The Golden Age of Records

[RBFC]

Does anybody have anything constructive to add here?

How about more discussion about multi-mike techniques, isolated-booth recording techniques, etc.?

WOW! 3 POSTS SINCE I STARTED WRITING!

Lee

 

[bblue]

I'll bite off a little. I too think that Sparky is preset in his ideas and unless someone agrees 100% we'll probably be all wrong.

However, I do think that SS had much to do with it, but it didn't happen overnight as is being suggested.

The type of recording changed also in the early-mid-60's. It went from live venues and 'loose' micing to very close micing with cardioid type mics, so a lot of ambiance was lost. That changed the sound dramatically even if the electronics didn't. But because of the nature of a lot of the recording groups, electric instruments and the like, the harmonic range of the individual instruments was more restricted. To help that out there was a lot of overdubbing, track doubling, tripling, then bouncing to another track, introducing another pass through the recording console and another tape generation. And we were entering in to an era when the recordings had to be more competitive on the radio or 45's so more and more and more compression and eq (in the 3k range initially) was used.

Now add a new generation of engineers who probably knew less than some of the old timers had forgotten, and ... you get the idea. It was a time of massive growth of the record companies, and many sessions couldn't be done by the great engineers with the time necessary to go for sound too. It was a matter of getting it done quickly and move on to the next project.

Did you know that Nino Temple and April Stevens' big hit Deep Purple in 1963 was recorded in 15 minutes? It was on a single open mic and a couple of musicians from the session just finished. The next session was due to start shortly. What does THAT say for production values? That that could be pulled off at all is amazing. And it only got worse.

In fairness, depending on what music type you listened to mostly, the GA was quite variable. It certainly didn't cut off at '65, though for rock and roll it was pretty bad even through a lot of the 70's. I'm sure the major engineers and large venues did pretty much the same types of recordings as they had always done, but they were no longer in the mainstream of the listeners.

New studios (SS mostly) of questionable audio quality and experience were popping up all over the place.

Yes, it was a combination of many things. IMO.

--Bill

 

[karma]

HI Lee,
All questions you ask are valid and interesting but not here. Please start you own thread. I'm not done here.

Thanks, Sparky

 

[DaveyF]

Hi Davy,

As for point 4, if you have problems with this statement, how can you answer yes to the initial three questions? How else can a boundary be defined?

Actually, I'm not impressed with Melodiya either. But that is a large state owned record company. I'm speaking of record companies that I've never heard of in the Soviet client countries such as Hungary and MUSA in Poland. The vinyl was not great but the sound was good.

Sparky

Sparky, I think we need to define the term "Golden Age" in this instance. As far as I am aware and IMO, the GA when it applies to LP's is referring to a) The era of the Jazz/Bop musicians that are truly sought after today ( Miles Davis, John Coltrane, etc) ...and when RVG was the main recording engineers recording for Blue Note 2) The era of the best classical orchestra's, Reiner/Chicago, Munch/Chicago, Dorati/London, etc and the artists like Heifetz, etc., and 3) the era when all of the recordings were produced from an analog tape and the likes of Wilma Cozart Fine and her ilk who were behind the recording console, among other things.
Therefore, the term applies not just to the recording capabilities and sound, BUT also to the musician's being recorded and the engineers behind them.
Which is why I answered maybe to your point#4....because there are numerous examples of great sounding recordings that have come after the GA.

Today, as we all know, the musicians that are sought after and the sound that is acceptable is completely different than in "the day". Who's to really say what the current and future generation of listeners will perceive as their GA, food for thought.

 

[karma]

HI All,
I think I have identified a stress point that will prevent us from coming to a consensus. Namely, assumptions I made that I thought were valid but may not be. I assumed that the vast majority on this forum uses tube electronics. Further, you use tubes because you think they sound better than SS. I don't know how old you are but I'll assume you started out with SS amplification and then graduated to tubes. Why? Because you thought tubes sounded better.

