Old records.

My LP collection includes every one I bought between the early 70s and the present plus about 900 LPs I "inherited" upon the passing of a dear friend. His LPs were purchased new by him, usually from local vendors like Tower Records, and he took meticulous care of his LP collection which totaled 6000 LPs at the time of his death. Most of mine were purchased second hand, but I am very finicky about sources for LPs, and I will not buy any LP with any visual evidence of surface damage (scratches, scuffing, etc) or other evidence that it was not well cared for (e.g., no inner sleeve, album cover showing signs of having been wet or defaced). Without exception, I have found that every upgrade to my phono stage, TT, tonearm, or cartridge has resulted in better sound on average from even average LPs and that old LPs that I heretofore thought were not worth listening to because of poor SQ in many/most cases seem rejuvenated by new and better playback equipment. I am constantly and pleasantly surprised by this phenomenon. I guess I’m just a lucky so and so, to quote a phrase from a good song.

Wow! I remember finding orchestral RBCDs from the 80s (which would include Ormandy recordings derived from earlier performances) to be just awful. So bad I couldn’t bear them even at a friend’s house during a party. Massed strings, to which ormandy was no stranger, sounded like crumpling of cellophane. This was on an otherwise high end system using his brand new Meridian CDP.

hsounds, Can you explain further?  The change in VTF due to adding or subtracting VTA is real but very minimal for the amount of change in VTA that you describe.  Also, a modern tonearm that places the center of gravity of the counterweight in the plane of the LP surface will not much exhibit any change in VTF if you change VTA, even by a considerable amount. However, changing VTA does have an independent effect on tonal balance.  Usually people report that a "tail up" VTA causes a downward tilt in tonal balance (more apparent bass; less apparent treble), and vice-versa for a tail down setting, as you suggest.  That is more due to changing the contact patch between stylus and vinyl, as I understand it.

I beg to differ. At least with respect to jazz and classical music genres, “old” LPs that were well cared for can compete with and often surpass modern reissues by a wide margin. Unlike CDs, LPs really can last forever if properly stored and played with decent cartridges and tonearms. And I don’t mean the equipment needs to be expensive. This only makes sense; the market for LPs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was far more vast than it is today, and there was real competition for consumer attention. RCA, Decca, Capitol, Riverside, Contemporary, Columbia, Verve, Nonesuch, Vanguard, and later Pablo, ECM, etc, took great care to produce high quality product. We still venerate their various recording engineers.

I am trying to piece your story together.  First, you say you "recently bought" a TT.  You then say you compared it to your digital system "for quite a while".  So right there is a bit confusing; if you compared your vinyl to your digital for quite a while, how can it be that you just bought the TT, unless by using the term quite a while you mean to indicate a week or two or a month, maybe. Then you go on to say that you own 3000 LPs. That suggests you are a long time vinylista. I have been doing this for more than 40 years, and I too own about 3000 LPs, probably a bit fewer than that.  You also say that most of your (3000) LPs don't sound that good.  But it would take many months or maybe even a year to sample and evaluate even half of 3000 LPs, to enable you to conclude that most of your LPs are lacking.  You go on to say that you recently purchased some new LPs that you like very much.  How recent can that be since you stored your new TT, per the first paragraph?  Regardless of all this, it is good to know you are now pleased with your vinyl.