HI Folks,
I need your help. I need to talk to group of people who are experts on records. Who better to ask than a group of people who have spent a huge number of years listening and collecting records? Who better to ask than a group of people who know and appreciate great sound? Who better to ask than a group of people who have spent a lifetime evaluating equipment, constantly updating, for the purpose of pure musical pleasure?
You, that’s who. Who better?
Here is the question. What made the Golden Age of Records golden? I have some ideas which I will lay out here. But, I’m not sure I’m right. I would love your carefully considered comments and thoughts. One thing is sure. There are good reasons but I’ve not seen anyone really define them. Let’s give it a shot.
I’m going to write as though I know what I’m talking about. In truth, I’m no expert but I have given the subject a great deal of thought. We do have a set of facts we can use as markers. Some may claim that the start is when the microgroove record was introduced by Columbia in 1948. The next milestone is the introduction of stereo records using the 45/45 cutting system, the one that is still used today, in 1958 or 1959. Since then, the physical record producing process has not changed at all in terms of the system that is used.
The term Golden Age is used to segregate records which were produced during a certain time span that possess truly outstanding sound. I’m going to define the Golden Age of records from 1958 (the beginning of stereo records) to 1965. This sound has never been matched in all the years since (with the exception of Sheffield). Many Golden Age records are collector’s items that sell for astronomical prices. Why is this?
I’m going to start by asking if the Golden Age (GA) records really are as good as claimed or are they just an urban myth. I don’t own many GA records. By the time I realized that GA records existed they had already achieved collector status and were very expensive and rare. Those that I do have, I bought used (got lucky). I do have the entire Sheffield catalog which can be used as a standard for comparison because I consider them to sound as good or better than the GA records.
While I may not own many GA records, I do have a large record collection that’s about 4500 strong. I have heard many GA records because of the exposure I had being a professional in the audio world for many years. I have heard many fine systems owned by people who could afford to collect GA records. In my opinion the GA records I have heard sound great. They fully live up to their reputation, not hype at all. They are the Mona Lisa’s of the recording world. Do you agree? We must agree here or the rest of this exploration is a waste of time. I’ll assume we do agree.
Next, is the time frame for GA records (1958 – 1965) seem about right to you? I believe record collectors use this time frame for their GA collections. Generally, I agree though later in this article I will toss a monkey wrench into this time frame. It’s an important monkey wrench.
If 1965 is the end point of GA recordings, what happened after? I have a number of mostly classical recordings that were produced shortly after 1965 by record companies that produced great records during the GA. In general, the newer records sound terrible! Gone is the smooth as butter GA texture, the sense of venue space, the naturalness of voices and instruments replaced by grainy textures that over ride everything. It’s as though the recording art had stepped backward 30 years in time. I hate listening to these records. If it were just one record, I could justify it as just a bad effort. But, the problem seems to be industry wide. Why?
Thus, there really does seem to be a boundary that is easy to hear after 1965. The GA records vanished never to return (except Shefield).
Now, we will start to explore the reasons for the extraordinary sound of GA records and the lack afterwards. There are always reasons.
What other major development was happening during and after the GA? Solid State Electronics, that’s what! 1965 was the year when SS made its initial move into consumer electronics. From a sonic point of view, this was a disaster. Early SS sound was terrible. But, it rolled over the sonic landscape like a locomotive. It took no prisoners. Within a very few years, all of the high quality hi fi companies (which specialized in tube equipment) either were out of business or had converted entirely to SS. There were very few exceptions. It took decades for the world of hi fi to recover and, additionally, it gave a second birth to tube designs but that took a few years. But, in between there was nothing left of the original, pioneering tube based companies but rubble with a few exceptions that had converted to solid state designs. Sonically, this sea change was a holocaust for home hi fi systems.
