Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

Elizabeth, I have 7,000 78s and about 1,500 CDs from 78 sources.  They sound great performance wise and often with great mid-range and dynamics (especially the electricals).  For 78s, I use my old VPI 19-4 with an ultracraft 400C arm and a grado 78 cartridge, Marantz 7T pre-amp and VPI SDS speed controller.  Truly enjoyable experience but with added effort.  As to well transferred, remastered 78s on CD (also LPs), by guys like Marston, Hardwicke, Obert-Thorn, Andreas Meyer, etc., well there's often gold in the sound as well as performances worthy of them.  I've had a friend/Cal Tech engineer (departed) who were able to play early acoustic 78s with the correct stylus and e.q. on a huge horn system sound like 50's mono LPs.  Truly amazing and exciting.  

My own system has well mastered/pressing 50/60s LPs sound just more lively than well remastered CDs.  But, the CDs can stand on their own for enjoyment  (VPI TNT VI/SME IV/Benz Ruby 3... versus EAR Acute CD player).  I have 25,000+ LPs in my collection.  Each evening, I start with a CD and end 2 hours later listening to CDs, or start with an LP and end up listening to LPs at the end.  78s are a pain to play.  I'm thinking of buying a Simply Vinyl Sugarcube wo copy them to digital without the surface noise (especially with cheap shellac 78s).

iamhe I’ve read that the analog LP only captures 12 or 14 bits of information but in pure wave form. Digital captures sound at different bits and depth. Somehow, they both sound natural and high resolution on my system and some of my friends systems. They each have their own plusses and minuses .

Many of us can relate to Frank Sinatra Capitol recordings.  The LPs varied tremendously from one mastering to another, one pressing to another.  I have five copies of Only the Lonely, only 1 sounds mellow with Frank's voice warm and centered.  The others vary from bright to dull.  On CD, the early Capitol 16 bit basically copied the best of the original LP mastering, a little less resolving.  The 24 bit Norberg set has Frank swimming in reverb and dulled the transients using excessive noise suppression.  The  20 bit British set has Frank way out in front of the orchestra, warm and loud.  What a mess the latter two recent remasterings are.  

As to CDs being worthless, my Marston and Romophone CDs of extremely rare "78s" are not available or downloadable and strictly copyright enforced.  The original discs are rare, difficult to manipulate for playback as to e.q., speed as well as stylus type.  Historic recordings have hugely benefited from gifted mastering engineers and modern digitial equipment.  I consider an $18 CD with 24 tracks of $100 to $1000s discs properly remastered a real bargain not to be duplicated in the future.

P.S. I am sorry to inform everyone, but even CD pressings from the same plant can sound very different just like LPs.  I don't know why a glass mastered CD should sound different when stamped but they often do.  Let alone completely different materials (Japanese versus U.S. like vinyl formulation differences).

There are too many fantastic CDs of historic performances, never to be remastered again.  I've commented on another forum. 
Anything by Ward Marston is usually rare in 78 format and expertly remastered.  LP transfers of acoustic 78s were generally mediocre and the originals when played back at the correct speed, equalization and stylus size beat it.  However, that's where a master like Ward Marston excels.  He does this, a collection of 24 tracks at $18 a CD for $1000s of mint recordings.  What a bargain.

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).  

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..

I use digital recording equipment now.  Even the DCC recordings made in the 1990s sounded great.  I still have a Tandberg 9100 and a Pioneer 1500 for playback.  That Tandberg made some great recordings back in 1980s, better than early digital by a mile.

The reason I prefer many CDs to LP originals is due to remastering and unavailable good pressings.  Some of our great remastering engineers use the mastertapes without the LP compression and know what their doing with e.q. and multi-track mixing.  The other reason is that many of my great performances originally on LP had crappy pressings and the CD eliminates that hindrance to musical pleasure.  

Most of my collection, both 78s and LPs are not and will never be transferred to CD due to economic reasons and limited demand.

