Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I want that late 60's-early 70's sound.

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 12:59:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi everyone, newbie posting here:

Today I picked up a vinyl copy of Jefferson Airplanes "Surrealistic
Pillow" from a yard sale. I don't particularly like the band that
much, but the album was a quarter so I bought it. It blew me away. It
reminded me of other stuff from that era like the first Doors album
which I worship, Love's "Forever Changes" and "The Velvet
Underground and Nico" in the sense that they share a certain sound.
I'm not talking about the quality of songwriting, the style of music
or the performances, I'm talking about the way those records sound or
feel. I guess you could call it the opposite of the current FM radio
sound.

I'm wondering if any of you, especially those who may have been in
the business in the late 60's - early 70's can tell me how that
sound was achieved. Was it the tape decks? Tape formula? Was it the
consoles? The limited track number? Was it the training of the
engineers back then? Was it that they had new U-47's at the time and
just stuck them in front of everything and bingo...gorgeous tone? Was
it the compression or lack of compression? The mastering or lack of
mastering? I just want to know why records don't sound like that
anymore, and how, if someone really wanted to, could they go about
getting close to that sound? Also, are there any modern pieces of gear
that any of you have tried that do a decent job of capturing that retro
feel? Are any of the UA remakes any good for this sort of thing? How
about a reverb unit that can do a convincing "echo chamber"? Or is
there no substitute for the original stuff. Maybe one of you will say
that the equipment doesn't matter so much, that it was the brilliant
engineering. Could someone like Bruce Botnick record a band through my
Soundcraft 600 console with my RNP and still get that sound? I'd like
to know what you think.

I guess this is more of a discussion topic than a question, but I'm
anxious to hear what people have to say. Thanks in advance for any
insight.

More about : late early sound

Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:21:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...

> IMO, the issue is not one of hardware; rather, one of intent.

More "live-style" performance/micing all together (as contrasted
with tracking individual instruments separately)?

Less compression to digital FS?

> To raise an unrelated issue: what's the music of our Vietnam II?
> We're again mid-war, again divided, but where's the music?

What music? Isn't this the "post-music" era? Its all rap, etc. now.
Perhaps another reason you don't need those big commercial
studios (the ones that are all folding). You can do pre-distorted
grunge on any garage-band equipment. The worse, the "better".
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:36:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >
> > Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will get
> > the vinyl artefacts out of the issue.
>
> Don't be such a schmuck.
>
>
> He obviously "connected" with the album already. In fact, had he just
> heard the CD for the first time, he might not have gotten so excited.

Exactly Joe...... The reason he probably liked the Airplane record is
BECAUSE it is on vinyl and superior to the 16 bit CD pickett fence
sound.

Old records sound good because they weren't mastered to death and
because records sound better than CDs..... Other than that there's no
magic to it.

I bet Phil Allison hasn't listened to a single piece of vinyl in the
last year, so he has no clue what he's talking about with his "vinyl
artifacts BS"...... How about the CD Artifact of sounding like swiss
cheese?

Try taking his advice of ABing a CD and Vinyl copy of that record
sometime and you'll 'get it'.

VB
Related resources
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 5:02:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Brilliant reply Phil .... You are one smart guy....... with "tin
ears". (Although I know you Phil and concur, that quote comes from a
few others in the industry).

BTW have you listened to a record all the way through in the last year.

VB
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:45:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for the replies so far. I thought maybe I should answer some of
them.

Chris: I really was a child of the 80's and I don't have any personal
connection to this music which is why I'm so interested in how these
sounds were achieved technically.

Richard and Scott: I think you're probably right when you talk about
tracking a band live with minimal (if any) overdubs. But doesn't the
track count have something to do with it? These recordings feel
"roomy" to me. Also, Scott, the record is an original pressing, not
the one you mentioned.

Paul: I think you're right that the albums I mentioned do sound
different from each other. I'm trying to figure out what it is that
they have in common that makes such an impression on me.

Phil: I think I'll stick to the vinyl, this stuff was meant to be
heard that way IMHO.

Vinyl Believer: I'd love to hear more about what you meant by new
records being "mastered to death". Were these classic albums mastered
flat? Is it the extra eq process that ruins so many records?

