After I wrote the above, I dug some records and CDs out and was able to some modest comparisons myself. I compared 2 of the 70's Prestige Two-fers (Lps of course) with CDs from the Miles Davis Chronicle box (Prestige 1987)and (in the case of Bag's Groove) with the related XRCD and the later RVG remaster.
The pure analog Lps were warm and pleasant, but were rolled off in the highs (perhaps for noise reduction purposes?). They were very easy to listen to but some (many?) would find them objectionable because of the roll off.
The '87 remastered CDs were arguably better (better highs, though less warm), but the XRCD was clearer, cleaner, and better detailed (though one could argue it was slightly unpleasantly bright, or right at the edge of that). It's easy to guess both were made from the same digital master, but the XRCD benefited from better CD mastering and production.
The RVG was noticeably different. It was warmer and fatter, less bright, but better detailed than any of the other versions. It's as if RVG fully understood the things that annoy many of us about CDs, and set out to make a very "analog" sounding CD, while at the same time doing whatever could be done to get the most out of the original source material. He did a darn good job.
What I don't know is how the RVG holds up against any of the other Lp competition...all I have is the Prestige 70's remaster. Though I have developed a preference for vinyl generally, I think in a blind A-B test I would likely always go for the RVG as having the better sound. (If you told me it was an audiophile Lp, I'd probably believe it.)
(Equipment used: Linn LP12 with Koetsu Black, EAR 834P, GNSC-modified Wadia 860, Joule LA150 MkII, ARC VT100 MkIII, and Harbeth Monitor 30's, all wired with Cardas Cross.)
Those are my observations. Who else has done some comparing?
The pure analog Lps were warm and pleasant, but were rolled off in the highs (perhaps for noise reduction purposes?). They were very easy to listen to but some (many?) would find them objectionable because of the roll off.
The '87 remastered CDs were arguably better (better highs, though less warm), but the XRCD was clearer, cleaner, and better detailed (though one could argue it was slightly unpleasantly bright, or right at the edge of that). It's easy to guess both were made from the same digital master, but the XRCD benefited from better CD mastering and production.
The RVG was noticeably different. It was warmer and fatter, less bright, but better detailed than any of the other versions. It's as if RVG fully understood the things that annoy many of us about CDs, and set out to make a very "analog" sounding CD, while at the same time doing whatever could be done to get the most out of the original source material. He did a darn good job.
What I don't know is how the RVG holds up against any of the other Lp competition...all I have is the Prestige 70's remaster. Though I have developed a preference for vinyl generally, I think in a blind A-B test I would likely always go for the RVG as having the better sound. (If you told me it was an audiophile Lp, I'd probably believe it.)
(Equipment used: Linn LP12 with Koetsu Black, EAR 834P, GNSC-modified Wadia 860, Joule LA150 MkII, ARC VT100 MkIII, and Harbeth Monitor 30's, all wired with Cardas Cross.)
Those are my observations. Who else has done some comparing?