HI,
I don't believe any of those records mentioned are considered Golden Age Records. Not even close. In fact to qualify for Golden age the recording must be in stereo.
Sparky
The Golden Age of Records
- Thread starter karma
- Start date
HI,
I don't believe any of those records mentioned are considered Golden Age Records. Not even close. In fact to qualify for Golden age the recording must be in stereo.
Sparky
I'll leave that to the record collectors to decide, but I have some recordings from the mid fifties that are mono, which are among my favorites.
Tim
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Sparky.... the "Wall of Sound" was the start of the downgrade. Everything before is what I consider the GA (before '65)
Sparky, most of the GA jazz LP's are in fact in mono. Almost all of the Blue Note and Prestige LP's that are the most sought after are in mono. Not necessarily true for classical or rock.
BTW, I used to own stats...like all speakers they have their strengths and their weaknesses; to me the weakness of stats in their portrayal of dynamics disqualifies them
. Plus, I can almost always hear the "plastic" coloration that 'stats' are known for. I recently listened to the Sanders stats and the new Janszen's..both good speakers but still demonstrating the same issues that I have objection to, plus the Sanders locks you into a head vice otherwise the image goes away. ( Roger told us that is of design, but it doesn't appeal to me).OTOH, IF I were to put together a 2nd system, I would consider building it around "stacked" original Quads....they are still vivid in my memory from many years ago. Some of the best midrange reproduction i have ever heard.
Hi Sparky,
It probably is true, but I can't supply any information as to why the 'collectors' make such a hard line distinction, except maybe one music sector changed so they apply that to the industry.
One would have to analyze specifically what recordings were the supposed trigger and find out what might set them apart from others. Was it common to one label, or many? Was it a change in recording techniques due to venues? There are many things that could have changed effecting a change of perception by the collectors.
It undoubtedly played a part, but was hardly absolute across the industry.
I can't agree with this. There are sometimes good reasons and sometimes just plain old coincidences in timing.
Commercial recording would have taken much longer to be infiltrated by poor sounding SS equipment. With the exception of newbie studio operators, the established engineers would not have been easily fooled by this. Almost always they would test would-be purchases in their environment to decide if it was suitable.
Another thing that possibly could have affected the GA cutoff perception is that one or more record companies could have simply changed mastering houses for the LP's and/or pressing plants. Either of those could destroy a good recording. I've heard some pretty bad instances of both.
I seriously doubt any rush, but I suppose it could have been possible. But cruddy consumer playback gear could have changed the perception of GA products to reviewers and collectors -- or at least had a hand in it.
No, I don't think so. Because they were competitive they would probably have been cautious if they believed they already had a good product. As I said earlier, most engineers would be very reluctant to jump ship to an unknown without knowing the sonic consequences.
Nope.
My recollection of McIntosh SS and others is not too positive. I had had a C22 tube preamp and 240 power amps for several years when the C28 SS preamp came out. I wasn't too impressed. Even several years later when the 2105 power amp came out, it didn't seem all that great either.
I would *think* that SS studio gear design and studio gear in general would be consistently of a higher level than that of higher end consumer gear, especially in the 60's and 70's. Much of it has persisted all these years and is still in high demand for outboard processing.
Someone with expertise of the equipment used in specific recordings, masterings and pressings of the time would need to do an in depth analysis of the path of these GA recordings and try to determine exactly what happened, when and why. Without that, everything else is just conjecture. But I personally don't believe what this handful of 'collectors' are saying about the big switch.
--Bill
HI Bruce,
I don't know what you mean by "Wall Of Sound". Is this some sort of multichannel mixing technique?
Sparky
Last edited:
How do you figure that, Bruce? How would WOS on pop music affect GA recordings?
What does WOS imply to you?
--Bill
BTW, I used to own stats...like all speakers they have their strengths and their weaknesses; to me the weakness of stats in their portrayal of dynamics disqualifies them
OTOH, IF I were to put together a 2nd system, I would consider building it around "stacked" original Quads....they are still vivid in my memory from many years ago. Some of the best midrange reproduction i have ever heard.
HI Davy,
This thread is not the place to discuss ESL's but I feel I must reply to your claims. Like most of your statements, you are being way too general. Let me enumerate and comment:
1. You owned stats you say. Which one's and when? What amps did you use?
2. Plastic coloration; I have no idea what you are talking about. This is not how I would describe anything I have heard from ESL's. I have heard other problems but not that what ever that is. Can you be more specific? I've owned stats since about 1975, several brands. What amps did you use?
3. Dynamic range; By themselves, ESL's are definitely limited unless you solve the problem. I have solved the problem and you could too. I have great dynamic range.
4. Head in vice; Yes, I agree but it is not quite that extreme. I don't mind because I do nothing but listen carefully in my strategically placed listening chair. This is not a problem for me. Almost all speakers that can produce precise imaging do not allow the ears to move very much. The CLS's do produce a very precise image. As good as I have heard. But, proper room treatment is very important.
