Question for recording artist/engineers

Onhwy61 is spot on. As an engineer I used to work with once told me "You can't polish a turd". The most important element in the chain is the mic, its placement relative to instruments and the room. I've used ADAT and 2" analogue and both can sound either lousy or great depending on whether the mic'ing is done correctly or not. I have never heard any amount of "aural exciters", EQs or any such tool create a good sound from a mediocre source.
I've had best results from Neumann and AKG mics, and it seems that you get what you pay for ... expect $1000 up for a really good mic.

Some informative answers, except the nature of the question makes it seem to me that this material has already been recorded and will not be redone. In which case you are limited to either remastering, or if that seems to have been performed competently the first time, then remixing beforehand as well. The quality of the mixdown engineer and facilities is absolutely crucial, and even a surprising amount of 'turd-polishing' (if needed) can be achieved by a great pairing here. It'll cost, but not nearly as much as beginning over with rerecording. A worthwhile fact-finding mission might be to take the studio 2-track master (plus a mastered CD) to a prospective remix studio or two, and see what the band and you - and especially the resident engineer - think of what you've got to work with. I would do this particularly if you all remember the sound as you experienced it in the studio you've used so far as seeming somehow much better during the recording and mixing process than what you ultimately came out with when you listen to the finished product at home.

Thanks indeed. Yes my original post does indicate the material in question was already recordered but I will attempt to revisit that project. We just recorded the latest cd (which we are now finishing for a spring release) into Pro-Tools H.D. at 96k and I used my Avalon Tube pre-amp with a Neumann M 147 Tube Mic ( which I didn't have for last cd. I had a different Neumann at that studio but it wasn't the tube version) and Manley Stereo "Variable-Mu " Compressor on my horn, and the sonic difference is dramatic at 96k . Everything sparkles and the rhodes and synth pads don't decay as quickly. To my ear, there is a pronounced difference at 96K but what you are saying about the front end and what gear is used makes all the difference in the world. I also a/b'd the sonic difference from using an Apogee Rosetta A/D converter at 96K into Pro-Tools versus slaving the Pro-Tools converters to an Aardsync Clock at 96K and experienced a dramatic increase in sonic purity as well. Man, there is a ton of stuff to learn and I am still just trying to get my horn to play!

Thanks again for all your input. You folks are great and that is why I really value your comments, because without them, I am much more prone to repeating mistakes without even realizing it. For me music is the only game in town.

Happy listening.

Minimalism will always gain you alot asuuming what gear is left in the signal chain is good. I routinely use a battery powered Crown SASSP that I've heavily modified incorporating a built in hand made minimalist battery powered mic pre feeding a modified Alesis Masterlink through a one meter pair of Maplshade/Insound ribbon interconnects at 88.2k sampling at 24 bit later reduced to redbook standard. All editing is done on the Masterlink. The sound becomes very dependent on the room and mic/musician placement. Sound is superb. Price is very reasonable.

Again, 96k is a waste of reconversion. 88.2 is just halved into 44.1 without total reconversion. You gain the higher res for recording, signal processing, if at all, editing and archiving with no down side.