Is It 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.

"The question though, is more resolution always a good thing?"

It's a good question. Some might say "no". I would say yes.

If you have it, there are many ways to control it to one's tastes via tweaks, etc.

If you don't have it, you do not know what you are missing, so one cannot be in a position to judge.

That's just how I look at it practically.

Here's an interesting scenario to consider. Say one has resolution but results are unpleasant. Is resolution the cause or is this a case of shooting the messenger? How can one pin the blame on resolution conclusively?

Medusa is still ugly, even in HD. A lot goes into production to make it look good on HD TV. But I'd bet few who care would give up their HD TVs and go back to something less resolving. Not to say they might not play with filter/picture control tweaks at their disposal.

HD TV and modern digital audio are pretty much analogous in terms of what works best, what does not, and how to maximize utility to consumers.

OR, is there anyone out there if given the choice would choose to have less than 20/20 vision? How about hearing problems that limit what one might hear otherwise? Food for thought....

I would rather focus in conjunction on effectively minimizing noise and distortion and maximizing resolution in order to achieve best results possible. Nothing too radical there, I think?

Yes, too much resolution sometimes can be a bad thing - when listening to some horrible recordings from 50 years ago. They sounded OK on less resolving system.