Reel to reel

I own a Tandberg 9000x and a Technics 1500, 1/4 and 1/2 track 3 speed.  I have made choral recordings using the Tandberg that sound fantastically lifelike.  I also own many direct discs, some of which were recorded with some hall ambiance and also sound lifelike.  Besides that, I have 7,000 78s which are direct discs and some of those have lifelike mid-range sound.  I've heard studio RR mastertapes that are wonderful too.  So, I have concluded that RR and disc recordings can sound fantastic.  Too bad so many of my LPs from the 70s and 80s were not as well recorded and LPs from earlier period were not necessarily well stamped or well mastered.  I have also recorded digitally 24/96 of chamber, choirs and orchestral music which sound superb.  The method of recording/reproducing is comparable to splitting hair and the resulting sound quality has more to do with execution than the format.

Some of the best sounding mono LPs were made using 1/2" tape and/or 30 ips speed tape.  For acoustic music, the simpler the microphone setup, the better (2 or 3 mikes back in the late 50s and early 60s).  

My experience is that many CDs kill the LP versions.  Columbia classical is one label that excels on CD.  Example, Mitropoulos conducting Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet.  Original first stamper and later stamper Columbia, Odyssey reissue, first CD issue all sound muddy to an extreme.  The latest CD issue 100% clears up the mud and presents an exquisite sounding recording which is on the master tape obviously.  The reason I have so many CDs now is because of the excellent remastering of classical and many jazz CDs (like Mode LPs were only mono, the later stereo issues were dreadful pressings, now issued in superb CDs).  Also, Marston mastering of 78s is phenomenal, playing acoustic recordings back correctly is a huge pain and owning/storing 100,000 78s is too great a challenge.

I hated CDs until the early 2000s when I heard players which made the digital tracks sound more like analog.  Now I own an EAR Acute and think about upgrading to a COS Engineering DAC unit which was mind-blowingly good.  

Cartridges that sound different does not mean wrong.  There are bigger differences in high end speakers $100,000+.  Solid state versus Tube, my Tandberg versus my Technics RR, an Ampex 300 versus a Revox or Teac RR.  They all sound significantly different.  I favored the Tandberg RR and cassette decks because of their full, warm sound and excellent S/N without Dolby.  However, I also want reliability so I'm using a Technics RR now and a Nakamichi 7 cassette deck.  
My enthusiasm hasn't shrunk and I'm not known for having a big ego, rather a suppressed ego.  Maybe your're the one with a big ego, RR over everything else.

And what am I going to play on a nice Studer, my own recordings, or buy some $500 reissues?  Maybe you're very wealthy, but even my friends with $850,000 and $1,200,000 audio system/rooms don't play RR.  One is analog only and the other has digital only formats.  I listen to analog and digital formats.  I have limited mental abilities but use them to most educated extent.  So being forthright is a benefit using the knowledge that I have accumulated.  I'm constantly in doubt but have acclimated to my intellectual limitations.  I am constantly learning.  You must be a rich genius to know that a Studer is superior sounding to a Tandberg and a Technics.   I've heard Ampex 300s and Studer's in studios that I've appraised/recorded in and they can sound superb, but so can my inferior RRs.  

Yes, I agree that the Technics 1200 is an average machine, competent but not extraordinary.  I liked it more than most machines from the 1970s and 1980s like Duals, Rotels, Miracords, BSRs, Garrards, etc.  It is a good test unit for universal use vinyl.