At this point in the narrative I must start guessing and making assumptions. This part of the story starts in the recording studios. There is no question that tubes in a professional recording studio were an incredible hassle. Prior to some indeterminate date, only tubes were used in all the studio electronics. In order to not waste precious time, the recording engineers and technicians tested all tubes, replacing many, prior to a session. The session might involve a huge rented symphony hall and a 100 piece symphony orchestra being paid the going hourly labor rates as well as all the support personnel required by the record company. Time wasted due to failing tubes was expensive and abhorred. And this happened commonly. There was a great motivation to find electronics that avoided these problems. Transistors were the answer. Prior to transistorized equipment, tubes were the only choice.
Since the recording business is highly competitive, restraining costs was very important. Almost overnight, ALL the major studios converted from tube electronics to solid state. I will speculate that the transition occurred in 1965 and the transition was fast. It had to be. I will further assume that the early transistorized studio electronics sounded just as bad as the consumer stuff. As the transition advanced there was no recovery. The great GA records would never return and their place was taken by bad sounding records. The great recording engineers must have heard the changed sound and hated it. But there was no opposing the tidal wave of change. All caused by the lowly transistor.
The worst part is records never recovered. By the time the transistorized studio equipment had evolved to sound much better, digital recording and playback was taking over negating much of the improvement. GA sound quality remained beyond our grasp. And so it remains.
While collecting records I ran a across a situation that puzzled me. This is the monkey wrench factor I mentioned earlier. I started buying obscure records by small record companies by unknown artists from behind the Iron Curtain. In many cases these records sounded great, competitive with GA sound and obviously better than what the major western record companies were producing. Why is this, I wondered? I really don’t know for sure. But, I’ll guess. These small companies did not have the resources to convert their electronics, in mass, to modern transistorized equipment. Rather, they struggled along with their old TUBE equipment. By accident, they produced great sounding recordings long after the GA transition had occurred. This is just a guess. But the quality sound is obvious.
OK, that’s my argument. I’m looking forward to your thoughts. Transistors and economics were the poison arrow that killed the GA sound. Tell me what you think.
Sparky
I need your help. I need to talk to group of people who are experts on records. Who better to ask than a group of people who have spent a huge number of years listening and collecting records? Who better to ask than a group of people who know and appreciate great sound? Who better to ask than a group of people who have spent a lifetime evaluating equipment, constantly updating, for the purpose of pure musical pleasure?
You, that’s who. Who better?
Here is the question. What made the Golden Age of Records golden? I have some ideas which I will lay out here. But, I’m not sure I’m right. I would love your carefully considered comments and thoughts. One thing is sure. There are good reasons but I’ve not seen anyone really define them. Let’s give it a shot.
I’m going to write as though I know what I’m talking about. In truth, I’m no expert but I have given the subject a great deal of thought. We do have a set of facts we can use as markers. Some may claim that the start is when the microgroove record was introduced by Columbia in 1948. The next milestone is the introduction of stereo records using the 45/45 cutting system, the one that is still used today, in 1958 or 1959. Since then, the physical record producing process has not changed at all in terms of the system that is used.
The term Golden Age is used to segregate records which were produced during a certain time span that possess truly outstanding sound. I’m going to define the Golden Age of records from 1958 (the beginning of stereo records) to 1965. This sound has never been matched in all the years since (with the exception of Sheffield). Many Golden Age records are collector’s items that sell for astronomical prices. Why is this?
I’m going to start by asking if the Golden Age (GA) records really are as good as claimed or are they just an urban myth. I don’t own many GA records. By the time I realized that GA records existed they had already achieved collector status and were very expensive and rare. Those that I do have, I bought used (got lucky). I do have the entire Sheffield catalog which can be used as a standard for comparison because I consider them to sound as good or better than the GA records.
While I may not own many GA records, I do have a large record collection that’s about 4500 strong. I have heard many GA records because of the exposure I had being a professional in the audio world for many years. I have heard many fine systems owned by people who could afford to collect GA records. In my opinion the GA records I have heard sound great. They fully live up to their reputation, not hype at all. They are the Mona Lisa’s of the recording world. Do you agree? We must agree here or the rest of this exploration is a waste of time. I’ll assume we do agree.
