XLR interconnects?

What I am saying is that great recordings have been made from the 50's on up thru to today. Great recording engineers make the difference, not the technology. I have 16bit recordings that are amazing and I have the latest SACD's that are rather conventional sounding. Some tube recordings from the past are amazing, while others sound like crap. I will say that mainstream recording practices are quite abhorant...sound that is compressed, multitracked from here to the timbuk 2 and all of it put through mixing boards that can suck the lifeforce out of even the best source.

Everyone is waitng for the Beatles catalogue to be given the same sonic makeover as some other artist's catalogues have.
If it is done on cd only and if it is given as much care as the Martins did with Love, then those would be far superior to the muck that has been released of Beatles material on cd.thus far.
It is very obvious to most of us why the first Beatles cd's sound so bad.
Most of the early cd's paled in comparison to the lp's back in cd's infancy.
Maybe you have forgotten or just weren't around then.
If the catalogue is also available on lp in 180 gram pressings at 45 rpm, I think that would open even the most jaded eyes about how great the original recordings of the Beatles were.
They recorded at Abbey Road the same studio that released some great classical recordings, they used the same gear and when they were hooked up with George Martin and his engineers, magic was made.
Maybe those more familiar with the later Beatles feel that the early stuff was primitive in comparison, it really wasn't.But most of it was mono and that was better than the hard vocal to the right, band to the left stereo treatment on the stereo versions.
Sgt Pepper was the pivotal lp, that unleashed everyone's imaginations and potential, those of the musicians and the recording engineers.
Sgt. Pepper with all it's sound effects was recorded on just 4 tracks, not 32, 48 or more that are available today.
I am not saying that the technology today sucks.
Proof of this is the Love disc.
It's just that to me, the problem isn't with the tech, it's with the people at the controls.
Have a listen to some of the remastered 180 gram, 45 rpm lp re-issues of the Blue note recordings from the 1960's if you want an example of how modern tech done correctly can improve upon the older tech that was also done correctly.
It's win, win, 2 + 2 equals four, simplicity.
If there was good sound to begin with you have half the battle won.
If the original recording(quality of recording, not musical content)was poor, then there really isn't too much you can do to improve it.
The old silk purse from a sow's ear concept.

Lacee - CD might be not as good as LP but judging different period Beatles on CD I can see big difference in quality between early and late Beatles recording. Long time ago I had Beatles on vinyl and it was pretty much the same - early recordings sounded poorly. There is, of course, recording studio/engineer factor but I'm talking average.

What puzzles me is that certain old recordings on CD praised by some as great sounding sound bad on my system. It couldn't be system resolution since I have very modest gear. I'm not a musician and don't have very good/trained hearing but can hear difference clearly.

Abbey road was one of the LPs recorded well, but can you find earlier Beatles recording that sounded better than Abbey Road?

Old recordings "remastered" sound much cleaner than the same recordings on the same media (CD). It is not even noise but clarity/transparency in general. Do you know how they remaster records? Remastering alone proves deficient technology before - I've never heard of remastered new recording.

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?