The Golden Age of Records

[MylesBAstor]

Unfortunately, Robert, this is the current dilemma. People have tuned their systems to get optimum sound from recordings of that "golden era", and that frequently means that more modern recordings are highly disagreeable on their system, they have a searing, very aggressive quality to them. I have my own take on what's really going on here, which I won't repeat; but we're ending up in this terrible situation where the recording engineers are doing what they perceive as a highly accurate and correct operation, but a large percentage of the people who would otherwise purchase their output in fact have little regard for what they're doing.

Maybe the world of audio is irretrievably doomed, will slowly keep dying until it's a rather quaint leftover of a bygone era, I'm feeling rather pessimistic tonight ...

Frank

That might be true if people tuned their system for the recordings but I don't know anyone who does that. I can tell you all the faults with recordings from the Golden Age as well as present day. In fact, I think it's the other way around; people have tuned their systems to overcome the crappy sound today.

 

[Soundproof]

"Bones" Howe is a well known recording engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bones_Howe

He's been active in "the Golden Age" and later. He became staff engineer at Radio Recorders in 1956, and worked with Torme, Ella Fitzgerald, Ornette Coleman, Frank Sinatra and others. In 1961 he began working at United Recording in LA. He later became a free-lance engineer, and worked with a lot of different artists.

In 1959, he engineered Coleman's first two records for Atlantic - The Shape of Jazz to Come and Change of the Century - considered remarkable jazz achievements.

His collaboration with Tom Waits is of interest here. Bones Howe was producer, creative consultant and engineer for Waits' Heart of Saturday Night and Nighthawks at the Diner. These were done with 16-track, but for Small Change, Howe wanted to return to going direct to two-track "mixing live". To achieve that, he had the various musicians come in during playback to tell them to either take it up or down a notch, in order to get a good total blend.
When you compare Nighthawks at the Diner and Small Change, you will notice that difference.

More details here - a good read:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/articles/boneshowe.htm

"The choice of the room is critical, then, because it's like an instrument itself. There's one record that I didn't make that's a great example. Miles Davis's Round About Midnight was made at the old Columbia Studios on East 30th Street in New York City. The sound of that studio was amazing. Jazz records tend to be dry-sounding, but that room had great natural echo. The musicians on that record were set up in a semicircle on stage, close together, and the sound of that record is the sound that came off that stage and bounced back into the microphones."

It's not the change to solid state, karma. It's the manner in which performances were recorded that you're hearing.

(And I understand you can't analyze needledrops of Golden Age recordings. You should - you'll find that they contain very little signal above 12kHz, if any ... worth thinking about.)

 

[Robert]

What good is the price if the sound rips the paint off the wall? I can't listen to pretty much any new classical recording (and who really cares about audiophile classical!)--and the more complex the music, the worse it sounds.

Oh boy. Not sure what to say. I find >95% of classical music produced today to be very well recorded. probably 50% is exceptionally recorded. I'm finding this very hard to reconcile.

I once visited someone who proudly built his own equipment. I brought Tchaikovsky's Souvenir de Florence on EMI, played by a string sextet that featured Sarah Chang. This is the most lush, clear, gorgeous, palpable chamber piece I have. You can almost reach-out and touch the performers. Anyone who hears this on my system is dumbstruck by the rich harmonies, textures, and string pizzicatos. It literally melts your heart. When I played it on his system, he proclaimed it to be a poor recording. When I play it on my system, it is in the top 5-10% of recordings.

 

[jazdoc]

There's one record that I didn't make that's a great example. Miles Davis's Round About Midnight was made at the old Columbia Studios on East 30th Street in New York City. [Author's note: I live across the street from where the studio, a former church building, stood. Several nights before it was to be razed to make room for an apartment building in the late 1980s, I took a crowbar and tried to pry off the bronze Columbia plaque on the front of the building to save it for posterity when a police car came by, causing me to abandon the effort. I don't know what became of it.] The sound of that studio was amazing. Jazz records tend to be dry-sounding, but that room had great natural echo. The musicians on that record were set up in a semicircle on stage, close together, and the sound of that record is the sound that came off that stage and bounced back into the microphones."

I can definitely vouch for this recording. I own a mint mono original pressing (CL 949) and it's one of the best recordings I own with Miles his 1955 peak. A number of great jazz records were cut at this venue including "Mingus Ah Um" and they are all sonic gems.