Because I don't know your age, I can't assume you really do remember the horrid SS sound of the first generation SS electronics. I'm plenty old enough being 70. For me the circle went completely around. I started with Dyna tube amp kits in about 1962, changed to early SS about 1967, and then back to tubes in about 1985 with ARC. I have stayed with tubes since. I have run two different hi fi repair shops where I plenty of opportunity to listen to early SS amplification to refresh my memory. I can say, with certainty, early SS was terrible.

I'm not going to take this further before we can establish a baseline. Please answer these questions:

1. Do you currently own tube electronics?

2. Why? They certainly are not practical.

3. Does your memory go back far enough to remember the sound of early (first generation) SS electronics?

4. Can you describe that sound? Would you?

5. Do you agree that the early SS sound was terrible?

Please do me the favor of answering these questions. We have a disconnect and I would like to discover why.

Until I know this information, I can't build an argument of SS verses tubes.

Thanks, Sparky

 

[bblue]

1. Do you currently own tube electronics?

No

2. Why?

They certainly are not practical. And I don't believe they necessarily sound better than current SS SOTA.

3. Does your memory go back far enough to remember the sound of early (first generation) SS electronics?

Oh yes.

4. Can you describe that sound? Would you?

Yes, Yes. How they sounded depends on whose implementation was used, and which chipsets they used.

Very thin, little depth or detail.
Shallow, veiled.
Spitty, sibilant, glassy

5. Do you agree that the early SS sound was terrible?

Yes, but qualified. IC Chips used like a 741, 731 and other low speed wonders were horrible. Discrete, well designed circuits usually class A could be fairly decent, but not yet up to current tube standards of the day.

--Bill

 

[DonH50]

1. Do you currently own tube electronics?
Yes, though not in use. I have owned and listened to many, many tube electronics through the years, from old Heathkit and Dynaco through ARC, CJ, and Futterman. Very little in the past ten years, however.

2. Why? They certainly are not practical.
Why not? I liked the sound. What does "practical" mean?

3. Does your memory go back far enough to remember the sound of early (first generation) SS electronics?
How early? Early germanium transistors were prety lame... Anyway, I would answer this "yes" if you want to include 60's and 70's vintage stuff.

4. Can you describe that sound? Would you?
Harsh mid/treble and amps that did not control speakers well. Too much use of inappropriate feedback to correct distortion, and early power transistors (Si BJT then) had a lot of problems. Later designs with better transistors, balanced (differential) designs, and more attention paid to design trades worked out much better. All IMO, of course.

5. Do you agree that the early SS sound was terrible?
Well, again "early" is the question. There were a few good amps, but they were few and far between when transistors were first made mainstream.


BTW, I have heard plenty of tube stuff that also sounded bad, but by and large their soft clipping and a distortion dominated by even- instead of odd-order products made most tube circuits sound better. Tube circuits also tend to have much greater voltage (not power) headroom. Again IMO.

 

[Bruce B]

3 words.... Wall of Sound

worst thing that could happen

 

[cjfrbw]

1. Do you currently own tube electronics?

Yes, but I use a solid state active crossover in the middle of the tubes

2. Why? They certainly are not practical.

You got that right. If you can't hear the difference between good tubes and good SS, then by all means don't waste the time, effort or money on good tubes. I have tried to wean myself from tubes and wound up weaning myself from music, the tubes came back.

3. Does your memory go back far enough to remember the sound of early (first generation) SS electronics?

Yes

4. Can you describe that sound? Would you?

A godawful brittle mess. You could no longer distinguish between the different instruments, the tone was harsh and relentless, the sound field flat.

5. Do you agree that the early SS sound was terrible?

Yowsa. And early digital capitalized on all that was bad about early solid state. It was traumatic.

 

[bblue]

Yes, Yes. How they sounded depends on whose implementation was used, and which chipsets they used.

Very thin, little depth or detail.
Shallow, veiled.
Spitty, sibilant, glassy


Yes, but qualified. IC Chips used like a 741, 731 and other low speed wonders were horrible. Discrete, well designed circuits usually class A could be fairly decent, but not yet up to current tube standards of the day.

Point of clarification here. The sound I'm talking about is not the consumer playback equipment but rather the SS recording consoles and outboards that were prevalent at the time. Not to mention high power monitor power amps such as the Crown DC-300 and DC-300a which were studio favorites back then (starting about Feb 70 or so). Talk about crap. Powerful, yes. But that's it.

