Is It Ironic?

"What I find ironic is that much of the music used to ascertain the improvements in equipment was recorded fifty years ago. The touchstone recordings by RCA, Mercury, Columbia, Decca and Blue Note were made with equipment that was being retired as obsolete when Brian Jones was the guitar player with the Rolling Stones. We're using newer and newer equipment to find out that old recordings made with "antique" equipment actually sounds really good. Ironic?"

Recording studio gear and playback gear, are 2 completely different applications. They don't do the same thing. Whatever studio gear that was used to capture the event is a fixed variable. Weather the recording is good, bad, old, new) is all you have to work with. The job of an audio system is to play the recording back in the most transparent way possible. It doesn't matter if the recording is old or new, you'll still benefit from modern equipment. For example, consider high frequencies. If you are using low quality playback gear, cymbals don't always sound like cymbals. They can sound like a piece of metal being dropped on a cement floor. As you upgrade your audio system, the more real they sound. You're trying to get the proper timbre of a cymbal and not something else. So, when you are playing an old recording, cymbals still need to sound like cymbals. They still have the potential to sound like metal being dropped, just like in a modern recording. So the better the playback system, the better the sound quality. Even if the recording is old.

"08-20-14: Mapman
Nice analogy Viridian!

Chances are the OLDER photograph would be less resolved and the harder of the two to discern information from accordingly and would up the ante in terms of what is needed to get good results."

I'm not sure that's what Viridian's meant. I got something else from reading it. I think he meant to say that if you look at an old photo, you should still use a new window that is clear, and not some old one. The idea being, even though the picture is old, you'll still benefit from viewing it through a new window. Anyway, I think that's what he meant.

"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.

"08-21-14: Jmcgrogan2

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 don't see where having newer, more revealing equipment available to us, is anything other that a very good thing. Why? Because we have choices. You don't have to buy anything you don't want to. Some people like vintage gear, while others like state of the art. Nothing wrong with that. Just buy whatever you prefer.

"08-22-14: Chrshanl37
What's Ironic is when a newbie asks for an opninon on starting a system and then gets chastised by senior members on here telling them to go listen to gear and let your ears decide and then said members go post and often get in to heated debates on topics that are subjective at best. I love this site."

That's just pure genius. So its wrong of us to make recommendations if someone asks? And on top of that, its wrong to advise someone to listen to the equipment and make a selection based on what they here?

What are you supposed to do with stereo equipment? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're supposed do listen to it. I think that was the intent of the designers who made it.

And the nerve of us for debating the subjective qualities of the gear in question. lol. Why would anyone want to do that?

I think you may have missed one small point. In your post you say this "What's Ironic is when a newbie asks for an opninon on starting a system". That's a purely subjective question. It can't be answered with anything other than a subjective opinion. That's why its an opinion in the first place. I don't see how you can fault someone for properly answering a question. But I'm sure you'll try.

"However, many on here will skewer a fist or second time poster for asking questions that for many of us find quite rudimentary and will give a sarcastic response and follow it up with "let your ears decide".

How do you know that they are being sarcastic in the first place? You even agree that listing is the only sensible response. I don't see a problem with that. And lets not, these people are asking for opinions/help. You will get a wide variety of responses. That's just the way it goes.

"There are many posts on here from senior members who have stated such questions from new members are irritating. But those same members will attack others for having opinions on gear vs gear threads and get into heated debates on which is better. These feeble arguments are nver settled and the forums are full of them as you know. I guess I find it rather ironic that letting your ears decide often times only goes so far on here."

That really makes no sense. And before you start arguing with me, I'll ask you 1 thing first. Can you give me some examples of what you are talking about? If you can't do that, then you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

"Following the crowd is hard work. Not to mention confusing. Better of just having a mind of one's own."

You're right. I have a hard enough time keeping track of what goes on in my own head, let alone what goes on in everyone else's.