You think? I haven't been a part of tuning their systems, obviously, but it seems that most audiophiles tune their analog-centric systems to even further exaggerate the characteristics of analog. Maybe it's their ears that have been tuned against treble extension, transient response, dynamic range and an open, noiseless background. I can understand it if it's so. The unfettered twack of the rim of a snare drum, the relentlessness of a ride cymbal, more cowbell? These are not smooth and euphonic things.

Tim, I think you are on to something here. I believe that people tune/optimize their systems to the type of music they favor. Do you think it's possible that audiophiles who use digital formats tune their systems to further exaggerate the characteristics of digital?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can definitely vouch for this recording. I own a mint mono original pressing (CL 949) and it's one of the best recordings I own with Miles his 1955 peak. A number of great jazz records were cut at this venue including "Mingus Ah Um" and they are all sonic gems.



Tim, I think you are on to something here. I believe that people tune/optimize their systems to the type of music they favor. Do you think it's possible that audiophiles who use digital formats tune their systems to further exaggerate the characteristics of digital?

Could be. When I "tune" mine, I'm generally using digital eq to tune recordings that need help.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

I can definitely vouch for this recording. I own a mint mono original pressing (CL 949) and it's one of the best recordings I own with Miles his 1955 peak. A number of great jazz records were cut at this venue including "Mingus Ah Um" and they are all sonic gems.

Yes Columbia jazz stands out in stark contrast to the abominations that passed for classical recordings And it wasn't one person or two but supposedly Columbia used a rotating team of engineers. The ORG 45 rpms reissue of Gerry Mulligan is wonderful.

Tim, I think you are on to something here. I believe that people tune/optimize their systems to the type of music they favor. Do you think it's possible that audiophiles who use digital formats tune their systems to further exaggerate the characteristics of digital?

So what does that mean for folks like me that have ecclectic musical tastes? And Tim proves my point that it's the people with digital that have to re-EQ their recordings.

 

[mep]

I play tapes, LPs, and digital, and I don't *tune* my system for any of them. I want my system to be as neutral as possible across all three formats.

 

[MylesBAstor]

...and here I am at work with no popcorn for the show.



You think? I haven't been a part of tuning their systems, obviously, but it seems that most audiophiles tune their analog-centric systems to even further exaggerate the characteristics of analog. Maybe it's their ears that have been tuned against treble extension, transient response, dynamic range and an open, noiseless background. I can understand it if it's so. The unfettered twack of the rim of a snare drum, the relentlessness of a ride cymbal, more cowbell? These are not smooth and euphonic things.

Mod Edit: Members should focus on topic, and not the person.

 

[mep]

That's such total and utter BS. Pull up your pants, it's too late to save your shoes.

As the Larry the Cable Guy would say, "Now that's funny. I don't care who you are."

 

[fas42]

Anyone who hears this on my system is dumbstruck by the rich harmonies, textures, and string pizzicatos. It literally melts your heart. When I played it on his system, he proclaimed it to be a poor recording. When I play it on my system, it is in the top 5-10% of recordings.

Robert, this is the big "battle" that I'm having here, as you probably well know. I've pointed out over and over again that systems that are almost there can sound like shockers when you put on "difficult" recordings, and that these are the clues that one needs to persist, that one has to put in yet another round of effort in sorting out the final weaknesses. You are one of the few people who have had the patience and diligence to go that extra distance, and are now reaping the rewards; the pity would be if a considerable few more weren't tipped over the edge and convinced they could get there also ...

Frank

 

[karma]

HI All,
I think you all are dancing around the issue. By doing this you have smeared the focus of what I was originally writing about. I tried to be very careful how I presented the issue. Apparently, I failed. I want to bring up some points that are easy to consider and only requires simple answers.

1. Was there a period that actually conformed to what is now referred to as the Golden Age?

2. If yes, then was this period from about 1958 to 1965?

3. If yes, are the so called Golden Age records actually in a superior category?

4. After 1965, the GA cut off, was there a definite drop off in sound quality?

5. If yes, were transistorized electronics the primary culprit?

None of you dealt with the recordings I found from behind the Iron Curtain. I think this is actually a very important indicator about the use of tube electronics.

If you can address the questions above, maybe we can summarize this thread.

