Is It Ironic?

Yes, technology continues to evolve and improve. Meaning better performing choices are available today for those in needed who choose to seek them out.

Does not mean older gear is "obsolete" though if that is what floats ones boat. Also better performance is a good thing but alone does not assure better sound/end results. Many things come into play there. Quality/nature of recording being a big one.

If you can hear all the unique nuances of each recording, and how different ones are produced differently, you are probably in pretty good shape with whatever one is listening to.

If you continue to change or try to improve gear in teh interest of making each recording fit to some personal ideal that they cannot, then that is the road to home audio hell for sure.

Nice analogy Viridian!

Chances are the OLDER photograph would be less resolved and the harder of the two to discern information from accordingly and would up the ante in terms of what is needed to get good results.

Turntables are one thing that one will likely pay a premium for these days if bought new compared to vintage models. That's of course because records used to be everywhere and there was lots of decent quality gear to play them on. I suspct the best (and quite pricey) tables out there today may incorporate useful technical advances, but teh market will dictate paying a premium. I would personally think twice before buying a new turntable. There are still some good affordable cart options out there though. Same true for phono amps. Some vinyl lovers who have heard it all still prefer certain high quality vintage gear, properly maintained, restored or even enhanced.

"The idea being, even though the picture is old, you'll still benefit from viewing it through a new window. "

Sounds right. The new window will deliver more benefit for everything. But in the case of the old photo, it may be good enough to appreciate, but if one views it through the inferior window, that may no longer be the case. Whereas, the sharp new high quality picture might still be appreciated through old, and will also shine its best through new.

In any case, I tend to disagree with those that might shy away from better, more resolving gear, for fear that it will reveal flaws in bad recordings. It will reveal EVRYTHING, not just the flaws. The source material is what it is, but that's no reason to compromise it further and have less chance of enjoying.

True I would not equate high quality "touchstone" recordings from the 1950s with 19th century photography in terms of technical merit, but I still like the analogy as an example of why technology done better is ALWAYS better.

There are plenty of good and bad recordings from both years ago and currently. That newer better modern technology is a useful tool to help confirm the quality of recordings made with older technology years ago as well as today does not seem all that surprising or ironic to me. Better tools enable better determinations.

Now if it were the case that technology has gone downhill over the years, as some might claim, we would be harder pressed to recognize quality recordings from years ago.

"Second, many of the reference recordings used to judge the improvement in equipment are 50 years old. I find that ironic."

Well, it would not be possible to compare old equipment no longer used with new recordings that did not exist back then whereas old reference recordings are available to all that came later.

I suppose I can see some irony in it all. :^)

"The question though, is more resolution always a good thing?"

It's a good question. Some might say "no". I would say yes.

If you have it, there are many ways to control it to one's tastes via tweaks, etc.

If you don't have it, you do not know what you are missing, so one cannot be in a position to judge.

That's just how I look at it practically.

Here's an interesting scenario to consider. Say one has resolution but results are unpleasant. Is resolution the cause or is this a case of shooting the messenger? How can one pin the blame on resolution conclusively?

Medusa is still ugly, even in HD. A lot goes into production to make it look good on HD TV. But I'd bet few who care would give up their HD TVs and go back to something less resolving. Not to say they might not play with filter/picture control tweaks at their disposal.

HD TV and modern digital audio are pretty much analogous in terms of what works best, what does not, and how to maximize utility to consumers.

OR, is there anyone out there if given the choice would choose to have less than 20/20 vision? How about hearing problems that limit what one might hear otherwise? Food for thought....

I would rather focus in conjunction on effectively minimizing noise and distortion and maximizing resolution in order to achieve best results possible. Nothing too radical there, I think?

"Yes, too much resolution sometimes can be a bad thing - when listening to some horrible recordings from 50 years ago. They sounded OK on less resolving system."

I have some old 78 RPM records that I converted to digital and listen to along with all the rest.

THey sound like...78 RPM records. Mostly midrange, limited dynamics, lots of surface noise.

They are what they are...but I do like to listen to them, warts exposed and all.

Of course I did play them back to record on a 70s vintage Admiral ceramic cart turntable I picked up for $10 at a yard sale specifically for playing 78s. Not to shabby compared to the quality of the format itself. But I guess its possible that the Admiral was the weak link... :^)

I have some CDs with remastered tracks from the 20's and 30's. I have no problem with resolution when listening to these as well.

" These feeble arguments are nver settled"

Kinda like the United Nations track record.

Or everyone's favorite flavor of ice cream? We know most like vanilla.

Or lists of hottest this, best that, favorite the other thing that one finds everywhere these days and no two of which is the same.

Following the crowd is hard work. Not to mention confusing. Better of just having a mind of one's own.

I'd just say trust one's ears, but even that is under dispute.

It is ironic that so many seek out "the best" yet few would agree on exactly what that is in most cases. Even Tiger Woods ain't what he used to be....