Someone also mentioned that the high end wasn't overused on these
records which I think is a very interesting point and something I'm
going to keep in mind while doing my own recordings.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:54:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

telefunky <hunt_@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Today I picked up a vinyl copy of Jefferson Airplanes "Surrealistic
>Pillow" from a yard sale. I don't particularly like the band that
>much, but the album was a quarter so I bought it. It blew me away. It
>reminded me of other stuff from that era like the first Doors album
>which I worship, Love's "Forever Changes" and "The Velvet
>Underground and Nico" in the sense that they share a certain sound.
>I'm not talking about the quality of songwriting, the style of music
>or the performances, I'm talking about the way those records sound or
>feel. I guess you could call it the opposite of the current FM radio
>sound.

It's not the Dynagroove pressing, is it? The Dynagroove ones sound a lot
worse than the original pressing.

>I'm wondering if any of you, especially those who may have been in
>the business in the late 60's - early 70's can tell me how that
>sound was achieved. Was it the tape decks? Tape formula? Was it the
>consoles? The limited track number? Was it the training of the
>engineers back then? Was it that they had new U-47's at the time and
>just stuck them in front of everything and bingo...gorgeous tone? Was
>it the compression or lack of compression? The mastering or lack of
>mastering? I just want to know why records don't sound like that
>anymore, and how, if someone really wanted to, could they go about
>getting close to that sound? Also, are there any modern pieces of gear
>that any of you have tried that do a decent job of capturing that retro
>feel? Are any of the UA remakes any good for this sort of thing? How
>about a reverb unit that can do a convincing "echo chamber"? Or is
>there no substitute for the original stuff. Maybe one of you will say
>that the equipment doesn't matter so much, that it was the brilliant
>engineering. Could someone like Bruce Botnick record a band through my
>Soundcraft 600 console with my RNP and still get that sound? I'd like
>to know what you think.

For the most part, a lot of that sound comes from the practice of recording
the band all at one time in a big room. The groove that comes from musicians
playing together is something that is rapidly becoming lost today.

Sure, there is a contribution from the mild processing and from the tape
machine artifacts, but so much of it comes from the tracking session.

You can build your own chamber in the attic from some cheap sheet plywood
and a speaker and a 635A, and it'll sound like a real chamber. The $5,000
Sony sampling reverb does a great job of simulating a chamber, but for a
couple hundred bucks you can make a real one.

The problem is that getting a big room with good acoustics for a band is
getting to be harder and harder.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:20:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-05-29, telefunky <hunt_@msn.com> wrote:

> Today I picked up a vinyl copy of Jefferson Airplanes "Surrealistic
> Pillow" from a yard sale. I don't particularly like the band that
> much, but the album was a quarter so I bought it. It blew me away.

The sound would be easier to appreciate if it weren't masked by
the reverb. :-(

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/&gt;
(Counterfeit: jym@bombay.com efosuk@coax.org)
What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the
indifference of the many. -- M. L. King
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 6:12:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Actually as I recall it was: "Get lost - you Foo"
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 6:57:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1117339173.658633.104910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> hunt_@msn.com writes:

> I'm wondering if any of you, especially those who may have been in
> the business in the late 60's - early 70's can tell me how that
> sound was achieved. Was it the tape decks? Tape formula? Was it the
> consoles? The limited track number? Was it the training of the
> engineers back then?

Mainly it was the limitations of the technology that caused the
musicians to really know how to play (or be willing to accept a
performance that isn't perfect as long as the mistakes sound good). In
the Jefferson Airplane period, there were a lot of dead studios, so
there was a lot of artificial reverb added in mixing, often live
chambers, or EMT plates, but sometimes they just messed around
creatively with spring reverbs in guitar amplifiers or tried nutty
stuff like using a guitar leaning against an amp cabinet as a
microphone. There was often some loss of high end and hiss covering
nasty stuff up due to track bouncing since they were probably working
on 8 tracks in that period.

There was a certain sound from tape saturation and less than crystal
clear high end that engineers were happy to leave behind when more
modern processes came along.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:14:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"telefunky"
> Hi everyone, newbie posting here:
>
> Today I picked up a vinyl copy of Jefferson Airplanes "Surrealistic
> Pillow" from a yard sale.


