Whilst technology has moved on, too many recordings suffer from the overuse of compression, resulting in them sounding flat. Also, I feel that some of the soul has been removed due to overproduction. I would prefer to hear some of the imperfections as this is what makes listening to music more of a human experience.
The other thing with modern technology is that it can be used to mask the performer’s shortcomings, particularly where vocals are concerned. My view is that artists from the 60s and 70’s had to have natural talent as such shortcomings could not be fixed with current post recording techniques such as auto tune.
I believe there are good and bad recordings from all eras with the most important factor being the monitors used in mixing and production; what Floyd Toole calls the circle of confusion. If you are using monitors with very little bass , you will get a bass heavy mix for instance. And then we have people playing back these recordings on speakers with different but equally inaccurate speakers and things get really messy. What this viewer is referring to, I believe, is the loudness wars, where everything became compressed for maximum volume at the expense of dynamic range. This started in the 80’s.
My impression is the exact opposite. The Beatles music is thin and tinny compared to something like Dark Side of the Moon. 70's recordings are MUCH fuller and lively, I think.
Listen to the new mixes of the Beatles. Plus if you were listening to the stereo mixes of Beatles recordings those are not the mixes the Beatles and George Martin worked on. The stereos were an afterthought and performed by the engineers with no input from the band.
"Flat and thin"... Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, Doobie Brothers - Toulouse Street, Grand Funk - We're An American Band, Led Zeppelin 3 and 4, Deep Purple - Machine Head and countless others would like a word.
@@intothevoid9831 You are likely listening to bad, Compressed, Re-Mastered versions, and or Apple Itunes files, which are Both compressed to hell. Most 70s and 80s music cds, have MUCH greater depth and dynamics, that anything that followed. You have to find the Original Studio cd releases. And stay CLEAR away from Itunes. Once the 90s hit... All the record labels started to compress their CD released o hell... in the name of "ECO-Radicalism". Compressed music, takes less amp power to drive it to louder levels... which is why they started doing it. They tried to blame it on "The Loudness Wars".. but that was never the REAL truth. The Studios were infected by Eco-Radicals, quite some time ago... and they have single handedly Destroyed high dynamic audio.. as a result. You can also measure just about every "Remaster" out there... and See the Dynamic Range, be Compressed to hell. All of it, is Intentional, Despite peoples anger about it.
I would agree that as engineers were developing multi-track recorders, it provided greater opportunities for sound engineers, which can be both good and bad. The better studios and sound engineers were able to make some exceptional recordings while others struggled. Great example was Mick choosing the now famous Record Plant in Sausalito to record Rumours. The 2 sound engineers the recorded those tracks were already industry legends and the resulting recording is truly exceptional. There are other great recordings from that studio in the 70’s from Bob Marley, Sly & Family Stone, Santana, Grateful Dead, Peter Frampton… Another famous studio with some truly brilliant recordings from 70’s is Fantasy Studios in Berkeley where CCR, Dave Brubeck and several others recorded. I have many direct from master 1/2” tapes from these studios that are exceptional sounding. There are some really awful recordings from that era, especially the 80’s, but everything I own from those 2 studios is really exceptional
I agree with Paul, but can I point to the ditching of valve (tube) gear in the recording chain, AND the infiltration of cocaine into many producers' working lives...may seem trivial, but its not to be underestimated. Cheers from London everyone!
Hello Paul, Love these video’s as well as your equipment! I want to add my 2 cents. I will take a well recorded album from the 70s on a great sound system every time over the pristine digitized sounds of today! Even the albums from the 50s, Big band Jazz albums. Massive depth and air in the mixes.
One aspect you failed to mention is the transition to solid state equipment along with the multi-tracking. Tubes were around for a while at that point. Solid State was new and developing. I think this happened in the 80's as well with recordings using early digital equipment. which can be hard to listen to, regardless of the performance. Hearing musicians perform together in a room has a quality that can't be duplicated and I think it connects with the listener is a more visceral way.
I haven’t thought about 70s and 80s rock being recorded poorly in a long time. It’s a wake up call for me to remember back to round out my knowledge of the timeline of our recordings were made. Great question! Educated answer!
With multitrack came close miking and a loss of ambience. I find most of the classic 70s to have a full sound, but dry. Of course by the end of the 80s and Phil Collins there was big reverb. The movement away from tube gear also had a learning curve.
Record companies make the music sound "good" on devices of the time. AM radio, portable 45s, FM radio, Music-centres, Walkmans, Home HiFi,, Mobile phone speaker, Bluetooth speaker.
Ian Anderson's comments on the production of Aqualung might be of interest. Paul's video made me chase down the timeline of Eno's work and the engineers he worked with. Interesting to see the progression and see who worked on what albums.