5. Stacked Quads; good I'm sure. I like Quads. But I like my CLS's much better. I will say my CLS are absolutely the most difficult speakers I have seen to properly integrate electronics. But, when its done right, they are fantastic, IMO.
I must mention that your Sonus speakers have rather limited bass response. I could never live with this limitation. Subs are the answer, maybe. Not all mini monitor speakers can be successfully integrated with subs. I don't know about yours.
Now, back to GA records.
Sparky
If I remember correctly Spector had recorded the instruments twice or more to give the recording sound bigger or fuller. Connie Francis' vocals were done this way.
From Wikipedia:
"Description
To attain Spector's signature sound, his arrangements called for large ensembles (including some instruments not generally used for ensemble playing, such as electric and acoustic guitars), with multiple instruments doubling many of the parts to create a fuller, richer sound. Spector also included orchestral instruments - strings, woodwind, brass and percussion - not previously associated with youth-oriented pop music. Spector himself called his technique "a Wagnerian approach to rock & roll: little symphonies for the kids".[1]
[edit]Recording techniques
Further information: History of multitrack recording
Spector was known as a temperamental and quirky personality with strong, often unconventional, ideas about musical and recording techniques. Despite the trend towards multi-channel recording, Spector was vehemently opposed to stereo releases, claiming that it took control of the record's sound away from the producer in favor of the listener. Spector also greatly preferred singles to albums, describing LPs as "two hits and ten pieces of junk".[2]
In the 1960s, Spector usually worked at Gold Star Studios in Los Angeles because of its exceptional echo chambers, essential to the Wall of Sound technique. Microphones in the recording studio captured the sound, which was then transmitted to an echo chamber—a basement room outfitted with speakers and microphones. The signal from the studio was played through the speakers and reverberated throughout the room before being picked up by the microphones. The echo-laden sound was then channeled back to the control room, where it was recorded on tape.
The natural reverberation and echo from the hard walls of the echo chamber gave Spector's productions their distinctive quality and resulted in a rich, complex sound that, when played on AM radio, had an impressive depth rarely heard in mono recordings.
Songwriter Jeff Barry, who worked extensively with Spector, described the Wall of Sound:
"[It's] basically a formula. You're going to have four or five guitars line up, gut-string guitars, and they're going to follow the chords...two basses in fifths, with the same type of line, and strings...six or seven horns, adding the little punches…formula percussion instruments — the little bells, the shakers, the tambourines. Phil used his own formula for echo, and some overtone arrangements with the strings. But by and large, there was a formula arrangement."[3]
'Be My Baby' by the Ronette's is the classic example. I have an original of the LP "The Ronette's featuring Veronica" on the Phillie's label and it's certainly not an audiophile disc. (But I still play it a lot -- I have a thing for Ronnie Spector!)
Another famous example is the Beatles "Let It Be" LP...compare with the 2003 re-issue "Let It Be Naked" which strips out a lot of Phil Spector's production and is the version I much prefer...
Basically as I understand, that technique started at Capitol where they piped the sound into a bathroom At one time they had eight bathrooms in use Now what people did for bathrooms is a question I'd like to ask
At one time they had eight bathrooms in use Now what people did for bathrooms is a question I'd like to ask HI Bill,
I used Mc Intosh as an example. Mac was in to solid state very early and was a serious player. I'm not surprised you didn't like the C28.
Let me tell you a story. In about 1968 I bought my first Mc Intosh gear, a C26 preamp. It was the second SS preamp from Mac. It came out in 1968. The unit was used but less than a year old. I was thrilled. I kept it for a few years then traded for a HK Citation.
A few years ago when I still had my hi fi repair shop, I refurbished a C26. After I was finished, I took it home to see how it sounded on my big system. It sounded terrible. It had all the well known problems with early SS designs.
At one time I thought the C26 was great. To be fair to me, my system was far better than in the early days when I had my C26. And my ears were more educated. No matter the cause, the C26 was not a good sounding piece by today's standards. Any one who thinks they are is just in love with the Mac looks, as I was.
I must disagree with you concerning the relative sonic merit of professional studio gear and high end home consumer hi fi equipment. I can make the case the high end home gear sounds better than professional gear. Of course, the intended usage is different. But sonically, great home gear is better.
I'll call on my experience to make my point. I had several professional recording studios as clients. I worked on all their equipment. All had top notch studio gear. I have good reasons for my opinion. And the situation has not changed.
Sparky
Last edited:
Basically as I understand, that technique started at Capitol where they piped the sound into a bathroom
Hi Myles,
I don't think anything the Beetles did can be remotely compared to the great recordings. I really dislike their sound.
Sparky
Sparky, what do the Beatles have to do with it? They are not the Capitol recordings I'm referring to. I'm talking about those made at Capitol Studios in LA like the famous Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, etc. recordings.
Sparky, I have heard most of the stats that have been on the market, including your ML's. I like stats, but I don't love stats like you seem to. My point about their plastic coloration maybe a generality, but my experience with all of the stats that I have heard is that this coloration is present in all of them to a greater or lesser extent.
