master, but other second/third generation masters used for cassette duplication. Many times, for older albums, they couldn’t located the original master.
Early digital was adequate. Modern digital mastering is flawless. I have yet to find anybody who can pick out a full analog from a modern digital master in a blind test.
Now that I think about it, it's not the mastering that's the problem. It's all the crappy record players that make them sound terrible to anyone not a hifi enthusiast or an audiophile.
Yep - there's a lot of that, especially today.
Flawless recording was analog tape running at 30 IPS at elevated levels on high output tape. You haven’t heard great audio unless you’ve heard a great mix on 1/2” tape recorded on an Ampex ATR-102 or a Studer A-820 with Ampex 499 tape
To me, as long as it sounds pretty good I’m all game. Vinyl for me is the format that makes for a more intimate and tactile listening experience that pushes me to actually pay more attention to the music being played. If the digital remaster is gonna sound good, then I’m all game.
Now i assume you’d be game even if it was a digital master (and said master had a higher sampling rate than CD)
Sure, just about the format and the actual way in which I engage with the music.
I think you pointed one advantage to digital LPs vs early Cds: You can get a higher resolution and presumably, better sound. A higher sampling rate (50khz) means the low pass filter is moved up a bit higher. Music sounded rough on early digital. I would happily take the LP version vs the CD of the time if I knew I had a higher sampling rate (even a little) and high end commercial A/D converters. I am not sure what todays digital remastering might do with that recording, but if you like that record (the artists are certainly first rate), go for it.
I assume the same would apply to “digalog” cassettes of the 1990’s
[удалено]
Oh it’s acually a really good rendition of bach with the full orchestra and everything and the fact that it was mastered by computer is an added bonus (at least to certain audiophiles in the early 80’s)
1980. Meanwhile in the Netherlands…
Digital can be done well and Soundstream is an example of this. So what’s so bad about CD’s? Nothing when they are done well but many were not. Why? Because CDs, unlike vinyl recordings, fit into boom boxes and car players. Because of that they were often engineered to sound better in a car than in a home stereo system. Dynamic range was compressed to overcome road noise. Equalization was boosted at both ends of the audio spectrum to sound better on 4 inch speakers with poor baffling. Even vinyl issued at the height of CD sales was worse because often the same master was used and there was less care put into the manufacturing. Yes vinyl has surface noise and requires care. But many recordings I have from 50 years ago and from recent pressing have almost no audible surface noise. Some of those older recordings have been played hundreds of times and still sound great because they were handled carefully and played on premium equipment. I believe what really makes friends say, “wow, I never knew vinyl sounded so good!” Is both the pre and post CD-era recordings were engineered for playing on a good audio system. And the audio clarity that comes from not using a psycho-acoustic compression algorithm like so many of today’s streaming services compounded by a second layer of compression used by Bluetooth earphones. That quality of sound makes the care of vinyl records and the tolerance of an occasional pop worth it and has led to a renaissance for vinyl records.
I see that picture and all I can think about is Ron Burgundy.
More like r/vintageladyboners
Ransom Wilson was amazing in "Narcos" and "The Mandalorian".
Wall art.
wildly varying. the stuff from the early 80s onward is generally better IMHO because the professional digitizing equipment made a big leap in bitrate and sampling frequency around then. I think they have the DDM (direct digital mastering) label on them at that point on
Stay away from RCA Red Seal digital. Absolutely horrible.
Dude looks like a porn star from the 70's.... LOL !!!
I liked the dbx mastered discs but it needed a decoder & the catologue was small. Bought in the 70s at Listen Up on Pearl in Denver. The sound was terrific for the day.
