For those who may be critical of "old" recordings and their technical approach, have you ever wondered why in particular the earlier Blue Note LPs command so much among used records? You might answer "it's the artists", but many of those were reissued so are available in both newer analog or digital format.
Just a quick review identifies one thing fans look for is engineering by Rudy Van Gelder. RVG in the runout is gold! The Contemporary issues engineered by Roy DuNann are similarly sought after. These examples relate to miking (minimal) and general recording techniques. Then there are preferences for tubed recording components verses solid state, and analog masters versus digital. Also the quality of vinyl utilized during the '50s and '60s was superior to what was available after the oil embargo in the very early '70s, after which "recycled" vinyl was utilized, even by major labels.
Now admittedly many early stereo recordings were guilty of "a hole in the middle" of the soundstage, the result of panning emphasis to the left and right channels to highlight the stereo effect. But a mono or blend control on your preamp could minimize that.
Other than the above factors, more "modern" recordings tend to mic individual musicians and often "isolate" them with sound panels in the studio. A worse case is when other musicians are added from new tracks recorded at another place and even time. What sort of musical cohesion can result from that? The net result becomes a function of the mixing engineer, not the musicians themselves.
For myself, there are only two issues with older recordings, and I'm talking about those from the '50s and '60s, not earlier. One is condition of an individual record - was it handled properly and not played excessively? The other can be cost - just look at asking prices for some of those RVG Blue Note, particularly the earlier "deep groove" versions.
You may not agree, but at least understand why some of us are not all that excited about "new" recording techniques.
