Is It Ironic?

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.

"Second, many of the reference recordings used to judge the improvement in equipment are 50 years old. I find that ironic."

Well, it would not be possible to compare old equipment no longer used with new recordings that did not exist back then whereas old reference recordings are available to all that came later.

I suppose I can see some irony in it all. :^)

"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."

Going back to what I said in my first post, I really don't see why the age of a recording matters all that much when used it to evaluate new equipment. You still want to get the most out of the music and the equipment. Let me give a different example. Going back 50 years or so, the technology used in the studio, and that used in playback systems were not equal. I think recording equipment was far more advanced in SQ than playback gear. So, as home stereo evolved and got better in just about every way possible, newer equipment is now able to get a lot more out of an old recording.

Look at it from another angle. If you took a well produced 50 year old record and played it on high quality equipment from that period, and then put the same record on modern equipment of the same quality, chances are you'll hear a lot more of what's on the record. If modern equipment wasn't able to get any more out of a recording than vintage gear, then SQ should be about the same playing the record on either system.

08-20-14: Zd542
Look at it from another angle. If you took a well produced 50 year old record and played it on high quality equipment from that period, and then put the same record on modern equipment of the same quality, chances are you'll hear a lot more of what's on the record.

That may be true, more modern gear does offer more resolution. The question though, is more resolution always a good thing? Using Onhwy61's analogy of looking at the Mona Lisa under a 20X magnification seems apt. Should the art work simply be looked at and/or listened to and enjoyed, or must it be dissected and studied?

I know that there are a lot of resolution geeks out there, I used to be attracted to a more highly resolving sound myself. Resolution can be intoxicating at first. Until I found myself listening less often, probably due to listening fatigue. Listening to all of that information became a tedious chore. Information overload. These days I prefer a more musically relaxing sound, one that draws me in and makes me want to listen more. I am no longer driven by the desire to zoom in and try to listen to the fly buzzing about the 2nd chair viola's ear, or hear the page rustle as the conductor turns it. I prefer to just sit back and enjoy the performance as a whole. Obviously, some are intrigued by the capabilities of expanding technology. I am intruiged by the music.