** It is available on CD, on RCA: PCD13766

Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will get
the vinyl artefacts out of the issue.

There is nothing wonderful about the sound quality - there is just a lot of
echo chamber being used.

The performances are classics, you may be being swayed by them.




............ Phil
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison wrote:

>
> Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will get
> the vinyl artefacts out of the issue.

Don't be such a schmuck.


He obviously "connected" with the album already. In fact, had he just
heard the CD for the first time, he might not have gotten so excited.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:49:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> hunt_@msn.com writes:
>
>I'm wondering if any of you, especially those who may have been in
>the business in the late 60's - early 70's can tell me how that
>sound was achieved. Was it the tape decks? Tape formula? Was it the
>consoles? The limited track number? Was it the training of the
>engineers back then?

I wasn't there for "Surrelistic Pillow", but I did wander into RCA at
various times for "After Bathing at Baxter's". Here's what I recall:

It was a damn big room, but they were all over on one wall of the room
(the long wall), spaced and positioned about like they'd be onstage -
fairly close together, maybe 20 or 30 feet from far left to to far
right. Grace's keyboards on the far left, then Paul and his two amps,
Marty's vocal mic, drums about centered, then the bass amp, and Yorma's
four Fender Twins rig on the far right. The miking was fairly simple,
as I recall; one or two mics on the guitars and bass, and pretty
minimalist miking on the drums. Mostly Neumann mics, as I recall.

Al Schmitt and Dave Hassinger were pretty loose in the control room, and
the board was fairly simple, but lots of channels. I don't remember the
sessions being in stereo; I think it was mono, which Al usually
preferred.

The speakers were either UREI's or Altecs, I don't remember which. The
sound in the control room was huge. I do remember it was an Ampex
recorder being used, but I don't remember the model or how many tracks.

The whole album took a damn long time to make, with the group usually
coming in late at night and working long hours.

I'm sure Dave or Al would remember a lot more, since I was just a
visitor there.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 8:50:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:
> To raise an unrelated issue: what's the music of our Vietnam II?
> We're again mid-war, again divided, but where's the music?

Last night I saw Moby live in Lisbon. He introduced the song "Lift Me Up"
from his lastest CD as being about the dangerous situation the USA are
in due to being ruled by the right ring. Although I think the lyrics are
not very explicit.

BTW1, great festival: both New Order and Moby gave two great concerts.
Moby has great taste in his influences. Apart from "New Dawn Fades"
(Joy Division) which I had already seen on his DVD "Play", he played
"Walk on the Wild Side" (Lou Reed) and in one of his song he inserted
the melody from one Led Zeppelin song ("Whole Lotta Love", I think) and
later on the same song a Pink Floyd-like guitar.

BTW2, on one of the songs Moby asked the audience to jump up and down
because 3 of the musicians on stage (Lucy (keyboards), Lara (singer)
and the guitar player) had never played in an European festival and
he wanted to show them 35000 people "going apeshit". Does the public
in the USA lacks enthusiasm or was he just flattering us ?

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:08:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"telefunky" <hunt_@msn.com> wrote in message

> I'm wondering if any of you, especially those who may have been in
> the business in the late 60's - early 70's can tell me how that
> sound was achieved. Was it the tape decks? Tape formula? Was it the
> consoles? The limited track number? Was it the training of the
> engineers back then? Was it that they had new U-47's at the time and
> just stuck them in front of everything and bingo...gorgeous tone? Was
> it the compression or lack of compression? The mastering or lack of
> mastering? I just want to know why records don't sound like that
> anymore, and how, if someone really wanted to,

To do with tape compression and limited high freq response. Plus all that
you mwention. Not a hi fi sound necessarily, but "warm and cosy" if you
like that sort of thing.

geoff
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:08:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Part of the reason your question is very hard to answer is that the classic
albums you mention sound quite different from one another. I always thought
"The Doors" was one of the clearest, best-sounding recordings I'd heard. It
was recorded sparsely, not much clutter, and that had a lot to do with it.
Also, as you mention, good microphones through a good console. And it was
mastered on a new Ampex, the last of their tube machines, the MR-70, which a
lot of folks thought was the best-sounding, clearest machine they built, at
least up to the ATR-100.