Also, I think tuning a system sound for a particular type of recording is a fools game. It's one I don't practice. I do think that transparency has improved but I assign this mostly to better mics. Also, there is no doubt that SS studio electronics have improved hugely over the years. We are hearing that improvement. Most, if not all the grain from the early SS equipment has been overcome just as it has with good home SS consumer equipment.

Are you all actually buying new classical vinyl? Where? For $10? Boy, I want to know your source. Personally, I have not bought any new classical vinyl for over 20 years. I have bought a few new reissues and a couple of new jazz releases. But generally, my record collection is so large that my needs are covered. I don't deal with pop much although I do have a fairly large collection of 60's and 70's acid rock and roll. All this stuff was bought used. When I do buy new recordings, I buy CD's. And CD's have improved over the years to be at least listenable, some very good. Take a listen to the Kun Din soundtrack by Phillip Glass. Excellent!! But, 90% of my listening is from vinyl.

Sparky

 

[Soundproof]

HI All,
I think you all are dancing around the issue. By doing this you have smeared the focus of what I was originally writing about. I tried to be very careful how I presented the issue. Apparently, I failed. I want to bring up some points that are easy to consider and only requires simple answers.

1. Was there a period that actually conformed to what is now referred to as the Golden Age?

2. If yes, then was this period from about 1958 to 1965?

3. If yes, are the so called Golden Age records actually in a superior category?

4. After 1965, the GA cut off, was there a definite drop off in sound quality?

5. If yes, were transistorized electronics the primary culprit?

None of you dealt with the recordings I found from behind the Iron Curtain. I think this is actually a very important indicator about the use of tube electronics.

If you can address the questions above, maybe we can summarize this thread.

Also, I think tuning a system sound for a particular type of recording is a fools game. It's one I don't practice. I do think that transparency has improved but I assign this mostly to better mics. Also, there is no doubt that SS studio electronics have improved hugely over the years. We are hearing that improvement. Most, if not all the grain from the early SS equipment has been overcome just as it has with good home SS consumer equipment.

Are you all actually buying new classical vinyl? Where? For $10? Boy, I want to know your source. Personally, I have not bought any new classical vinyl for over 20 years. I have bought a few new reissues and a couple of new jazz releases. But generally, my record collection is so large that my needs are covered. I don't deal with pop much although I do have a fairly large collection of 60's and 70's acid rock and roll. All this stuff was bought used. When I do buy new recordings, I buy CD's. And CD's have improved over the years to be at least listenable, some very good. Take a listen to the Kun Din soundtrack by Phillip Glass. Excellent!! But, 90% of my listening is from vinyl.

Sparky

I get the impression you've made up your mind that solid state is the culprit, and that you're closed to other contributing factors. Personally, I do not believe that the demise of tubes in recording was the chief reason. As to there actually being a "golden age of records" - well, there's a period where the majority of records were produced in venues that contributed to their rich, glorious sound - and where the recording technology was such that the performers, whether a small band or a symphony orchestra, had to get it right in one take. That lent great energy to the sessions, and great sound to the recordings.

Sonically, these recordings are "poor and smudged" when compared to what vinyl cutting was later capable of, and very much so compared to what today's computer controlled deep DMM-cutting can do.
Frank may have a point that systems have been tuned to compensate for the relative failings of these records. For instance, the audiophile reception of the first DMM-releases was universally negative - while performers and recording engineers were ecstatic, because they were listening to DMM on systems that were calibrated for their clarity. On "regular" audiophile systems, these records sounded too bright.

I have thousands of classical records, and many from the "Golden Age". The sound that was created at this time is very pleasing to my ears. Again and again, I find myself listening to something I like, looking it up on the internet, and discovering that - yes - it was recorded during the period we are discussing. But it is the room interaction with the instruments I am responding favorably to - not the harmonic distortions of tubes.

 

[DaveyF]

Sparky, to answer your points:

1) Yes 2) Yes 3) YES 4) Not necessarily 5) Maybe. I am not familiar with too many of the behind the Iron Curtain recordings, unless IF you are talking primarily about Melodiya, then I have never been very impressed by their releases, others

The idea of adjusting your system to your recording makes no sense to me either, for one, I do NOT believe that we have that amount of adjustability in our systems or rooms to accomplish that. IMO.