This in and of itself,would not preclude me from considering them in my system, but what does is the fact that all stats that i have ever heard seem to reduce the impact of dynamics of your music, which to me disqualifies them for me.
I have owned RTR's and Acoustats in the past.
Last edited:
HI Davy,
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. My CLSIIA's are explosively dynamic. Very fast, very impactful. The key is to get the low bass out of the panels. Otherwise the panels will bottom out on heavy bass. But, I don't think this is what you are talking about. I've heard few speakers that have equal or better dynamics.
And, I too owned Acoustat's. I could never get them to work well. They had serious imaging problems among other things. I gave up on them and went to Apogee's.
You still have not told me what amplification you were using.
Sparky
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. My CLSIIA's are explosively dynamic. Very fast, very impactful. The key is to get the low bass out of the panels. Otherwise the panels will bottom out on heavy bass. But, I don't think this is what you are talking about. I've heard few speakers that have equal or better dynamics.
And, I too owned Acoustat's. I could never get them to work well. They had serious imaging problems among other things. I gave up on them and went to Apogee's.
You still have not told me what amplification you were using.
Sparky
HI Myles,
I was expressing my contempt for this type sound (Beatles) even entering this discussion. As for the other Capitol recordings, I'm not familiar with them and they have not been brought up before.
I have a Nat Cole CD set that is astonishing. None of the recordings are vintage yet they cover his his entire recording career. They were all re-recorded specifically for the LP release and then re-released on CD. Amazingly good and they are all orchestrated per the original recordings. Great stuff. They were done a couple of years before he died. He was still in prime form. Released on Capitol it is a two disk set. Can you imagine all of his old work in the 78 days but with excellent modern sound. This is a set to have if it's still available. It's called the "Nat King Cole Story". Excellent!!
Added: The Nat Cole CD is still available, I just checked on Amazon. The recordings were made in 1961. I realize that CD's are not part of this discussion but the vinyl versions were in the GA era. And even on CD's they sound like it. Terrific stuff!! I would love to find the LP version.
An Additional Add: After several frustrated searches over the years for the LP, I decided to try again. Guess what? I found a mint condition copy LP. It's not cheap but these type of things never are. I bought it for 74.95. That works out at about $25 per record. Could be worse. It's three LP's in the set. I'm so excited I could pee!!! Now, you all should get off your ass and order the CD set if you are Nat Cole fans. Immediately!!! Remember, it's from the GA which means good.
Sparky
Last edited:
Sparky, what i am talking about when I refer to dynamics is the relationship between soft and loud and in the speakers ability to portray impact. IMO, stats are limited in this area due to the fact that almost all of them are panel speakers. They cannot push much air due to their design. Which is why you have resorted to crossing over to subs. ( which are dynamic speakers). My experience in the past was that I could always hear the x-over between the panels and the subs.
I was concerned about this same problem with my SF's, which BTW have many of the attributes of a good stat. You are correct when you say that the GH's do not drop very low into the bass regions. I recently added a REL to the mix and while it was very difficult to make invisible in the mix, I am now pleased with it.
BTW, I agree with you, Acoustats are a major pain to get to sound good, I never could get mine to sound great, which is why I sold them.
At the time I was using either a Krell KSA 100, or for a while a Melos tube amp ( don't remember which one, BUT it was not terribly reliable)
Also, when I talk about warmth vs. neutral sound in gear, I am of the opinion that NO gear today is completely neutral....it either falls on the warmth side or the sterile/cold side of the line. IMHO, we do NOT have the ability yet to reproduce a truly neutral sound( which again, IMHO would be akin to the "Absolute Sound")
Our ARC amps (yours and mine) are IMO very much on the warm side of the line, an antithesis to the sterile and cold sound of the Halcro that I had mentioned earlier. I am of the opinion that most of the more appreciated amps on the market today fall towards the warm side of the line..SET's and their ilk being a perfect example.
I was concerned about this same problem with my SF's, which BTW have many of the attributes of a good stat. You are correct when you say that the GH's do not drop very low into the bass regions. I recently added a REL to the mix and while it was very difficult to make invisible in the mix, I am now pleased with it.
BTW, I agree with you, Acoustats are a major pain to get to sound good, I never could get mine to sound great, which is why I sold them.
At the time I was using either a Krell KSA 100, or for a while a Melos tube amp ( don't remember which one, BUT it was not terribly reliable)
Also, when I talk about warmth vs. neutral sound in gear, I am of the opinion that NO gear today is completely neutral....it either falls on the warmth side or the sterile/cold side of the line. IMHO, we do NOT have the ability yet to reproduce a truly neutral sound( which again, IMHO would be akin to the "Absolute Sound"
) Our ARC amps (yours and mine) are IMO very much on the warm side of the line, an antithesis to the sterile and cold sound of the Halcro that I had mentioned earlier. I am of the opinion that most of the more appreciated amps on the market today fall towards the warm side of the line..SET's and their ilk being a perfect example.
I'm listening to it right now. I second your opinion about The Nat King Cole Story.
Similar threads
