I know that English is not the first language in your country, but surely that should be spelt Krell? 😉
I know that English is not the first language in your country, but surely you did not want to say that he owns The Netherlands 🙂
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language
I, too, find that many of the best vinyl recordings from the late '50's and early '60's can be some of the best ever made. I think it is because all vacuum tube recording electronics was still used. Yes, there were limitations in frequency response, where 15KHz was probably more a target than 20KHz, BUT then the roll-off was perhaps 6 or 12dB per octave, not 60dB/octave or more that digital tends to create. I suspect that they got BETTER high frequency transient response than most CD based recordings today.
A lot of those recordings didn't have a good release until late 60's early 70's due to mastering, but were recording L50/E60's.
They didn't have Power Factor problems on the AC line, which were cleaner as well.
The tube gear was very linear. Not only that but due to the tech they had to make fairly inefficient stuff with lots of resistance. That was actually to their benefit as ringing, resonances, and lots of noise was kept down to very low levels. They may have even coupled their circuits for DC to avoid capacitors that weren't anything to brag about at the time (maybe).
Maybe the most important thing, they couldn't manipulate the sound much, or want to, until AFTER the actual recording had been done. They didn't have all the lazy options we do today.
If your standard of quality of sound is the amount of vinyl noise, a little white noise that comes with it, or whatever like that... you're missing the forest and looking at a tree. The sound of the instruments on many early recordings is just phenomenal how much more life like they can be than anything digital.
They didn't have Power Factor problems on the AC line, which were cleaner as well.
The tube gear was very linear. Not only that but due to the tech they had to make fairly inefficient stuff with lots of resistance. That was actually to their benefit as ringing, resonances, and lots of noise was kept down to very low levels. They may have even coupled their circuits for DC to avoid capacitors that weren't anything to brag about at the time (maybe).
Maybe the most important thing, they couldn't manipulate the sound much, or want to, until AFTER the actual recording had been done. They didn't have all the lazy options we do today.
If your standard of quality of sound is the amount of vinyl noise, a little white noise that comes with it, or whatever like that... you're missing the forest and looking at a tree. The sound of the instruments on many early recordings is just phenomenal how much more life like they can be than anything digital.
Take a listen to Take Five (Dave Brubeck Quartet). Recorded in 1958 or 9 IIRC.
I don't think those guys have anything to be embarrassed about wrt quality. Ditto Duke Ellington and a few others as well.
I don't think those guys have anything to be embarrassed about wrt quality. Ditto Duke Ellington and a few others as well.
You forgot 'kind of blue' which seems to be the most 'audiophile' re-issued record out there!
do you mean the pitch corrected version?
I find tape hiss quite intrusive: "Miles Smiles"; obvious tape hiss on the CD, interesting view into the recording space ambiance as you hear his voice instructions between takes on the multiple mic positions
but no way these wouldn't be better with today's digital connected to the mics
I find tape hiss quite intrusive: "Miles Smiles"; obvious tape hiss on the CD, interesting view into the recording space ambiance as you hear his voice instructions between takes on the multiple mic positions
but no way these wouldn't be better with today's digital connected to the mics
Last edited:
I've not heard the corrected version (is that the one off the back up tapes done last year). TBH one copy of it is enough for me. There is too much other good music I have yet to collect. It just makes me smile how many different times its been released. It's a great album, but seems to have taken on a life of its own.
I think a lot of gear today struggles to represent what the old albums sound like. Frankly a lot of gear needs hot recordings that are more bulb essential in nature to not sound thin. And yet on some gear there's nothing in the least thin about L50/E60's stuff. The problem is worse on digital.
But also consider that vinyl was mastered on different gear too. Their focus wasn't exactly on the same things as one might be now with digital. I wonder how good of speakers mastering guys had, like Altec which would be good today, or the average junk that was commercially available.
But also consider that vinyl was mastered on different gear too. Their focus wasn't exactly on the same things as one might be now with digital. I wonder how good of speakers mastering guys had, like Altec which would be good today, or the average junk that was commercially available.
Destroyer,
There were many studios that used Altec 604 duplex, UREI's version of that same basic design and Tannoy's. Now listen to any of those today and tell me they would be considered state of the art or neutral sounding with there original passive networks, just the way they were when new. At the same time some really great music came out that was mastered on monitors based on all of those speakers.
There were many studios that used Altec 604 duplex, UREI's version of that same basic design and Tannoy's. Now listen to any of those today and tell me they would be considered state of the art or neutral sounding with there original passive networks, just the way they were when new. At the same time some really great music came out that was mastered on monitors based on all of those speakers.
One thing about nostalgia is that we can forget all the mediocre stuff and just keep the highlight reel. Case in point, assuredly there were some incredibly good recordings in the 50's and 60's. There also was a LOT of garbage. I'm pretty sure we have it better now than ever before, especially with the proliferation of smaller artists.
