I remember looking on usenet binary groups that offered some of the raw original recordings of all the actual sound channels, separated, used in the recording process It was neat to hear just one instrument playing. The Beatles "Hey Bulldog" when heard for each individual instrument playing by itself was neat. Paul's bass had a nice melodic and gutsy low-end without being restrained or uneven. Ringo's drums had that quality of brashness and crispness restored to his hi-hat and the slapping of his drumstick on the skin of the drumhead reverberated with authority. John's voice was just as reedy as it ever was and even somewhat naturally brash when the sibilance came. Natural straight-ahead recordings do have a cleaner-tighter sound.<quoted text>
You seem to have a lot of knowledge of how recordings are remastered, Reality Awaits. I know that some people prefer vinyl over digital and to me that makes sense. However, I definitely notice a lack of quality on how new music is being recorded today. Artists really do not have to go into a proper studio to make their albums. I miss the channel separation and the warmth of how it was done in the past. They were just produced better. Remastering an old recording can do wonders but I guess it depends on who does it. I've heard some great sounding stuff and I've heard remasters where the music dips, clips and fades through out the disc. I have The Beatles remaster of "Rubber Soul" that is like that. Totally unlistenable. What is strange is that I replaced it with the bootleg, "The Soul Sessions" and it has brilliant sound, crisp and clear.
I'll give you a temporary link to an example of such a well done recording, direct to two-channels from Sheffield Labs. It has minimal such processing and NO compression or limiting.
The year of the recording - 1972.
Big difference, right?