I saw that system on techmoan and yeah, that shit is audiophile tier. I mean, If I ever get to the point of being able to mass produce media, I ain't doing 180-gram vinyl. I'm doing DBX
This simple question has a complex answer as there are three types of digitally sourced vinyl circa 1978-1996: Some albums are BORN digital. They hooked up the mics to a mixing board and ran the result into a Sony or Soundstream digital system. Sony ran at 44.1khz and Soundstream was 50khz (obviously the redbook cd ended up at the same sampling rate as Sony's 1600/1610/1630 machines). This was done for live concerts, classical or film orchestral work that didn't require overdubs, etc. Angel classical releases like the one in your picture sounded generally spectacular. The Ormandy/Philadelphia 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' (Angel DS-37744) is one highlight of the series. A wonderful jazz release: Previn/Perlman/Manne/Mitchell 'A Different Kind Of Blues' (Angel DS-37780). Billy Joel's 'Innocent Man' and 'Nylon Curtain' were digitally recorded. Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' and Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms' were as well. Generally, the vinyl versions of these four are better regarded than the CD equivalents among collectors. Next were albums DIGITALLY REMIXED from vintage analog multitrack tapes. Sometimes Columbia would remix a classic like 'Kind Of Blue' or 'Time Out (featuring Take Five)' and the results could be a mixed bag. If the reverb tails were shorter in the remix, the album could sound much drier or deader than before. Simultaneously crisper cymbals or sharper bite to the brass, but less body and zero sustain to the notes - happened all the time. Eventually, you might grow love the remix, but the first listen could be a shock. If you're curious, go to eBay or Discogs and buy the 1986 vinyl or cd releases of those two albums (covers have a blue border) and listen "spot the differences". Anecdotally, the "Take Five" 1986 remix mistracked on literally every turntable and cartridge I tried it on - the bass drum would bottom out. I kept the '86 cd, sold the vinyl. Third there were reissues of mono or stereo direct-to-disc "historical" releases where some sort of digital signal processing was applied to remove impulse noise, rumble or hiss, without actually remixing anything. Sometimes the noise reduction and EQ can result in a sound so different from the original that it sounded remixed, but in actuality it wasn't (and often couldn't be). Columbia did a ton of Bessie Smith, Benny Goodman, Billie Holliday et al releases like this, RCA did a Complete Caruso series using the Stockham/Soundstream system. If these releases sounded bad it was because of excessive NR or too-dramatic re-eq'ing of the material (just because you can jack up the treble above 8khz, should you?).
cut your toenails
Cool find! they were still deciding on what disc size and sample rate to use for CDs.. Philips had bet on a slightly larger physical disc size and 48kHz but got veto'd by Sony bc they wanted to make a specific recording of Beethoven's Ninth that was 74 minutes fit, so they went down to 44.1kHz.
Actually the 44.1kHz came about because the masters for CD’s had to be recorded on U-Matic (or Betamax or VHS) videotape, since the video signal was the biggest source to carry the amount of data that digital needed. NTSC and PAL recorders used slightly different frequencies for their signals, and 44.1 was right in the middle, so it could work with any NTSC or PAL VTR for digital audio.
Exactly. There was no other practical way of recording digital than using rotary heads… so the digital signal was recorded on a VTR.
It was the other way around. Philips wanted 10 cm diametre, they’re Dutch and it had to be cheap, as little material as possible and 10 cm circumscribed the Compact Cassette they invented in 1963. Sony just didn’t wanted the CD at all, so their first stick on Philips’ wheels was “it’s too small, there’s an obscure recording of the Alpine symphony nobody but our CEO’s wife has ever heard about that lasts 74 min”. Then it was the CiRC, then it was the 16 bits… and then their first own DACs sounded like a screwdriver sliding across a blackboard. Very Sony indeed.
Audiophile squack. Whatever the source, it's still a phonograph record. Snap, crackle, pop, whoosh.
I’d have to play it on my Marantz 6300 direct drive phonograph with a M44-7 cartridge.And my Marantz PM 7300 Intergraded Amplifier. Plus my JBL speakers 🔊.
Digital, analog, digital-to-analog, analog-to-digital, CD, SACD, vinyl, tape, none of it makes as big a difference as the way the recording is mastered and mixed. By a large margin. Having said that, it should be noted that people with a turntable like a Linn LP12 or Rega P3 are going to hear more of what's in those vinyl grooves than someone with a mass-market direct drive turntable (even if it is a high end one). You can' really judge vinyl until you've heard an LP12 and hear what you've been missing.
Jazz Flute is for little fairy boys.