* This coming from the guy who generally refuses to read (fictional) books younger than 50 years, as there are more books I want to read than time, so I let history pick out the best ones. 🙂
* This coming from the guy who generally refuses to read (fictional) books younger than 50 years, as there are more books I want to read than time, so I let history pick out the best ones. 🙂
You don't even need a laptop to master anymore! https://www.landr.com/en
(I _think_ I've heard that Landr have teamed up with SoundCloud to offer instant mastering - this is the sort of thing that gives good digital a bad name in places this this.)
(I _think_ I've heard that Landr have teamed up with SoundCloud to offer instant mastering - this is the sort of thing that gives good digital a bad name in places this this.)
I guess if you like the substandard tape and recorders, the 50's could be great. That's with the recording "desks", mixing boards were tiny with only a couple channels, and they didn't really mix that much. Everything was tried in one go. That made recording expensive and only recording labels could afford to put an artist through that expensive process. There is merit in that as has already been pointed out.
Can you imagine the heat generated by the gear? Wow.
I think that technically, equipment in the 80's hit the peak with tape. Digital didn't really get used properly until much more recently (you can't use the medium as a compressor for that fat sound). I think that every old effects unit has been dug up and refurbished for effects use, so they are using some of the same equipment from the 50 - 60's eras in today's recordings. Now there is a small swing back to tape and what it can do. I suppose they will still master in digital - probably not a bad choice. It's nice to see those Studers spinning tape again.
I think that today we can make much better recordings, as clean or dirty as you want to make it. It's all up to the artists and producers now as to what you get. You can't blame the mixing consoles or gear, that's for sure. Those massive SSL consoles with automation are really cool, or you can use a resurrected Neve for that authentic early sound. They have their pick of gear, so it's all down to choices these days.
-Chris
Can you imagine the heat generated by the gear? Wow.
I think that technically, equipment in the 80's hit the peak with tape. Digital didn't really get used properly until much more recently (you can't use the medium as a compressor for that fat sound). I think that every old effects unit has been dug up and refurbished for effects use, so they are using some of the same equipment from the 50 - 60's eras in today's recordings. Now there is a small swing back to tape and what it can do. I suppose they will still master in digital - probably not a bad choice. It's nice to see those Studers spinning tape again.
I think that today we can make much better recordings, as clean or dirty as you want to make it. It's all up to the artists and producers now as to what you get. You can't blame the mixing consoles or gear, that's for sure. Those massive SSL consoles with automation are really cool, or you can use a resurrected Neve for that authentic early sound. They have their pick of gear, so it's all down to choices these days.
-Chris
True for big artists with substantial recording budgets.
On the other hand, most projects are limited budget, and they usually have to use whatever equipment is available.
Could be a band member's computer and a USB mic, at the very low end.
Very often these days it the producer's personal project studio, and whatever gear he or she happens to own. If the budget allows, sometimes extra gear can be rented.
And, a lot of the hardware used for very low, up to some medium-level budget recording, is essentially junk by high-budget professional standards. Software is a different matter, but very few know how to use it well enough to get truly professional results. For the most part, (hardware) gear quality is a pretty common problem. Just look at all the audio junk in a music store online catalog. Most of it sounds bad compared to what was used to make the records people like.
And, likewise, a lot of very good artists got missed. It cuts both ways.
It's also obvious this late thread direction is quickly becoming a "back in my day". There's an abundance of good music out there, of course an abundance of bad music comes along with it.
Couple of things I picked up from the last few pages. One, often there is mixing up of the art of the music and the technical performance of the reproduction. I believe when we talk about quality differences in LPs or whatever between today and 50+ years ago we basically talk about differences in technical reproduction performance. At least then we don't get involved in personal preferences for types of music, for instance!
Second, it seems that in hindsight, people can come up with one or two very good recordings from 50 years ago. This is from an era that has probably seem the highest number of releases of albums per year basis then ever. Coming up with just a few good ones pretty well proves the point that in general they weren't that good at all.
Those few 50+ year olds that are hailed as very good are often praised for things like coloration and such, and that's precisely what we wouldn't want.
Jan
Second, it seems that in hindsight, people can come up with one or two very good recordings from 50 years ago. This is from an era that has probably seem the highest number of releases of albums per year basis then ever. Coming up with just a few good ones pretty well proves the point that in general they weren't that good at all.
Those few 50+ year olds that are hailed as very good are often praised for things like coloration and such, and that's precisely what we wouldn't want.
Jan
Actually, some people like that coloration very much. And, there is a huge number of VST plugins that attempt to model the coloration all sorts of compressors, EQs, microphones, reverbs, tape machines, etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.