XLR interconnects?

At least you and I agree that"old recordings remastered sound much cleaner than the same recordings on the same media(cd)"
The first releases of Beatles on cd were horible and made even poor lp pressings sound superior.
Keep in mind Beatles lps were pressed in the millions and even the North American lps were remixed from the original English pressings.
Again what you fail to grasp, is to differentiate between the final sound that you have heard and the original recording.
Quantity not quality was the rule of the day,get the product out to the masses.
None of the classic jazz lps ever had the problems associated with mass production.
They were pressed in small numbers.
When I listen to a used original vinyl lp of Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy, the instruments and his voice sound very real,more like the real thing in my room.
This doesn't happen on all lp's and mostly never with cd.

Again it was the simplicity of the recording techniques and the very limitations of the technology of those days that contribute to this illusion.
The better we got at recording the worse most of it sounds and less of the illusion.

"Ive never heard of remastered new recording"
That depends on what time frame you consider new.
They have remastered Van Morrison, Pink Floyd,Neil Young to name a few.
These are all artists that were new to me back a few decades ago, and they are newer than the Armstrong sessions.
I think everyone is in agreement that re-mastering is an improvement no matter from what era,but you have to have something that was good in the first place.
Most of the re-mastered sonic blockbusters, were considered good sounding recordings in their day even when they were mass produced.
But remember, the very best master tapes are used.
Remastering does not prove deficient technology before as you say Kijanki, it validates how good that technology really was.
It lets you hear it closer to the way it was recorded, before the signal got destroyed by over processing, and poor manufacturing practises.

Lacee - I can only compare CD to CD since, as I mentioned before, I don't do LP. I can tell you by listening to record - popular or jazz what decade they come from. I have remastered Pink Floyd album and it doesn't sound as good as many new CDs (2000 and up). Quality of pressing LPs has nothing to do with it since today releases of old Beatles stuff show noise, distortions - lack of clarity in general. Recording equipment 40-50 years ago cannot even compare to what is available now. Why do you think they were recording mono? - not because they like it. On some older recordings you can even hear copying (I don't know exact name for that) from layer to layer of tape. My friend who works in recording studio said that they had to rewind every tape in storage once a year to minimize copying effect. They tossed expensive analog recorders and replaced them with modern digital 24/192 gear. Studios that already have digital are switching to DSD. I have David Russell one of the latest recordings made in DSD and sound quality is incredible. Progress took place in cables, microphones and even stage gear. Beatles played out on 30W VOX amps with a lot of distortions because nothing else was available no matter how much money you had. Not every modern recording studio uses best microphones or cables but some do and it shows.

What amazes me is that many people still believe that everything was better then - like audio or cars. I don't know much about TT cartridges, for instance, but I suspect that you wouldn't be able to find in 50s or 60s cartridge that is half as good as todays best ones.

I hope you're not claiming that old analog TV was better than HDTV. Why do you think audio was?

Isn't it interesting that there will be new releases of the Beatles catalog.
They will be mostly using the UK mono mixes.
Have a listen Kijanki,and then tell me those masters were inferior.
The lps and cds that were available to the North American market were gross.
Kijanki, there were many things from the past that are as good or better than today.
Art Dudley from Stereophile is having a love affair with old turntables and 78 rpm records and there are some new/old cartridges based on 50's designs.

Old analog TV is not better than HDTV.
The Europeans were way ahead of North Americans, they have had it for years.
Now if you want to question why some people feel things from the past are better,ask yourself why you still measure the world in ounces, feet and inches and miles and the rest of the world does not?

You have a lot to learn, I understand where you are coming from.Perhaps you need to hear some good lps played on some good vinyl set ups.
You are obviously young and I am old, so you are at a disadvantage.
I was there as a musician when amps went from tubes to solid state,and back to tubes if you didn't notice.
Those old Vox amps are much sought after for the distortion (when you want it)and for the tone.As are old pre CBS Fender amps.
People today love the sound of SET,low powered tube amps, that are based on tube circuit designs from the 20's and 30's and that's before my time.
Technology is a wonderful thing, but it serves no use when it takes the life out of the music.
Maybe when you get a few more years into this hobby and experience some of the oldie goldies you'll see where I am coming from.

Lacee -

Saying things like "you're obviously young" or "you have a lot to learn" is immature and rude.

I don't know what gave you an idea that I'm young. I hope you don't claim to be older just to give more weight to your statements - that would be plain silly.

