I like this post and this quote in particular. Completely agree with this - quality in and level of manipulation with or without understanding what preserves quality through the chain has a severe influence on possible end quality out. Much more important than format according to my understanding.christian wrote:I recently picked up an original US copy of a Jazz Album that was recorded back in 1959 (Cannonball Adderly on Riverside RLP 1148). Music and sound of this album is truly very impressive and I guess they had very poor equipment compared to todays standards. One of the factors for the musically superior sound of this album I think is the fact that they did not have any ways to try to manipulate the recording after it had been recorded. I also think that the early issues of CDs as stated above is better for the same reason because at that time they did not have all the powerful tools to manipulate that are available today.
Already Red Book Digital has theoretical performance possibilities any analog format only can dream about. But you have to know how to execute, in order to take advantage of these opportunities. To my experience too many examples of bad execution put real potential technological benefits to shame and give them undeserved bad reputation.
I find it interesting a lot of us found faults in early digital executions, where we now find pleasure in older CDs compared to newer high resolution formats. Does anyone see the same pattern as I in this?
/mats
PS. I have just recently been listening to downloads of some old BIS (Swedish record company) recodings from mid eighties/early nineties and they sound absolutely thrilling through my KDS. Standard 16/44.1 format recorded with minimal manipulation on well perceived digital equipment from the time. Mindblowing musicality and sound! It's a shame we see this level of performance so rarely come through on todays productions.