They also didn't crank the high-frequency EQ up beyond the ear-bleed stage,
didn't do much compression (and what they did was tasteful). The echo was
almost certainly from an echo chamber, not from a digital simulator.

"Surrealistic Pillow" always sounded more covered-up to me, like it had a
lot of compression. Wonderful album, but the engineering wasn't as clear as
it was on "The Doors". Still, they got a good effect out of it; I still get
chills from "Coming Back to Me". Less fancy recorders, more compression, but
Al Shmitt was no slouch as an engineer. I'd love to hear what the master
tape sounded like.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:49:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"vinyl believer" = a ranting psychotic public menace
> Joe Sensor wrote:
>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will
>> > get
>> > the vinyl artefacts out of the issue.
>>
>> Don't be such a schmuck.
>>
>>
>> He obviously "connected" with the album already. In fact, had he just
>> heard the CD for the first time, he might not have gotten so excited.
>
> Exactly Joe...... The reason he probably liked the Airplane record is
> BECAUSE it is on vinyl and superior to the 16 bit CD pickett fence
> sound.


** A paranoid schizo for sure.


> Old records sound good because they weren't mastered to death and
> because records sound better than CDs..... Other than that there's no
> magic to it.


** Most old records sound rotten - even this one is ruined by tape
distortion and compression.


> I bet Phil Allison hasn't listened to a single piece of vinyl in the
> last year, so he has no clue what he's talking about with his "vinyl
> artefacts BS".


** I bet this anonymous dog's pile of insane thoughts is right out of a
asylum.



............. Phil
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:20:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"vinyl believer" = a ranting, psycho, manic TROLL


** A real piece of trailer park trash, for sure.





........... Phil
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:18:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"vinyl believer" = a ranting, psycho, manic TROLL


** A real piece of trailer park trash, for sure.





........... Phil
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:06:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> To raise an unrelated issue: what's the music of our Vietnam II?
> We're again mid-war, again divided, but where's the music?

I think it's with Steve Earle.

We have an interesting situation about to start evolving in my sparsely
populated region. Except for an AM whole-lotta-talkin'-goin'-on, the
primary stations have been acquired by "Christian" broadcasters.
However, a litle community station started up a while back, and folks
associated with it are on the verge of grokking that unless you want to
hear talk or religious racket, their station will become the major
venue. I think we're about to have some fun.

"Can't Get Bin Laden" and "Who Would Jesus Wanna Kill?" are right now
moving from their chrysalis stage, and are about to take local flight.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> For the most part, a lot of that sound comes from the practice of recording
> the band all at one time in a big room. The groove that comes from musicians
> playing together is something that is rapidly becoming lost today.

And I find it amazing how few seem able to grasp this. Note to the OP:
want your band to sound more like that? Play _together_.

<snipitty doo dah>

> The problem is that getting a big room with good acoustics for a band is
> getting to be harder and harder.

Though you'd think with some many huge SUV's around the garages would
have grown to fit, and we'd be home free, so to speak.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:18:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<<< Stop being such a stubborn prick and have a good listen to the damn
CD.

............ Phil >>

I agree with Phil, Telefunky (except for the Stuborn Prick, you
complete ass, parts) ...... Compare the CD to Vinyl and you'll find
that the vinyl sounds much better because 16 bit 44khz CDs are an
inferior medium that is missing a lot of information.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:34:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete
information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on
the other hand sounds wonderful.

I may not have been recording quite as long as you Hank, but I have 30
years of pro audio recording experience with many major label credits
and I can clearly hear that CDs are lacking...... Not only do you hear
the "picket fence, swiss cheese, decaf effect", but the highs are
brittle and un-natrual and the midrange really lacks depth and
information...... The lows don't suffer as badly but are still not
acurrate to my ears.

If you can't hear any difference Hank, I'm sorry and I mean no offence,
but I clearly can and I stand by my observations along with others.

But as an engineer I will continue to critcize 16/44 and demand better.
In the meantime I feel that Vinyl offers a better listening experience.


VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:39:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well you sure did a lot of tying to say that you don't give a rip.

Go after Phil Allison. He's the one with the Psycho Profanity
insults...... He's in serious need of Anger Management....... And yes
since he insulted me, I did taunt him and do find him amusing in a sick
kind of way.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:07:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:
> Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
> question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete
> information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on
> the other hand sounds wonderful.

Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You
know, the math stuff.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:26:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Very good Phil...... No profanity!

And after a few days try actually arguing points instead of venting
steam out of your ears.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:01:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
> vinyl believer wrote:
> > Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
> > question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete
> > information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on
> > the other hand sounds wonderful.
>
> Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You
> know, the math stuff.
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Yes Bob, I know a bit about "you know, the math", (via a Physics
degree) but apparently not as much as you so convince me without
listening to a single note that I'm wrong.

The physics degree was a long time ago and as an auido engineer I trust
my ears more than the numbers.
But does anyone acutally LISTEN any more??? ... Or just look at graphs
and decide that this is good enough?

Bob have you listened to a record in the last year or are you just
arguing the numbers.

What's the problems here? Have I just questioned the existance of God
or intellegent design or something...... Lord you guys seems seriously
upset that someone questions the quality of medium-res digital
recording. I don't like the sound, I hear a lot of problems and I'm not
alone.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 10:32:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:06:36 +0000, hank alrich wrote:

> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
>> To raise an unrelated issue: what's the music of our Vietnam II? We're
>> again mid-war, again divided, but where's the music?
>
> I think it's with Steve Earle.

I think you're right. But the general public will never hear it. Because
these days, all the mainstream radio stations are:

1. afraid to piss off the government (gotta make sure the next round of
mergers gets approved by the fcc).

2. Shocked & appalled that Steve followed up his blockbuster Copperhead
Road by going to prison on a (gasp!) DRUG charge.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 11:28:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:cj9k91t83v4knfk15lmeup8o3nbdgg6ig6@4ax.com...
> > hunt_@msn.com writes:
> >

> Al Schmitt and Dave Hassinger were pretty loose in the control room, and
> the board was fairly simple, but lots of channels. I don't remember the
> sessions being in stereo; I think it was mono, which Al usually
> preferred.

Well, "After Bathing at Baxter's" certainly used stereo effectively -- at
least the bounce-back-and-forth at the end of "Rejoyce"!

> The speakers were either UREI's or Altecs, I don't remember which. The
> sound in the control room was huge. I do remember it was an Ampex
> recorder being used, but I don't remember the model or how many tracks.

I once saw a log of track used on Airplane albums:

"Takes Off" - 3 tracks
"Surrealistic Pillow" - 4 tracks
"After Bathing at Baxter's" - 8 tracks
"Crown of Creation" - I *think* 8 tracks
"Volunteers" and subsequent albums - 16 tracks

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1117434866.363259.30770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> vinylbeliever@hotmail.com writes:

> Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
> question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording

Well, you may be the last one to be wrong about it.

> ...... 24/96 recording on
> the other hand sounds wonderful.

Have you tried 16/44 recording using high quality A/D and D/A
converters? If your experience is limited to SoundBlasters and $19.95
CD players, I'm not surprised at your disappointment.

> I may not have been recording quite as long as you Hank, but I have 30
> years of pro audio recording experience with many major label credits
> and I can clearly hear that CDs are lacking......

Me, too, but not because of the medium.

> Not only do you hear
> the "picket fence, swiss cheese, decaf effect"

I can honestly say that I've never heard anything that I would
describe in those words. I have heard quantizing noise, and even
muting when low level signals drop below the resolution of the
converter (which might be described as "picket fence" or "Swiss
cheese") but not since the days when I was using a Casio DAT which had
a 13-bit A/D converter.

I think you need some up-to-date equipment with which to judge the
quality of 16-bit sampling and bandwidth available at 44.1 kHz sample
rate. Sure, it can be better but as a final product, it's not required
if it's done correctly. Surely with 30 years of experience in pro
audio you can afford better, or at least find something better to
listen on occasionally.

> but the highs are
> brittle and un-natrual and the midrange really lacks depth and
> information......