Next, is the time frame for GA records (1958 – 1965) seem about right to you? I believe record collectors use this time frame for their GA collections. Generally, I agree though later in this article I will toss a monkey wrench into this time frame. It’s an important monkey wrench.
If 1965 is the end point of GA recordings, what happened after? I have a number of mostly classical recordings that were produced shortly after 1965 by record companies that produced great records during the GA. In general, the newer records sound terrible! Gone is the smooth as butter GA texture, the sense of venue space, the naturalness of voices and instruments replaced by grainy textures that over ride everything. It’s as though the recording art had stepped backward 30 years in time. I hate listening to these records. If it were just one record, I could justify it as just a bad effort. But, the problem seems to be industry wide. Why?
Thus, there really does seem to be a boundary that is easy to hear after 1965. The GA records vanished never to return (except Shefield).
Now, we will start to explore the reasons for the extraordinary sound of GA records and the lack afterwards. There are always reasons.
What other major development was happening during and after the GA? Solid State Electronics, that’s what! 1965 was the year when SS made its initial move into consumer electronics. From a sonic point of view, this was a disaster. Early SS sound was terrible. But, it rolled over the sonic landscape like a locomotive. It took no prisoners. Within a very few years, all of the high quality hi fi companies (which specialized in tube equipment) either were out of business or had converted entirely to SS. There were very few exceptions. It took decades for the world of hi fi to recover and, additionally, it gave a second birth to tube designs but that took a few years. But, in between there was nothing left of the original, pioneering tube based companies but rubble with a few exceptions that had converted to solid state designs. Sonically, this sea change was a holocaust for home hi fi systems.
At this point in the narrative I must start guessing and making assumptions. This part of the story starts in the recording studios. There is no question that tubes in a professional recording studio were an incredible hassle. Prior to some indeterminate date, only tubes were used in all the studio electronics. In order to not waste precious time, the recording engineers and technicians tested all tubes, replacing many, prior to a session. The session might involve a huge rented symphony hall and a 100 piece symphony orchestra being paid the going hourly labor rates as well as all the support personnel required by the record company. Time wasted due to failing tubes was expensive and abhorred. And this happened commonly. There was a great motivation to find electronics that avoided these problems. Transistors were the answer. Prior to transistorized equipment, tubes were the only choice.
Since the recording business is highly competitive, restraining costs was very important. Almost overnight, ALL the major studios converted from tube electronics to solid state. I will speculate that the transition occurred in 1965 and the transition was fast. It had to be. I will further assume that the early transistorized studio electronics sounded just as bad as the consumer stuff. As the transition advanced there was no recovery. The great GA records would never return and their place was taken by bad sounding records. The great recording engineers must have heard the changed sound and hated it. But there was no opposing the tidal wave of change. All caused by the lowly transistor.
The worst part is records never recovered. By the time the transistorized studio equipment had evolved to sound much better, digital recording and playback was taking over negating much of the improvement. GA sound quality remained beyond our grasp. And so it remains.
While collecting records I ran a across a situation that puzzled me. This is the monkey wrench factor I mentioned earlier. I started buying obscure records by small record companies by unknown artists from behind the Iron Curtain. In many cases these records sounded great, competitive with GA sound and obviously better than what the major western record companies were producing. Why is this, I wondered? I really don’t know for sure. But, I’ll guess. These small companies did not have the resources to convert their electronics, in mass, to modern transistorized equipment. Rather, they struggled along with their old TUBE equipment. By accident, they produced great sounding recordings long after the GA transition had occurred. This is just a guess. But the quality sound is obvious.
OK, that’s my argument. I’m looking forward to your thoughts. Transistors and economics were the poison arrow that killed the GA sound. Tell me what you think.
Sparky
Last edited:
Back in the GA, they labels fixed it first.
