[78-L] Recording Quality - a relative term

[Rodger Holtin]

Owing to many bouts of ear infections, advancing age and years of surface
noise (Goodyear : asphalt/concrete while on the clock and diamond :
shellac/vinyl in my off-hours) I'm no longer the golden ear of my youth, so
I must rely on other experts, or reputable opinions of some kind.  (So why
am I daring this subject here, anyway??)  

 

It seems to me that the overall quality of recording topped out a long time
ago, and all the improvements I've seen since starting in radio and
recording studios in 1970 seems like so much chasing after ever-diminishing
returns.  Tape was easier than disc, but as Dr. Biel has pointed out
numerous time, not better than the existing disc method then in place.
Digital has certainly made it all easier to use, much easier than tape, to
be sure, but I don't think anybody really argues that the quality was
improved over what we could get on tape.  OK, so there's still some
surface/carrier advantage in digital over tape, or disc, but I understand
that even digital carries its own noise.  I know that's true when it gets
over-processed, but prior to processing does digital have its own noise?
Microphones, mixers, speakers, headphones and all that other stuff has
become smaller, but I'm not buying that it's all that much better in terms
of audio quality that makes any difference to the hearer.  Maybe it's more
reliable, and lightweight, but better?  Maybe the machinery can show us some
graphic display of improvement in ranges well beyond what we can hear, but
can we hear any improvement?

 

So what's the real answer, or the majority opinion here?  Is recording
quality still improving?  Has it maxed out?  If so, when?

 

 

Rodger

 

For best results use Victor Needles