You keep repeating "based on 50's design" - it does not mean they performed the same. Everything around us is based on some older designs - but most of the time is better. The duty of design engineer is to obsolete existing designs/production.

Somehow you claim that Europeans are "way ahead" in recording and technology. What you fail to understand is that there are valid reasons for everything and HDTV mentioned by you was later in US because of government requirement that proposed standard has to be broadcastable in HDTV by air (not true in Europe). Because of this requirement everybody has free access to digital television. Telephone standards like CDMA (spread spectrum) are ahead of European GSM. Just look where progress of technology happened - University of Chicago alone has over 80 Nobel prize winners with more than half of it in Physics and Chemistry. Look where companies like Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, IBM, Motorola etc are located. When I was young and build my EL34 guitar amps I had to translate things from German language since German companies like Telefunken, Siemens, Grundig were dominating. Today US took over and companies like Telefunken went bankrupt (Vishay bought them). English is dominating in technical field and companies like Siemens have engineering meetings in Germany conducted in English (my friend attends).

As for measurement in inches, feet, and ounces - there is nothing wrong with it - especially now when computers handle everything. UK still uses lbs, ounces, inches and to make it even worse other units like "stone". Show me how does it stop progress of technology.

As for quality of recordings - I listen to Beatles "Love" reissue and it is very well recorded - but still does not compare to new digital recordings.

Yoy're saying that there are many things from the past that are better than today. Can you name a few? - Things that nobody was able to make better (but not TT cartridge since I would have hard time to find modern "mono" cartridge to compare). Maybe some cell phones that were made better in 50's than today? How about better quality laser printers in 50's?

Lacee - what you said about Europeans being ahead of US in HDTV having it for years is not exactly true.

First standard program (other than test transmissions) HDTV transmission in Europe happened in January 2004.

I bought my HDTV TV in 2001/2002 and since then I had HDTV only (whole day) broadcast on CH 11-1 (PBS) plus other channels about 50% HDTV. It is more than 3 years before Europe and as I mentioned HDTV is broadcast over the air here.

It has nothing to do with XLR cables - subject of this thread - sorry Darrenmc

I shouldn't have said that the Europeans had HDTV before North America.
What I meant to say was that the European television transmission technology was superior to ours.
The signal was clearer and cleaner in most of the modern Euro countries than what we ever had in North America prior to HDTV.
If you had travelled there you would know what I mean.

And I am old, 60 years old,and I have been in this hobby for almost 40 years, so there are a lot of things that aren't news to me, but I know there is much to be learned also.

I think there are better connectors than XLR,and in my experience the differences in quality of XLRs from Soundcraft to Neutrik to Xhadow is quite evident.

BNC would be better, and sraight soldered connections the best.
How do I know?
Because I direct solder most of the time.

The more connectors you get rid of the better.

By the way, they are re-releasing the original Beatles catalog from the original master mono English tapes.
When they come out have a listen and you'll know what I have been talking about.

I am not a vintage junkie, but some things just haven't really been surpassed.
The Quad 57 mid range,is still something that most modern day speaker designers are trying to emulate.

Some things you don't mess with, like Coca Cola.

Lacee - I'm 56 but most of my experience relates to electronics. Audiogon is an opportunity for me to learn more.

"Because I direct solder most of the time." I agree to get rid of connectors when possible but soldering introduces another metal - AQ micro-welds their cables.

TV in Europe before HDTV was better because Europe was late. They adopted same system but with more horizontal lines (625 I think). When color TV started they improved NTSC (read: Never Twice Same Color) by adopting PAL. PAL never changes color like NTSC does. Now only about 8-10% of households in Europe have HDTV while in US it is 55%.

Our conversation prompted me to learn more about Beatles and recording techniques. First two albums they produced were pretty bad recorded on BTR (British Tape Recorder) - 2 track thing that was remake of German war era recorder. Later they switch to 4 track Studers and later to 8 Tracks.

Not only equipment but also recording techniques improved. At one point Paul was using speaker as a microphone to make his lousy sounding violin bass (Hoffner) sound more punchy. Violin bass is unfortunately very short scale and won't sound punchy - no matter what. For that they had to go to Rickenbacker bass (I thing starting in Paperback Writer).
I'm not sure how much of bad sound is equipment and how much recording but even remastered pieces don't have clarity of best today's efforts. I don't question that sound might be surprisingly good but later Beatles recordings will be proportionally better.