Despite my rather large collection, I rarely paid more than $25 for a record, 78 or CD.  Most of my collection was acquired between $1 and $10 each.  I listen every day for 1 to 2 hours.  That's my wealth, having the time after working, etc., to listen, not the cost per unit.  True from junior high through law school (restricted to chamber and non-vocal classical music and jazz while studying).  I'm 62 now so I've been privileged to hear a lot of music besides performing and recording.

I agree with spatialking that mono LPs can be breathtakingly great sounding (I have many jazz LPs that prove that), I also despair at the inferior sound of many LPs, especially minor labels who cheaped out on the vinyl and/or mastering or major labels such as Columbia classical.  I have many of those inferior sounding LPs remastered on CD and they can be awesome.   Some examples are the Mitropolous Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet (2 original and 1 Odyssey LPs).  Then an early CD which sounded just as murky as the LPs.  Then, the recent remastering-fantastic audiophile sound.   How about not great sounding, noisy Ramsey Lewis Down to Earth on Mercury.  3 LPs with different labels/pressings are okay.  The Mercury CD release is out of this world great.  On the other hand, many of my Decca CDs are inferior sounding to the original LPs.  So it hit and miss on both formats.  I wouldn't want to be without either. 

As to millercarbon's post-my 2000 analog set up was a VPI 19-4 with an SME IV arm and Lyra Lydian cartridge.  It killed every CD player I heard by a mile.  I hated CDs until I got the EAR Acute in 2006.  Then I fell in love with it as much as my 2006 purchase of a VPI TNT VI, same arm and Benz Ruby 3 cartridge.  So, yes a cheap LP set up can conquer a cheap CD player with low end ancillary equipment.  My suggestion is to try out some very good used CD players and see how great they can sound (a used Acute sells for $2000).  CD players have come a long way towards sounding like great analog.

Which LP are you talking about the Ramsey Lewis or the Mitropolous?  Both are stereo, great stereo at that on CD.  Stereo Columbia orchestral recordings are particularly peculiar sounding, bright and thin relative to Living Stereo, Living Presence and Decca Stereo.  The more recent remastered Sony Columbias can be superb-it's all on the tape and finally revealed via the CD.

The rare and difficult to transfer correctly acoustic recordings prior to 1925 are currently not streamed and in the future, will require someone other than the owner of those recordings in 78, LP or CD format to permit or actually do the transfer to streaming or other digital format. 

I have many ethnic recordings which also have very limited copies issued and could be lost forever if reliance were made for convenience only. 

My hope is that future generations learn music history and performance, learn how to perform musical instruments and vocal technique and not squander the incredible musical intelligence of the past several centuries.  Civilization will be greatly diminished otherwise.

I prefer the Nakamichi 7A to the Dragon as do some other owners.  It is mechancially more stable with no auto reverse and has manual azimuth adjustment.  I've used mine for 30 years.  Otherwise, sonically, I prefer the Tandberg cassette decks.  Excellent S/N ratios with beautiful rich sound that I've only found in Tandberg decks.  Tandberg decks were very unreliable, especially their older ones I've owned.  

@ rauliruegas  I agree with you concerning nearfield listening with its less than optimal sound for music listening comfort.  Back in the 70s, I reviewed concerts at UCLA Royce Hall and traded my front row tickets for 10th row.  The first couple of rows were too direct sounding and could be too bright, hard, loud, etc.  

However, despite your criticism of the analog process of music reproduction, I thoroughly enjoy listening to "antique" music recordings from the 1900s to 1925, when eq didn't exist, speeds varied per recording artist and company and many more variables caused sonics to be less than good.  It's the performances I'm after.  After 1925, electrical recording produced very fine sound, limited by the technology, but thoroughly enjoyable on my system.  On most audio systems, the dynamic compression and lack of complete harmonic structure greatly limits the sound quality and enjoyment of post 1925 records which have the ability to transport the music listener to a blissful state.  

I also enjoy a well mastered digital recording (I am an amateur recording engineer for various choirs and chamber music which better results then most current professional recordings).  I abhor the current technique of recording at a great distance and large hall for most acoustic recordings, especially anything smaller than an orchestra.  I prefer the direct sound of pianos to cavernous recordings of them.  A touch of room or hall ambiance is beneficial but not like Yarlung recordings for example.  Sometimes I hear modern recordings such as a flute splayed across both channels as huge as a symphony in a cavernous hall.  Yuk, who would want to hear that live?   

