Nrchy: Please forgive the tone of my last post, and then let me explain its point. You seem to attribute the poor quality you find in many recordings to the quality of the equipment used in recording studios. I think you're wrong about that. People I've talked to who do recordings generally choose their equipment carefully. They have to think about more than just sound quality, but they will not tolerate anything less than great sound quality. And they know it when they hear it, which is their business. It's only our hooby.
The variability in quality comes not so much from the equipment as from the decisions they make about everything from mike placement to EQ. Getting a good sound is no easy task, as anyone who's tried it will tell you. Plus, they have to make a recording to sound good in a wide variety of environments and systems.
Now, it's often suggested that the majors engineer recordings to sound good on earbuds and boomboxes. There may be some truth to that, especially for pop releases, many of which seem to have little in the way of dynamic range, for example. I haven't heard a really bad jazz recording in a while, though I have heard some with very different recording styles. Depending on your tastes, you might like some styles more than others.
The variability in quality comes not so much from the equipment as from the decisions they make about everything from mike placement to EQ. Getting a good sound is no easy task, as anyone who's tried it will tell you. Plus, they have to make a recording to sound good in a wide variety of environments and systems.
Now, it's often suggested that the majors engineer recordings to sound good on earbuds and boomboxes. There may be some truth to that, especially for pop releases, many of which seem to have little in the way of dynamic range, for example. I haven't heard a really bad jazz recording in a while, though I have heard some with very different recording styles. Depending on your tastes, you might like some styles more than others.