A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an
original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not
forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and
LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the
quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They
must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded
masters. Unfortunately a lot of CDs use those original cutting master
tapes, and they reveal this compression well. This is not the fault of
CD, it is caused by poor quality source material.

Some of the vinyl enthusiasts on this group will tell you that vinyl
sounds just fine even after it has been digitally recorded. This
suggests several things, (1) CD/digital can record source material
sufficiently well to be almost completely transparent; (2) to repeat (1)
in a different way - the act of recording the vinyl onto CD doesn't
remove the so-called "warmth"; and (3) the "warmth" that people refer to
is a characteristic of vinyl, caused mostly by distortion, compression
and other imperfections.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com