CD mastering a lost art?


Okay, so a lot of my stuff is packed for my move, including vinyl. I have been listening to my digital collection (ripped CDs and downloads). I was thinking how it is interesting how harsh all this music sounds. That "digital" argument.

Then a song from Nine Inch Nails' "Pretty Hate Machine" (Ringfinger) came up (a FLAC rip from the original release..yes 1988.) It sounded amazing. Clear, no harshness..almost analog.

So what's up? Studio tricks from over 20 years ago or has an art-form been lost?
affejunge
Vegasears and Mezmo have expressed well the informed opinion. Audiophiles most definitely aren't driving this bus or influencing those who are. A few concerned artists have publicly expressed criticisms we can all relate to, but few of these have the clout to do much beyond influencing a limited release of something better, in what typically stands more as a symbolic gesture than as a commercially attractive entity in itself. The Beatles, of course, get their clout from simply having existed.

For more on this, Bob Katz's book, 'Mastering Audio' (2nd ed.), is a worthwhile read even if you aren't involved in a studio environment. You might get another perspective here on 24/96K releases vs. 24/192K that you probably won't get from audiophile sources, just as an example.
There in article over at Stereomojo.com where a recording engineer lays down the sad truth. It seems that most artists want to be the loudest in order to stand out amongst the rest while audiophiles want dynamics to better appreciate the recording. That, and the mediums dominating the market nowadays don't take into consideration the serious listener.

There is no doubt that the technology is available in the here and now and wonderful recordings can be made but it all boils down to the intended audience.

No amount of technology can save a bad recording so one must look for the better ones to fully appreciate this hobby. The results can be very rewarding.
Siding with what Nonoise says, it's my experience that most of my older CD's sound better than my newer... compressed CD's.

Off the "cdbaby" website, I just ordered two CD's by the New Orleans Jazz Vipers that I'm hoping were mastered uncompressed by some esoteric lab. I mention this only because Amazon wanted $41.00 for one of them, but the "cdbaby" website is selling them for $15.95.
It never was "art". In the 80's it was a new technology, lot of new processors, no noise from tapes, endless digital mixing were possible, more data speed, re-clocking for laser burners and so on. When CD sales went down, there was only ONE priority: cost reduction.
No one talked about sound "quality", everything had to made cheap, no, wrong, super cheap, close to nothing. Next was: Internet downloads, no one needed "quality", CD sales went downstairs, the Standard for everything is MP3, Radio Stations send from Harddisc and use limiters to push the midrange frequencies.
I agree, when you want digital "quality", go for CD's from the 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

This should answer some of the points raised above. Some talk of the war being over....I'm not sure and haven't heard enough very recent stuff to know.

The very first CD I ever bought...John Mayall, Eric Clapton as the 'Blues Breakers', recorded in some garage in the '60s still sounds amazing. Bought it the day I bought my first CD player....A Magnavox / Phillips FD1000. A 14 bit reference player.