Live music can sound terrible as it usually does when it is played loud in small acoustic spaces, too amplified or in too live or dead rooms.  The acoustics where music is played is extremely important to the quality of the sound.  Recordings are often superior to live performances because they are engineered to capture the sound better.  As a part time recorder of an orchestra, chamber group and choirs and with 78s, LPs, CDs and RR tape, I hear all types of sounds from all types of venues.  I consider them all valid for music enjoyment.  If not, I don't listen.  I've heard great performances in terrible acoustics and on poor sounding recordings.  But when I hear a mediocre performance in great acoustics, I want to run away but with recordings, I just toss them.  

As to performances, there are LPs and CDs which do not duplicate them or have equally good mastering/sound.   My Marston CDs of vocalists and pianists are not available on LP and often extremely rare originals (78s, Pathes, Edisons, etc).  They sound wonderful on high end equipment.  They don't necessarily need the analog equivalent to extract the best sound possible.  

As to high end sound, I have many LPs and CDs, where both were good remasterings, yet the LP is slightly better than the CD.  Then again, I have so many mediocre LPs due to inferior mastering or pressing where the CD kills the LP.  Until I purchased my EAR Acute CD player, I didn't enjoy CDs.  Now CDs are on an equally enjoyable footing as my analog gear.  I wouldn't want to live without both.

As to LP shelf space, approximately 80 LPs fit into one foot of shelf space.  Hence, 8000 LPs should fit into 100 lineal feet of shelf space.  I should know.  I currently have 25,000 LPs in my listening/storage room and 5,000 LPs in my storage shed to be sorted, heard or discarded (sold or given away).  Now, 78 rpm records take up much more space if in albums rather than sleeves.  Also, boxed sets can be bulkier, such as for operas.  

100 lineal feet of shelf space in a six shelf high storage shelving cabinet is only about 17 feet long, not 266 feet or even an integer by 6 shelves.   Just one wall for most collectors.

Again, in my very wide types of music in my collection, the recording and mastering are paramount to enjoying the sound quality of the performance.  First comes the performance, then the sound quality.  In my audio systems, I can greatly enjoy the sound of even early electric 78s from 1925, mono and stereo LP recordings and digital recordings.  Records, tapes and CDs can all sound great or mediocre, depending on the recording engineer and in the modern recording era, the mastering engineer.  I get the same thrill from a great sounding CD that I get from a great sounding LP and RR tape.

geoffkait No, no, no. Some high end audiophile systems bring out the finest qualities of sound from all sources, including the worst sources. Sure, I’ve trashed many recordings LP, 78 and CD based on really poor sound quality. Now, my system is so good that it elevates the sound of once were mediocre recordings/masterings.

An example is last weeks review in Positive Feedback Magazine of a phono stage where the reviewer extols the virtues of the TimeLife Angel/EMI classical recordings box sets, available at $1 to $3 per LP. When I purchased 9 sets for $9 30+ years ago, my system stunk compared to now despite the Acoustat 2&2s driven by Dynaco IIIs, a VPI 19-4 and SME IV, Dynavector Karat. Those LPs sounded generally compressed and bright, lacking bsss and dynamics. Well, yes, those LPs were not necessarily from master tapes but the vinyl was quiet. Today, on my superior equipment with all the tweaks for isolation of equipment, electrical/cabling superiority and acoustic room superiority, those same LPs can have very good sound, eminently listenable. The Walton/Shostokovich LP is really good. Sure, I’d rather have the EMI originals but at 25 cents per LP cost, they were a bargain that I didn’t recognize until 30 years later when I played them again on the recommendation of a reviewer.

I also have performing and listening experience to live music.  I sing and perform with a 50+ orchestra in Los Angeles.  I've reviewed classical music for the UCLA Daily Bruin from row 10 as rows 1 and 2 had a bright, forward sound that I didn't like.  I swapped seats with concertgoers-they wanted to be up front and I wanted the best sound.