These are mostly production decisions and would sound the same no
matter how many bits you were working with.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:42:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

maybe think about getting 8 channels of API preamps and 8 channels of
Neve preamps. And get 3 u87's.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:58:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison wrote:
>
> ** So why rudely reject my advice on how to hear that:

Because you're an idiot.



> " ** It is available on CD, on RCA: PCD13766

Big woopdeedo.


> Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will get
> the vinyl artefacts out of the issue. "

But he liked what he heard already.


> ** But it was NOT recorded onto vinyl - you complete ass.

Oh, that'll convince him...


> Stop being such a stubborn prick and have a good listen to the damn CD.

Maybe you should stop telling people what to do?
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:01:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:

>
>
> vinyl believer wrote:
>
>> Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
>> question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete
>> information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on
>> the other hand sounds wonderful.
>
>
> Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You know, the math
> stuff.
>

Perhaps he listens with his ears? You obviously listen with a slide rule.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Do any of you think the new UA preamps (based on the original Putnams)
do a good job of replicating that sound? How about mics, are there any
new mics that sound like a U-47, or is that impossible? How about a
Fairchild 660?
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:10:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>> "Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>> Al Schmitt and Dave Hassinger were pretty loose in the control room, and
>> the board was fairly simple, but lots of channels. I don't remember the
>> sessions being in stereo; I think it was mono, which Al usually
>> preferred.

>Well, "After Bathing at Baxter's" certainly used stereo effectively -- at
>least the bounce-back-and-forth at the end of "Rejoyce"!

I wasn't there for "Rejoyce", so it's possible that with their new-found
freedom in multi-tracking, JA played with stereo mixing. I know that
even many years later, Al still preferred mono mixes to stereo mixes.

>> The speakers were either UREI's or Altecs, I don't remember which. The
>> sound in the control room was huge. I do remember it was an Ampex
>> recorder being used, but I don't remember the model or how many tracks.

>I once saw a log of track used on Airplane albums:
>
>"Takes Off" - 3 tracks
>"Surrealistic Pillow" - 4 tracks
>"After Bathing at Baxter's" - 8 tracks
>"Crown of Creation" - I *think* 8 tracks
>"Volunteers" and subsequent albums - 16 tracks

Cool, that fills in some of the gaps in my memory.

>Peace,
>Paul

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:15:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:

> What's the problems here?

The problem isn't your prefrerence for vinyl. That be cool
enough. The problem is your reason. As is often the case
in engineering, the numbers that come out of sampling theory
strongly correlate with reality and they belie your
depiction and criticism of the PCM representation and
reproduction of sound.

It is the specifics of your criticism that make one wonder
about your knowledge of the theory involved and the praxis
which currently comes very close to that theory.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> vinyl believer wrote:
> > Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
> > question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete
> > information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on
> > the other hand sounds wonderful.

> Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You
> know, the math stuff.

Well, if he wants to learn:

http://lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.p...

I particulary like the graphical example (page 23 (bottom) to page 25 (top))
showing how a 17 KHz wave can be reconstructed from a 44.1 KHz sampling.

This is a non-intuitive property of PCM, since intuitively it seems
that 2 or 3 points per wave is not enough to reconstruct it. In fact,
there are an infinity of waves that would give the same sampling points.
But the differences between all those waves are all above the Nyquist
frequency.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<<<< The problem isn't your prefrerence for vinyl. That be cool
enough. The problem is your reason. As is often the case
in engineering, the numbers that come out of sampling theory
strongly correlate with reality and they belie your
depiction and criticism of the PCM representation and
reproduction of sound.

It is the specifics of your criticism that make one wonder
about your knowledge of the theory involved and the praxis
which currently comes very close to that theory.


Bob
>>>>>>

As I mentioned Bob, I know numbers and it looks good on paper and you
believe what you see...... I believe what I hear.

I've been in this biz for a long time, as you have, and these are my
aural observations. Nothing more....... You don't agree fine. You can't
hear what I hear, fine. You're happy with the staus quo, fine. I want
things to sound better and I'll remain on that quest.