 

[karma]

HI Sound,
Well, I do believe that SS electronics is responsible. I'll not back off that point. You do not deal with the sound at all. I'm speaking about the actual overall sound quality. All aspects of the recording is affected. Whether it is the direct sound or that which is contributed by the venue. It's all being processed by the studio electronics amplification, and thus, subject to the grain from the amplifiers. No amount of manipulation of the venue will change that.

Do you remember what early SS electronics sounded like? If we assume that 1965 is the GA cut off, and your age was, say, 25 years old at that time, your current age would be roughly 70 years old. Are you that old?

My suspicion is you are not old enough to have an opinion simply because you have never experienced the horrid early SS sound. Thus, it would be hard for you to have a valid opinion.

Sparky

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yeah, Sparky, we get that you're trying to get us to equate the end of the golden age of records with the end of tube electronics in studios. We didn't miss the point, we disagree.

Tim

 

[karma]

Yeah, Sparky, we get that you're trying to get us to equate the end of the golden age of records with the end of tube electronics in studios. We didn't miss the point, we disagree.

Tim

HI Ponk,
Not we; YOU.

Sparky

 

[Soundproof]

HI Sound,
Well, I do believe that SS electronics is responsible. I'll not back off that point. You do not deal with the sound at all. I'm speaking about the actual overall sound quality. All aspects of the recording is affected. Whether it is the direct sound or that which is contributed by the venue. It's all being processed by the studio electronics amplification, and thus, subject to the grain from the amplifiers. No amount of manipulation of the venue will change that.

Do you remember what early SS electronics sounded like? If we assume that 1965 is the GA cut off, and your age was, say, 25 years old at that time, your current age would be roughly 70 years old. Are you that old?

My suspicion is you are not old enough to have an opinion simply because you have never experienced the horrid early SS sound. Thus, it would be hard for you to have a valid opinion.

Sparky

You seem very insistent, not at all receptive, and quite prejudicial. I grew up in a musical home, quality piano and lots of singing, the top line Garrard was spinning records every day. I was young in the early 60s, but later grew quite surprised as to the large quality of excellent records my parents brought home - when I got old enough to recognize them for the audiophile treasures I grew up listening to.
So - yes - I do have grounds for comparison. And no - it ain't the solid state - you're fixated on that, but it's (if credible), just a part of the much bigger picture.

And if you've missed the fact that my contributions in this thread have dealt with the sound, then what can I say? BTW - for comparison. I have the Everest original de Falla/Jorda "Three Cornered Hat" in stereo, and a later Classic Records reissue, where they claim to have gone back to the mastertapes. Now, if you want clear evidence of hit&run mastering, you should compare the two. The original is sonic bliss compared to the CR-travesty that was committed, and is much lauded, by people who haven't been able to compare the two, I guess. Since you already have the answers you need, I won't tell you why that's relevant to your ca(u)se.

Go hold your speech - if you insist on the tube/solid state dichotomy you'll be misinforming your audience.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

HI Ponk,
Not we; YOU.

Sparky

My apologies. I only speak for myself. But given that nobody seems to be getting your point in spite of the fact that you've now repeated it a few times with increasingly less subtlety, I doubt that I'm alone.

Tim

 

[karma]

Sparky, to answer your points:

1) Yes 2) Yes 3) YES 4) Not necessarily 5) Maybe. I am not familiar with too many of the behind the Iron Curtain recordings, unless IF you are talking primarily about Melodiya, then I have never been very impressed by their releases, others

The idea of adjusting your system to your recording makes no sense to me either, for one, I do NOT believe that we have that amount of adjustability in our systems or rooms to accomplish that. IMO.

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

 

[Soundproof]

Not impressed with Melodiya - is that because you're not listening to it with the correct EQ, I wonder?

Or could it be that you're not aware of the incredible recording work that Severin Pasuchin carried out, with the USSR Large Symphony Orchestra? Want to hear amazing reproduction of an orchestra, from 1971 (far past your cut-off date) get Melodia/eurodisc 87 781 KK.

Of course - given the incredibly critical Russian/Soviet musical tradition, and the fantastic performers they have given the world, and composers, and orchestras - it's a given that they would be satisfied with bad reproduction of the same. But how does that parse with your tube theory, as the Soviets used tube recording technology far past your cut-off date? And could it be that you haven't given Melodiya the treatment they need to shine as they should on a RIAA-setup?

Severin Pasuchin should have a statue in his honor somewhere - what a glorious pair of ears that man must have had.