Today, I was listening to several LP's that ranged in recording quality from marginal to good. In the next few weeks, many of us are going to attend the Newport show. At the show, I'm sure all of the exhibitor's will be bringing only the best "demo" recordings. Funny thing is, that if we look at all of the music available to us in the various different formats, I am of the opinion that a small percentage is in fact 'correctly' recorded and of such quality that one would want to use it as a 'demo' disc.
This was made more obvious today to me as I listened to a 'marginal' recording of Basie meets Hefti on MFSL, and of the 'Sheffield Track record'. One is recorded well enough that the music can come through, BUT it is by no means a 'demo' disc ( the MFSL) and the other is well recorded ( demo quality?) BUT the music ( at least to my ears) is poor... ( The Track record). I also listened to the Weavers at Carnegie '63 on AP. Again, a good recording, BUT limited a little as to it's resolution, IMHO.
What is so very obvious, however, is how immensely important the original recording is as to the playback fidelity you are going to hear....seems obvious, BUT this is one area where I wonder if superb equipment has not been heard correctly due to the listener not actually hearing what the gear can do, but instead what the recording cannot. Or, the inverse may be true...the recording is so good that a marginal piece of gear sounds more than acceptable...I'm sure many of us have heard this example. ( Plus, I'm fairly sure that at Newport many more of us will)
How good are our recordings that we hold up as 'demo' quality today??
This was made more obvious today to me as I listened to a 'marginal' recording of Basie meets Hefti on MFSL, and of the 'Sheffield Track record'. One is recorded well enough that the music can come through, BUT it is by no means a 'demo' disc ( the MFSL) and the other is well recorded ( demo quality?) BUT the music ( at least to my ears) is poor... ( The Track record). I also listened to the Weavers at Carnegie '63 on AP. Again, a good recording, BUT limited a little as to it's resolution, IMHO.
What is so very obvious, however, is how immensely important the original recording is as to the playback fidelity you are going to hear....seems obvious, BUT this is one area where I wonder if superb equipment has not been heard correctly due to the listener not actually hearing what the gear can do, but instead what the recording cannot. Or, the inverse may be true...the recording is so good that a marginal piece of gear sounds more than acceptable...I'm sure many of us have heard this example. ( Plus, I'm fairly sure that at Newport many more of us will)
How good are our recordings that we hold up as 'demo' quality today??