The finest technically recorded album. LP or CD

I am going to assume that Zaikesman's comment about my post implied his general agreement with what I wrote. In my experience as an audiophile over the past 40 years, I have heard only a handful of recordings that were "technically excellent" (i.e., actually sounded like live music). Since it is virtually impossible to reproduce the live sound of a rock band (electric instruments, high SPL's) or a symphony orchestra (hall acoustics, wide dynamic range, etc.), about the best that one can hope for is accurate recordings of small acoustic ensembles or a singer with minimal accompaniment.

Like Zaikesman, I mean no personal criticism toward the posts that nominate recordings by popular groups. Quite simply, however, there is almost no way for those recordings to be "technically excellent" since the original master tapes were usually heavily processed, were 2nd or 3rd generation multi-track mixdowns before being pressed or digitized, etc. The ONLY storage medium that can get close to true accuracy, and therefore meet the "technically excellent" criteria, is direct-to-disk analog recording, and not even all of the D-to-D disks are equal in quality. I have a large number of D-to-D disks that I acquired in the late 1970's (multiple copies of each), and I believe they are the "gold standard" for technical excellence. Their "technical" sound quality, although usually not the quality of the musical performance itself, substantially exceeds even the best of the other recording media, such as SACD, CD, etc.

The only recording medium that is close to D-to-D in sound quality is analog tape at 30 ips, but its utility is severely limited because can only be one master tape (even 2nd generation copies have a noticeable reduction in fidelity). Most of the LP's on the Reference Recordings label, for example, began as 30 ips analog tapes. (One of the best "technically excellent" LP's on this label is Professor Keith Johnson's "Amazing Sound Show". It's sure as hell not an LP that you will want to play over and over, but it's got startling fidelity.)

While there are many recordings that people enjoy for their musical content (some are listed above), the standard of "techical excellence" is an entirely different matter. For those who have not had the chance to listen to the best D-to-D LP's, try to find some in good condition to hear what a high-end audio system can really sound like.

Sdcampbell,

Your years in this hobby exceed mine by only a couple. I'll admit that my system isn't anywhere on a par with yours. That being said, I've got somewhere around ten examples on LP that would meet your criteria for technicality and the content isn't worthy of my time. I have a hard time including those records as something I would recommend. As a novelty yes, but not for repeated playing.

Direct to disc has been around since the days of the Edison Gold Moulded cylinders but wasn't used for audiophile cosumption until the 70's as far as I can tell. I'll concede that in a perfect world I would agree with the premise that "finest technically recorded" software would forgo interim storage devices. The problem with that reference is that there is almost no selection and, in a practical sense, these recordings aren't available for purchase.

I apparently read the thread question differently than you and Zaikesman. I stand behind my recommendations. Those involved in each album I suggested pushed the technical envelope to the extreme given that they were making records for mass consumption.

I do understand your position and respect it.

Lugnut: I certainly agree with your point that a lot of the "technically excellent" recordings in D-to-D format are, more often than not, musically boring after a few playings. Wouldn't it be great if there were more really excellent recordings of musically exciting material?

BTW, you have my condolences on approaching geezerhood. My first serious exposure to "hi fi" actually occurred in 1958, when the father of my high school buddy across the street bought a Marantz preamp and power amp, a Garrard turntable, and a pair of KLH speakers. Man, was I impressed. It's interesting in retrospect to realize that so many of the LP's of that era (RCA, Mercury, Decca) offered such high quality when high-end playback gear was still in its infancy. Seems like the situation has reversed itself today: lots of great gear, but fewer and fewer recordings that do justice to the audio system.

Even more than just the storage medium and generation aspect (significant, but less so in my mind), I am refering, from just the audio perspective, to the number of nominations of electric-instrumented, multi-track mono (they're not true acoustic stereo guys - they're just panned individual mono tracks), and highly produced (meaning altered after recording) studio rock and pop records above. Lugnut, that goes for Steely Dan too (I never understood this band's records' sonic rep among audiophiles, and never will). Whatever one's opinion of the musical content (I'm thinking of myself here), a strong case can be made that Elton John's albums, for instance, are very successfully recorded from an artistic standpoint, a fine "technical" achievement to be sure if the effect is to your taste, but this is not at all the same thing in audiophile terms as what Champtree calls the "presence" of the musicians - nor should it be. We should know better than to confuse the two things.

It is very telling that there are no classical music nominations above, but Rel, Viridian, and SDC all know what I am talking about. Folks nominating Joni, Willie, Lindsay, Janis, etc. apparently don't, no matter how 'great' they think those records sound, but as self-professed audiophiles they ought to. Everybody in the second catagory, go back and freshen up on Harry Pearson's definition of what the 'Absolute Sound' means.

However (and more importantly, to my way of thinking), my comments about the forest and the trees are not intended to denigrate the validity of rock and pop studio recordings. Quite the contrary, I am of the John Lennon school, who said that THE RECORD was the thing - meaning in his field, there WAS NO 'original performance'. All that mattered was when you slapped down that slab was how it made you FEEL. So what I find sadly (but in our hobby, typically) ironic is that these audiophiles - so obviously raised on rock, the music Lennon was speaking of - not only don't get the HP definition of what makes a recording an audiophilic reference, but are, if they are to be believed, all sitting around listening to the same 15 hackneyed warhorses because they believe the sound is so clean'n'pristine or something (and because they don't get into those genres, like classical, where the real answer to this question applies). I mean, legitimately liking some of these artists is all well and fine, but don't try and tell me you guys are all such huge Janis Ian and Willie Nelson fans that you wouldn't really rather be listening to "Tumbling Dice" or some other record where the way it sounds MEANS something, in the impressionistic sense and no matter how 'bad' in audiophile terms, in relation to some fuckin' great rock music! (Or say the same but about a Rudy Van Gelder primitive living room recording of some fuckin' great jazz music, whatever.)

My point is, if this way of listening is what becoming an audiophile has done to you, you've been screwed on both fronts: You don't know the natural sound of music, only of reproduction systems, AND you've sacrificed the feeling that music you loved as a kid gave you in your gut in order to learn this.

Wow! Where do I start? First of all, you make an interesting point, about the "natural sound of music". Would you rather see a black & white, grayed, muddy mess of Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night? You would see the "Natural look of a painting”; it would capture a mood but it would be missing artist intent. Or .... If you had two recording of Wagner's Tannhauser, one was recorded so the French horns were muddy and not there, and the other recording was alive and you could hear everything including all the extra brass that Wagner uses. I know what I would rather listen to.
The biggest mistake you made was to assume because that I liked Willie Nelson's "Stardust" I did not like Classical Music, or I had a limited view of music. Sorry I didn’t give reference to a classical album. The truth is, I don’t know of one that has as much presence as do jazz or others such as “Stardust”. Isn’t too difficult to get the presence with classical orchestral music because of the large number of instruments and the large size of the hall, room, or theater?
I really don't like Willie Nelson and I do like classical music, and I have a low threshold for Rock. Because of the quality of the stardust album, I can tolerate Willie. What I enjoy on the album, is the song he sings. I like the song "Georgia" sung by him or any one else and I enjoy it more if it's recorded well.

What bothers me most about high-end stereo, is all anyone can talk about is their gear and you hear very little about the music. For me it’s simple, I love quality (that’s why I like high end equipment). Quality is the only thing the artist has in his or her control. So what’s wrong with me wanting it to hear it thru a good recording?