I've been catching up on this thread,still more to read, but thought I'd like to add.
Way back ,early in this thread I stated a preference for the recording talents of the folks from the 60's,who had none of the toys that the the new crop of "educated" recording engineers have today.
You know, all the stuff that can transform mediocre musicians into giants,and make live vs recorded sound a mute point to argue about.
I acknowledge that technology has progressed in the last two decades.
But has it given us any new classics?
Where's the new Kind Of Blue?
Is it Green Day?
Ok so I'm old,but it's not nostalgia.
I didn't like or appreciate KInd of Blue until a decade ago,when I heard it for the first time,on CD!
The sonics were great,yet it was a simple recording using simple, primitive gear by todays standards.
And yet something was captured on those analog master tapes,something that seems to be missing with most of todays newest all digital recordings.
I have heard some pretty poor examples of modern recording techniques that even good vinyl pressings can't fix.
For me, the best digital recordings played back on good digital gear,seems to be a pretty faithful reproduction of what went on in the studio.
By that, I mean you will hear all the processing that went on to bring a make believe reality into your home.
It's not the same as capturing the reality of a recording of real musicians playing in a real room(with real distortions)in real time.
The older simpler recording of the golden age, just sound more natural because they are.
There was little or no manipulation of reality.
You can't say the same for many of todays recordings.
They are the reality or conception of what the engineer/producer wants us to believe is reality.Or the total absence of it,depending on how far you want to alter and tinker with what was recorded.
You could compare this to the realist types of painting to the more abstract versions of paintings.
One strives to capture reality, the other strives to interpret it.
You can choose which one suits your own tastes.
There's lots of fun listening to studio manipulated masterpieces,and purist recordings.
What it comes down to is, which one would you use to assemble a hifi system?
Again this rests with one's experience to how live instruments sound.So that you can recognize when they are reproduced naturally or in altered form.Then judge what job your gear is doing.How much is it altering reality?
Would you like tone controls,add some more bass?Just how would you like it to sound?
Since few of us were there at the session, how would we know anyways if we did re-capture the same sonics?
Even the end user can't resist twiddling with the mix when given the chance.
Does anyone know what " real" is amnymore?
Do they even want it?
Perhaps it's a generational thing.
I personnally have no interest in any of the "reality" type programs that are thrust at us.
For me it's not a reality that I can relate to, and as such I find nothing to interest me.
It's a production, someone's take on what reality is for the masses of folks who are interested in such shows.
Much the way I find most modern recordings of modern groups are.
The music is very derivitive, the playing can be great, but the recordings are so altered, how can you tell if they are any good?
Only by seeing them live?
Then again look at all the lip syncing, and voice manipulations in supposedly live performances.
If oldies recordings more closely represent reality and that's what turns you on, then jump in.Buy that vinyl rig.
You also may like the way vinyl can reproduce the other reality of the recording studio too on good pressings.
Pink Floyd anyone?