--Bill

 

[karma]

HI bblue,
Yes, I totally agree. Crap!!

I'm not totally sure about this but I don't think 741's were available in 1965. If they were, they were crap too.

Sparky

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

HI Lee,
All questions you ask are valid and interesting but not here. Please start you own thread. I'm not done here.

Thanks, Sparky

Your original question:

Here is the question. What made the Golden Age of Records golden?

Lee's questions:

Does anybody have anything constructive to add here?

How about more discussion about multi-mike techniques, isolated-booth recording techniques, etc.?

These quesitons are not interesting here? Go start your own thread? Sparky if you just wanted confirmation of your theory that solid state electronics was killed recording. You should have just said so. But you didn't, you asked a question that has multiple nuanced answers and you asked of people who don't all have exactly the same point of view. You're not done here? Still waiting for confirmation?

I'm not quite done here myself, actually...

I assumed that the vast majority on this forum uses tube electronics.

Erroneous assumption.

1. Do you currently own tube electronics?

Yes.

2. Why? They certainly are not practical.

Because they are guitar amplifiers and their excess harmonic distortion is very desireable.

3. Does your memory go back far enough to remember the sound of early (first generation) SS electronics?

Maybe not. I'm 60. My first SS hifi amp was probably built in the mid 70s.

4. Can you describe that sound? Would you?

I actually still have the amp that replaced that first one just a couple of years later, and I've had the opportunity to compare it to tube amplifiers. They were different, but not significantly so.

5. Do you agree that the early SS sound was terrible?

Not if the mid 70s is early, no, I don't agree.

Until I know this information, I can't build an argument of SS verses tubes.

We've had that argument more than once. Do a search. You can probably get a very good feel for the opinions of many here in advance. You might even circumvent your need to start that argument.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

1. Do you currently own tube electronics?

Yes, but I use a solid state active crossover in the middle of the tubes

2. Why? They certainly are not practical.

You got that right. If you can't hear the difference between good tubes and good SS, then by all means don't waste the time, effort or money on good tubes. I have tried to wean myself from tubes and wound up weaning myself from music, the tubes came back.

3. Does your memory go back far enough to remember the sound of early (first generation) SS electronics?

Yes

4. Can you describe that sound? Would you?

A godawful brittle mess. You could no longer distinguish between the different instruments, the tone was harsh and relentless, the sound field flat.

5. Do you agree that the early SS sound was terrible?

Yowsa. And early digital capitalized on all that was bad about early solid state. It was traumatic.

Of course that was when they weren't in the shop for repairs after having blown up.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Your original question:



Lee's questions:

Does anybody have anything constructive to add here?



These quesitons are not interesting here? Go start your own thread? Sparky if you just wanted confirmation of your theory that solid state electronics was killed recording. You should have just said so. But you didn't, you asked a question that has multiple nuanced answers and you asked of people who don't all have exactly the same point of view. You're not done here? Still waiting for confirmation?

I'm not quite done here myself, actually...



Erroneous assumption.



Yes.



Because they are guitar amplifiers and their excess harmonic distortion is very desireable.



Maybe not. I'm 60. My first SS hifi amp was probably built in the early 70s.



I actually still have the amp that replaced that first one just a couple of years ago, and I've had the opportunity to compare it to tube amplifiers. They were different, but not significantly so.



Not if the early 70s is early, no, I don't agree.



We've had that argument more than once. Do a search. You can probably get a very good feel for the opinions of many here in advance. You might even circumvent your need to start that argument.

Tim

Please tell us idiots Tim what SS equipment you think was deserving of praise in the early '70s? While you're at it, don"t forget to mention about how this gear had a nasty tendency to blow up! Oh you never heard about that? Of course not, that was never written about by those in charge since they were in these co's pocket. How coincidental is it that these were the same clowns who were the first to jump on the digital bandwagon. And while you're at it, include what those vintage ss boat anchors are going for on the used market compared to the Mac or Marantz tube gear of the day. Can't find any? Wonder why?

