"Cut from the original master tapes"

Yes, ones made from the master are much better. It was common practice even in the old days to cut records from 2nd or 3rd generation copies of the master tape. The idea was to put the master in the vault and leave it, no one could tell the difference. LOL. The master is the closest thing to the actual performance that we will ever have. Some of the older ones are still of exceptional quality. It is POSSIBLE now to make masters that are even better but that seldom happens. Cassette's were crap and 8 track worse and if you didn't have a real professional tape recorder you have no idea how good they can be. Some of my favorite records were recorded up in the Andes 40 years on portable pro recorders.

Good question. All things being equal (they never are) tapes are better than vinyl because they proceed it and do not require such elaborate equalization (not to mention cutter heads, pressing issues etc.). Time, however can change that relationship. As it happens, vinyl is the most stable recording medium that we know of. The jury is still out on more recent recording procedures.

It is not a sales pitch. The original reel-to-reel studio recordings are, generally speaking, superior in every regard. If there is deterioration in the original tape then specific areas will be re-recorded by computer from another part of the tape that is not damaged. For the most part, the recording companies kept the original tapes in climate controlled storage to ensure stability of the oxide. Many of the 1950's tapes are still in pristine condition. Playback is usually done on an Ampex 350/351 tape deck, or similar professional deck, which is the deck most recording studios used. Listening to the original tapes is like being at the recording session itself, though it may have been 50 years ago.

I always say Its a dull day when you don't learn something - I thank you all for your responses