Was just thinking of all of those classic albums that I've bought in every new or remastered or improved format hoping for and sometimes getting an even better aural image of music I've loved for years...Abbey Road, Aja, Child Is Father To The Man, lately the hi rez Pink Floyd remasters of Meddle, Obscured By Clouds, etc...and other than Steven Wilson's magic on Tull,Yes, XTC, Supertramp, King Crimson, etc, the majority of the versions that left me smiling were from very hi resolution rips from newly pressed high quality vinyl...not sure how your 5 year window applies given the provenance of the various versions but this is what comes to mind for me when I think of recording quality in general. Of course, the ECM releases, many of the old DG, Phillips, etc classical releases can be game changers in terms of sound quality as well...
Recording quality...
A lot of time here is spent discussing equipment, which is to be expected. But even the best gear will not mask a lousy recording. Let's face it, some labels use better recording equipment, microphone placement, mixing and so on to create stunning sound. Other labels just don't sound as good.
Case in point...when I purchase a recording, I'm looking for a recording date within the last five years. I realize that some classic recordings took place years ago recorded with analog equipment, but it will still sound old on anything modern you play it on. I'm not a big fan of remastering either. Look, I realize that we can't bring back Miles Davis or get Pink Floyd back together to do a modern recording, but imagine if we could.
Once, when I was a kid, I was lucky enough to witness a live recording session in a real studio. This was in the late 60s, when real musicians played real instruments. They used these gigantic Scully tape machines with inch-thick Ampex 456 tape running at fast speed and a mixing board, which was the most modern recording equipment of the time. Today, that equipment belongs in a museum, considering the modern tools that recording engineers have now.
My point here is that great equipment is nice, but paired with a recent recording using modern tools, the sound is so much better. Just my humble opinion. What say you to this?
Case in point...when I purchase a recording, I'm looking for a recording date within the last five years. I realize that some classic recordings took place years ago recorded with analog equipment, but it will still sound old on anything modern you play it on. I'm not a big fan of remastering either. Look, I realize that we can't bring back Miles Davis or get Pink Floyd back together to do a modern recording, but imagine if we could.
Once, when I was a kid, I was lucky enough to witness a live recording session in a real studio. This was in the late 60s, when real musicians played real instruments. They used these gigantic Scully tape machines with inch-thick Ampex 456 tape running at fast speed and a mixing board, which was the most modern recording equipment of the time. Today, that equipment belongs in a museum, considering the modern tools that recording engineers have now.
My point here is that great equipment is nice, but paired with a recent recording using modern tools, the sound is so much better. Just my humble opinion. What say you to this?