Is It Ironic?

Turntables are one thing that one will likely pay a premium for these days if bought new compared to vintage models. That's of course because records used to be everywhere and there was lots of decent quality gear to play them on. I suspct the best (and quite pricey) tables out there today may incorporate useful technical advances, but teh market will dictate paying a premium. I would personally think twice before buying a new turntable. There are still some good affordable cart options out there though. Same true for phono amps. Some vinyl lovers who have heard it all still prefer certain high quality vintage gear, properly maintained, restored or even enhanced.

"The idea being, even though the picture is old, you'll still benefit from viewing it through a new window. "

Sounds right. The new window will deliver more benefit for everything. But in the case of the old photo, it may be good enough to appreciate, but if one views it through the inferior window, that may no longer be the case. Whereas, the sharp new high quality picture might still be appreciated through old, and will also shine its best through new.

In any case, I tend to disagree with those that might shy away from better, more resolving gear, for fear that it will reveal flaws in bad recordings. It will reveal EVRYTHING, not just the flaws. The source material is what it is, but that's no reason to compromise it further and have less chance of enjoying.

I'm not quite sure what Marty (Viridian) meant, but in any event I don't see how the analogy is relevant. The recordings in question, that were referred to as "touchstones" in the OP, are widely considered by those familiar with them to be sonically exceptional, as measured against today's standards as well as the standards of their time. I don't think anyone would say that about a late 1800s photograph, unless perhaps artistry rather than realism were the criterion.

Best regards,
-- Al

True I would not equate high quality "touchstone" recordings from the 1950s with 19th century photography in terms of technical merit, but I still like the analogy as an example of why technology done better is ALWAYS better.

There are plenty of good and bad recordings from both years ago and currently. That newer better modern technology is a useful tool to help confirm the quality of recordings made with older technology years ago as well as today does not seem all that surprising or ironic to me. Better tools enable better determinations.

Now if it were the case that technology has gone downhill over the years, as some might claim, we would be harder pressed to recognize quality recordings from years ago.

There might be some exceptional older Jazz recordings...

Yes there are and they equal or exceed anything produced today. "Jazz Party In Stereo", "Kind Of Blue", "Clap Hands, Here Comes Charlie", "Blues And the Abstract Truth", etc.

Viridian, I don't understand you analogy. May I suggest viewing the Mona Lisa under 20x magnification. You may lose the total artistic perspective, but your appreciation of Michelangelo's technique increases by an order of magnitude.

There are three points in my original post. First, the consensus is that equipment has gotten better. I don't disagree. Second, many of the reference recordings used to judge the improvement in equipment are 50 years old. I find that ironic. Finally, the recording equipment used to make the reference recordings was retired as obsolete by 1970. Commercial considerations forced this change. The newer equipment was better suited for multitrack/overdub recordings. That's not ironic, but sad. Although it's interesting to note that some vintage recording equipment (50 year old stuff) is highly prized by recording engineers. In fact, a whole industry has emerged of modern products, mainly tube designs, but some solid state, that use old circuit designs to recreate the vintage sound mojo. Now that's ironic.