I think 16/44 recording is a poor medium, I can hear the compormise in
the sample and bit rate, and I think vinyl sounds better and more
natural. You can prove me wrong however you like on paper, great. But
no offence intended.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:54:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
> question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording

Well, you may be the last one to be wrong about it. >>>

Really? You might explain...... I hadn't heard that the case was closed
and that 16/44 was proven to be perfect audio. (or even great audio)


> the "picket fence, swiss cheese, decaf effect"

I can honestly say that I've never heard anything that I would
describe in those words. >>>>>

Well listen again and compare to a good source with your eyes closed
and your mind open.... It's not hard to hear for me after a transfer
from source or stepping down from 24/96. (a heartbreaking step I might
add for client copies)........ Sorry if you can't hear the difference &
problems Mike. I can..... But no offence. No sure why my observations
get the hair up.

<<<Have you tried 16/44 recording using high quality A/D and D/A
converters? If your experience is limited to SoundBlasters........I
think you need some up-to-date equipment . .........Surely with 30
years of experience in pro
audio you can afford better, or at least find something better to
listen on occasionally. >>>>>>>

I use benchmark A/D........ But this is where your logic and
patronization is laughable. You assumed and conclued all in the same
paragraph that after 30 years of pro audio major label work I'm using
sounblaster tech......hahaha...... You're certainly doing a good job of
listening here. To yourself.

Please Mike, have more respect for yourself. You are a well known
writer and we've worked together. I knw you're smarter than that. Don't
make yourself look like a patronizing audio snob.

And btw..... Have you listened to a record lately or done any serious
source comparisons . No one has yet answered that question, so again I
"assume" that you are just arguing the numbers, and I have the
advantage as I've actually done the real math, via the ears.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:04:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<<<<< That's fine, so talk about what you hear. Don't make up
bullshit explanations
about why you hear it. >>>>

I hear missing information and unnatural tonal representaion in 16/44
digital recording. ..... Sorry if that's a bullshit explanation and
hard to understand Scott.... I'll try and be more clear in the future.

<<< But don't make up meaningless explanations like "stairstepping"
>>>

ahhhh..... I never used used that term..... But that does sound like a
bullshit explaination.

Hey lighten up guys...... Just my opinions and professional
observations. Do you guys have stock in CD technology or something?

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:03:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

telefunky <hunt_@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Richard and Scott: I think you're probably right when you talk about
>tracking a band live with minimal (if any) overdubs. But doesn't the
>track count have something to do with it? These recordings feel
>"roomy" to me. Also, Scott, the record is an original pressing, not
>the one you mentioned.

The small track count is why folks mostly tracked with minimal overdubbing.
But it wasn't just a matter of overdubbing either... when you track together
you get a lot of leakage and a lot of your recording technique turns into
optimizing leakage.

When you're recording live to 2-track or at most to a 4-track recorder,
your production techniques become very different than they are today.

>Vinyl Believer: I'd love to hear more about what you meant by new
>records being "mastered to death". Were these classic albums mastered
>flat? Is it the extra eq process that ruins so many records?

What he is complaining about is the massive amount of compression being used
on most modern reissues. There are some labels like DCC that seem to be
doing reasonable mastering work, but there is a huge pressure to make things
louder at all cost today and to make them brighter at the same time.
This is not a technological issue as much as a social one.

>Someone also mentioned that the high end wasn't overused on these
>records which I think is a very interesting point and something I'm
>going to keep in mind while doing my own recordings.

This is a technological issue to some extent. If you are recording with
the intention of cutting to LP, you _can't_ put too much high end or
too much out of phase bass or really much limiting at all on the signal.
They will hurt you badly when it comes time to cut.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:04:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bob have you listened to a record in the last year or are you just
> arguing the numbers.

Production and mastering stupidity have nothing to do with the potential
sound quality from 16/44. You might as well be saying since we have an
obesity epidemic, _everybody is way too fat_.

Strength In Numbers, _The Telluride Sessions_.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Great mastering from the likes of Bob Clearmountain, Bob Ohlson, Bernie
> Grundman and a host of others have turned good records into great
> records. But in the past records were lightly mastered and many not
> really at all.

Please, VB, the pathway from tape to vinyl is not exactly a linear
transfer, and yes, evey single "record" was mastered in order to get
onto the consumer playback medium. True, there weren't idiots insisting
on destroying dymanic range with a host of plug-ins, but the process was
mastering. And you know this.

