Allman Brothers at Fillmore East, which one?

Astro- I have the Classic remaster as well as an early pink label Capricorn that I compared quite a while ago. My recollection is that the Classic has more "hi-fi" attributes- detail and more open in the midrange, as you mentioned, but that the early pink label Capricorn was more cohesive, of a piece. I probably have a beige Capricorn around somewhere (unless I got rid of it). I can try to re-compare. I think some of this is listener preference and system bias- i.e., the sonic character of the mastering may better match what you like or complement the character of the system it is played on. Overall, I don't think this recording is a great sounding record, much as I love the music.  (I played the hell out of a copy back when it was originally released- have no idea where that old copy is). And these--the less stellar recordings, sonically, -- are often the records that make me search for better sounding copies. 

whart, I think it (is) important to evaluate in one's (current) system, instead of trying to remember the past. This is why I remarked here to begin with.

You're acknowledgement of "hi-fi" attributes kind of turns me sour in some ways. (Again), this just may be a difference in how we hear things and try to explain them).

The soundstage presentation I heard was a "night & day" differencein my above comparison. I might have failed in making this more clear. This is one thing you did not write about.

All in all, I think we may not be that far off , just a matter of differing systems and our own way of explaining what we hear.

Cheers!

..In a previous system/room configuration in which I had last listened to the Classic re-issue, I was not impressed.

I'm glad to have not sold it. I would certainly buy an original pink Capricorn if I found one for sure.

Astro - no disrespect intended to you by my use of the word "hi-fi" to describe the Classic. Yes, I am basing what I said on memory, but heard over my own system at the time with the copies to hand. I did, in fairness, acknowledge that some of this may not only be system dependent, but based on listener preference. For example, "soundstage" to me is an attribute-  often used by audiophiles to describe one facet of the sound. But it is only one facet, depending on your priorities and preferences. I have no monopoly on choosing what is "right" or "best"--in fact, my point is that different copies have different strengths and weaknesses.  And, I have many Classics that I bought at the time of release. Every one sounds different than the earlier "standard issue" copies (and among those, there are many differences depending on the cut, the country of origin, etc.) . But, I'm not making a blanket indictment of the Classics. To be sure, Mike Hobson had great taste and went to the limit to deliver some of the best remasters at the time.  And, it was nice to get fresh, unmolested copies of some of the more pricey collectibles for a reasonable price. But, the choice between copies/pressings/remasters is, to me, often one of preference rather than demonstrably "better" or "worse." My apologies for using a descriptor that seemed like an insult.

whart, I appreciate your response. I was hoping that any additional response would incorporate your (current) system evaluation of your copies.

You seem to have focused on my Classic copy as the (only) source of your response?

To me "soundstage" is not an attribute. It is a (real) part of the experience, of the event, of the actual live recording that (should) be conveyed through a good pressing.

I don't find that "soundstage" is just, as you put it, "one facet of the sound". It is THE constant, the one main part of a recording that should be readily apparent and noticeable to any listener. It is, IMO, a most important part of the home audio enthusiast experience! You seen to miss this point in this instance and in other reviews you've posted.

I think you focused on things that weren't my (focus).

Cheers!