 

[treitz3]

Hello all, forgive my intruding here but after reading a bit from this and past discussions all be attributed to confusion between these three things?

1 - The Golden Age of Records

2 - The Golden Age of High Fidelity

3 - The Golden Age of electronics

In my opinion....while all are interconnected in a sense, they still remain independent from one another.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Please tell us idiots Tim what SS equipment you think was deserving of praise in the early '70s? While you're at it, don"t forget to mention about how this gear had a nasty tendency to blow up! Oh you never heard about that? Of course not, that was never written about by those in charge since they were in these co's pocket. How coincidental is it that these were the same clowns who were the first to jump on the digital bandwagon. And while you're at it, include what those vintage ss boat anchors are going for on the used market compared to the Mac or Marantz tube gear of the day. Can't find any? Wonder why?

It was probably more like mid-70s, though I'm sure that doesn't make any difference to you. It's an integrated amp, a Harman Kardon A-402. Nicely designed with completely separate circuits, transformers, etc for left and right channels, but by price and pedigree, way below your pay grade, Myles. Pure unadulterated midfi. It never blew up. I had it serviced twice; just cleaning the first time, cleaning and a couple of caps the second time.

And yes, it sounded good. It even handled inefficient speakers fairly well.

Oh and by the way, I still own it and last time I checked, it still sounds good. I had a small selection of very nice headphone amps in here, including a very nice tube Woo, I was comparing. You know what the strange thing was? The headphone out on that old HK sounded the most like the Woo. Probably took years of wear and tear, that.

I don't use the old HK any more as I no longer have any passive speakers and another headphone rig I like better. You want me to send it to you? It might represent a significant upgrade for you.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well, I don't know what idiots we have here, Myles, but I have you, so here you go...

It was probably more like mid-70s, though I'm sure that doesn't make any difference to you. It's an integrated amp, a Harman Kardon A-402. Nicely designed with completely separate circuits, transformers, etc for left and right channels, but by price and pedigree, way below your pay grade, Myles. Pure unadulterated midfi. It never blew up. I had it serviced twice; just cleaning the first time, cleaning and a couple of caps the second time.

Love it Tim. So you think I only review expensive gear? Too bad for you. You missed out on a great CD player for $500 and a $200 phono stage as well as some extremely inexpensive cables (read about $30) that I reviewed several years ago.

And yes, it sounded good. It even handled inefficient speakers fairly well.

Oh and by the way, I still own it and last time I checked, it still sounds good. I had a small selection of very nice headphone amps in here, including a very nice tube Woo, I was comparing. You know what the strange thing was? The headphone out on that old HK sounded the most like the Woo. Probably took years of wear and tear, that.

So lets see it still sounds good but has lot's of wear and tear. Which is it?

I don't use the old HK any more as I no longer have any passive speakers and another headphone rig I like better. You want me to send it to you? It might represent a significant upgrade for you.Tim

Well Tim you've posted some doozies but this one takes the cake! Which is made even more stupid because I doubt you've ever heard cj gear ergo anyone who has could never had made that statement. No send the HK to Steve since I'm sure it's better than his LAMM amps and your puny little amp might drive his Wiilsons. Ha...ha...want to see your little integrated go up in a puff of smoke?

Why don't you go back to putting me on ignore?

 

[FrantzM]

<snip> No send the HK to Steve since I'm sure it's better than his LAMM amps and your puny little amp might drive his Wiilsons. Ha...ha...want to see your little integrated go up in a puff of smoke?

Huh Myles ...

the H-K shall drive the X-2 .. If the Lamm 18 Watter could so will the H-K ... I am not saying it will sound as good as the Lamm which by the way I heard but drive it, it shall

 

[RBFC]

This "conversation" has gotten out of hand, guys. Please stay on topic. Warnings and more severe action will unfortunately follow if the current atmosphere is maintained.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[amirm]

Posts edited: Members are cautioned to not address each other but the topic. Additional personal remarks will result in formal action.

Remember, it may feel good to curse the other guy, until the the table is turned and the favor returned! We pride ourselves in running the most cordial forum on the web. Appreciate everyone's help to make sure that continues to be the case.