is there a market?

Analog- it isn’t just that, either. The early stuff was done really simply- two track recording of a jazz combo or whatever. There is something very alive about some of those recordings, before we had complex boards, multi-miking, outboard processing, etc. An immediacy that makes the recording sing in a way that doesn’t sound as processed, even when arguably in the analog domain. By the ’70s, at least with studio recordings, all kinds of stuff was going on in the recording, mixing and post-production process. Some of it winds up sounding spectacular, but so many variables, and so much to get wrong.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always considered myself an ’analog only’ guy and don’t want to turn this into the A v D thing (which gets beaten to death) but some of the recordings I have on vinyl of newer stuff never saw tape to begin with and sound amazing. Granted, it is more prog rock, like the Steve Wilson stuff, but there have been occasions- RLJones Girl at Her Volcano was an early digital (in process and in large part I think in recording) and sounds very good (particularly given how early it is, and how bad her roughly contemporaneous Pirates sounded); there is a live Billy Joel record, Songs in the Attic produced by the late, great Phil Ramone that was recorded digitally-it is pretty impressive. I’m not trying to sell you on digital, but only pointing out that one of the reasons the older records sound good isn’t just the analog part in my estimation, it’s the not being messed with/confusion/multimiked/mixed/processed to death that is also killing the "life" in some of these things as the technology progressed. Otherwise, you’re preachin’ as they say.
PS: Dan- re old pressings and quality-  I don’t think the pressings were all so bad- in fact, some of the 6 eyes or other early jazz are great, as were some of the classical and pop on other labels,  but condition is always an issue with a record that old in my experience.
best,
bill hart

There is so much that goes into a great recording.  Simpler is better, but there is a lot to know.  For example, the Cleveland orchestra was recorded by Decca, Kenneth Wilkinson at the mason hall in Cleveland and not severance hall.  Why?  Because he knew what he wanted to hear in an acoustic sense.  He knew right where to place the microphones.  He knew where he wanted the musicians to be with respect to the microphones in a very detailed sense.  Its not just about the recording path, but how to actually record in let's say analog, and really make it sound as great as analog can be.  How many even know how to do this?  What to listen for and so on.  Some know right away, like Wilkinson.

"We'll fix it in the mix."  :)

There is so much that goes into a great recording.

I found the article at this link very interesting on how they used to do the recordings.   

http://www.polymathperspective.com/?p=2484

It focuses on the recording techniques for orchestras, and also provides some good info on what is going on behind the scenes. Like the competition that was between Decca and EMI.  

couple excerpts

“It’s not well known,” says Mike, “but there were at least seven or eight different tree formations with a variety of microphone types, and there were two philosophies of using a tree. One was the Roy Wallace philosophy which was the tree by itself, which produced a wonderful three-dimensional image; the second came from Kenneth Wilkinson who came to stereo in ’58 and decided that the tree needed help from outriggers; focusing on violins on the left, cellos on the right. Eventually their techniques blended – Wallace was using outriggers, as were other technicians.”

“Compression was something used in the pop world to get maximum dB on the tape for AM radio,” says Mike. “Decca didn’t use compression for classical recording but there was gain riding. The idea was that a loud movement would peak at zero, but the soft movements also had to come close to match. We’re not talking about ferocious gain riding, just little tweaks."