> Then in the late 80s and 90s everyone had to have their record mastered

Anybody who didn't have a lathe always did have their products mastered
if they wanted to listen to the music played back from vinyl.

> and many inexperiecned mastering engineers just played with their toys
> on these projecets and screwed them up just about every way
> possible..... Too much limiting, volume, compression, eq, you name it.
> (But mostly too much L1 )...... I hope we can find our way out of this
> audio nightmare.

Not a problem, for me personally, as I'm such a small-time niche guy
that I don't have an A&R idiot screwing with product. I'm my own idiot
and I insist it not get screwed with.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This is a technological issue to some extent. If you are recording
with
the intention of cutting to LP, you _can't_ put too much high end or
too much out of phase bass or really much limiting at all on the
signal.
They will hurt you badly when it comes time to cut.
--scott

Yes, thanks Scott, this is what I meant when I said earlier to Phil
that I thought this stuff was meant to be heard off of vinyl. If you
need to record things a little differently, as you suggest, when
cutting to LP, then I would assume the LP should sound more the way the
record was intended to sound than cd. Is this right? Anyway, I think
being careful with the high end, using more overall reverb, playing the
songs together with minimal overduds, mastering flat or flatter, and
cutting down on the limiting/compression will get me closer to what I
want.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:48:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>As I mentioned Bob, I know numbers and it looks good on paper and you
>believe what you see...... I believe what I hear.

That's fine, so talk about what you hear. Don't make up bullshit explanations
about why you hear it.

>I think 16/44 recording is a poor medium, I can hear the compormise in
>the sample and bit rate, and I think vinyl sounds better and more
>natural. You can prove me wrong however you like on paper, great. But
>no offence intended.

That's fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with vinyl, and I wish
more people liked vinyl because I can use the money. But don't make up
meaningless explanations like "stairstepping" about why because people will
call you on it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> That's fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with vinyl, and I wish
> more people liked vinyl because I can use the money. But don't make up
> meaningless explanations like "stairstepping" about why because people will
> call you on it.

I have heard this explanation before, he didn't make it up. And it does
seem to describe what I hear on there as well.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:18:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey lighten up guys...... Just my opinions and professional
>observations. Do you guys have stock in CD technology or something?

No, I'm just a guy who cuts vinyl who is TIRED of the garbage. It just
wears thin after a while. If it sounds good, that's fine. Don't do
handwaving about why.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:42:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<<< WHAT are you using as references?

What material
What AD/DA
What stylus-hrough-preamp vinyl chain
With what source material are you comparing vinyl to digital

All of these are missing.
Elucidate please >>>>>>>>>


All stated previously........ WHAT criteria are YOU using to dispute
me. Not a single person here, including yourself, has done a Vinyl vs
CD comparison lately so I'm arguing against empty chairs.

VB
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:
>
> Compare the CD to Vinyl and you'll find that the vinyl sounds much better

Such a comparison might make sense -- if you could find a CD that was
cut from the same master tape (of the same age) using the same EQ and
compression.




> because 16 bit 44khz CDs are an
> inferior medium that is missing a lot of information.

Arguable, but just barely. Early 16/44k1 stuff had big trouble with low
level detail resolution but recent converters are much, much better.
The hard part is getting ahold of decent material to properly compare
the two formats (any two formats, really -- just witness all the
hullabaloo over SACD comparisons.)
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 9:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vinyl believer wrote:
> All stated previously........ WHAT criteria are YOU using to dispute
> me. Not a single person here, including yourself, has done a Vinyl vs
> CD comparison lately so I'm arguing against empty chairs.
>
> VB

You originally made the claim that vinyl is superior to CD so the
burden of proof is yours.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 9:34:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117471330.716788.163330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> maybe think about getting 8 channels of API preamps and 8 channels of
> Neve preamps. And get 3 u87's.

Yes on the U-87s and maybe the Neves, naah on the API's -- they were so
Seventies.

More likely you're looking at Bill Putnam's tubed preamps, at least on
"Surrealistic Pillow", or something similar.

Peace,
Paul
!