@audioguy85,
"Some of my best recordings are from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. They knew how to record and master back then, today it is mostly a lost art and most remasters suck in my opinion."
Good points.
It had to be an art back then because of the huge number of variables involved.
All the way from different studios, microphones, mixing desks, tape decks, cutting lathes etc.
Year after year superficial reissues and remasters keep on coming with great fanfare but eventually the usual consensus settles on the originals being the best.
There's hardly ANY reissue today that doesn't suffer from some compression of dynamics.
They just cannot help but tinker and as a result something valuable has often been lost.
How many times is it the case that the 'period feel' of the recording is the first thing to go.
Do we really want Caruso, Callas, Crosby, Sinatra etc to sound as if they were recorded yesterday?
Thank you very much but I want my music to sound the way it was intended to. As much as I admire the Vic Anesini Elvis remasters they don't sound sound like the Elvis I grew up with.
Close, but not quite.
So just how many reissues of the Beatles, the Kinks, the Doors, Dylan etc do we need before they actually deliver an actual all round definitive improvement?
Until they actually do this, all that ANY system can do is to increasingly highlight this tinkering.
It's hardly surprising that so many music demos feature a carefully chosen but rather limited repertoire, is it?
Even worse, this tinkering is hardly ever designed for high performance audio systems.
Is it also any wonder that once the novelty has worn off that mounting disappointment gradually brings home the reality that so many of the 1980s CD transfers are still the best along with the original vinyl transfers?
Put simply, it's rather pointless to flog a dead horse.
The recordings matter more than the system, and the considerable differences between them can only be magnified by better playback gear.
