No doubt, looking for answers to defined questions, AI will cull the audiophile consensus available on the web. I guess where I part ways: how do you find new to you music that isn’t just the 620th iteration of a warhorse? Reviews are often based on FOMO and are aimed at encouraging purchase of new product. User opinion is limited to what a given user actually compared in a controlled setting. (I used to like the older threads on Hoffman for this reason, rather than “sounds great” there were detailed shoot-outs of identified masters by matrix, plant and cutting engineer, something that takes, time, effort and money). This also leads to the Tom Port model, which has been beaten to death on the fora.
For me, I enjoy the process. I like researching the history, surfing artists—a sideman on one record can be a featured artist on another—particularly in jazz. I don’t know what your taste in music is, let alone your sonic preferences. Audiophile records are often expanded midrange detail at the expense of overall cohesiveness. And one of the tells I listen for –which is non-existent on hard rock and heavily produced music-the acoustic envelope from attack, harmonics, decay. All of this forms my take on a given record. I could give you numerous examples- from the difference between the WLP of Randy Kling’s Straight label cut of Love it to Death v. the recent Rhino recut. Or the difference between an old Alice Coltrane copy of Ptah on Impulse and the recent Verve reissue. Sometimes, I conclude that, on balance, the reissue makes more sense given the difficulty of sourcing a clean playing OG. I’m not sure the answer is binary—between “the best” (there are many shadings of that) and what is gettable at a “reasonable” price. You also have to take account of musical preferences, the “tells” the listener is using to differentiate and the strengths and weaknesses of the system on which the records are evaluated.