Paul, you mentioned a few times the word " life" . Yes the 70's recordings can sound worse compared to modern recordings but there is a big plus in the "old" way of recording to . The fact that the band had limited technology to work with meant that they needed each other, there was that group dependency. That dependency being joy of playing togther , frustration for not getting it right, fear of slipping the time window , you name it . all of that is adding an invisible layer to the recording. That's the emotional layer and without that emotional layer I'm not involved, I'm disconnect from the band .That's the 60's and 70's at their best
Many years ago I had some phase 4 LP records. They just sounded amazing to me. But they were very few and hard to find. Just wondering if you had the pleasure to ever hear one and what your thoughts are about these LPs. Thanks for all your great work
"Phase 4" was Decca's (London in USA) recording concept of extreme directionality and multi-miking. They were intended to sound good on console stereos where the speakers were a mere 24 inches apart. My late mother-in-law had such a console stereo. Phase 4 records sounded great on her stereo, and she loved 'em. On hi-end equipment, they can sound very exciting, but you need to leave concepts of "being in the concert hall" behind when you enjoy Phase 4 records.
Beatles get back album was recorded on 8 track. The documentary on Disney+ is a must watch for any music enthusiast. They also talk about Rolling Stones using an 8track and that’s why they got an 8 track for the project :)
Les Paul besides being an iconic guitarist he came up with the fist for of multi tacking in the studio! he then wanted to reproduce the multi track sound live at his gigs he invented a device which later evolved in to what is now vey popular the looper
I remember being in studio in the 80’ and there was those giant (2x15” and horn) monitors… I think that one of the problem was the engineers mixing in those boomy box. (Thin mix sounds better in those) And then, there was the end user playing that music in shit box that distort if bass frequency was under 80hz… so thin music sounds better two in cheap speakers… plus, when you add a lot of tracks on tape multitrack, you want to minimize noise and hiss and never overload, so you compress the signal a lot.
The 'OneMic Series' on YT is obviously mono, and mostly sounds pretty good. But in my experience in recording studios, it was the introduction of IC's in the mixers, and the circuit design for them that affected the sound quality the most IMHO (excluding the use of compression etc). Some studio mixer manufacturers used 5532 IC's quite well, but many starting using the TL072/4 and TL082/4 which were awful for sound, regardless of their implementation.
I am a huge music fan with a huge range probably the entire range of music falls into my scope from classical to reggae to rock , blues to jazz. There’s nothing I won’t listen to. What I listen to again and again are recordings that are dynamic and punchy which involve and immerse me, are exciting with plenty of dynamic range. Recordings like Love over gold. The LP sounds fantastic on my humble Thorn TD 160 Very deep, very resonant and blows me away each time I play it. Fast forward to modern times, since I have been listening to multi channel recordings I have found that 5.1 speakers allows each channel to to cope with a lot more detail and range than if it was just funnelled into two channels so old recordings remastered in multi channel have suddenly opened up and become incredibly interesting and exciting. I.e. Pink Floyd‘s animals was always a dull uninteresting recording, even on CD it sounded dull but the new multi channel release has made it into an experience which I play again and again; it is involving and immersive. You can hear every single detail before the details were all hidden and muddy. multi channel recordings, The Doors, Deep Purple as well as classical record have proved the solution to complex recordings. For me it’s multichannel all the way .
Part of that depends on your Speakers. Lower quality Eco-Speakers, dont have enough magnetic strength... to be able to control the cone with precision accuracy. When many sounds are playing at the same time... you will notice some muddy distortions, where instruments... vocals..etc.. blend into each other... rather than remaining separate and well defined. If your speakers are good enough, they can maintain the proper cone control, and acceleration levels.. to be able to produce a Flawless representation of the original source. The details and separation, will remain... even when so many things are playing at the same time. Now... realize, that the less you challenge your speakers... the less distortion potentials that there is to be had. For example.. if you play a single instrument + single vocalist on your stereo speakers.. both should be pretty clear. However, once you add in several more instruments, and some additional singers... things can quickly start to muddy... as the speaker is simply not able to keep up with all of the demands of the music. This is why, when I first used my center channel on my 5.1 amp... with my crappy house speakers... I was floored at some of the differences. You see.. by diverting a lot of the sounds to a center speaker... it allowed the side speakers to play with FAR more clarity and separation. Why? Again, because... since there was less needed to be played/represented... it was far easier for the speakers to deliver the results, with far less Micro-Distortions. That said, I hated using the Center channel... because the center never sounded good. It was way too limited... and way to notable. It seemed more like listening to Mono, than Stereo... for a good deal of the movie... so I stopped using it. Of course, that was with an old 5.1 system... and not even the new Digital Standard version of surround sound. Maybe things have improved enough to be Decent. I personally think there should be Two center speakers, rather than a single center. The other part, might be if you are playing Re-Master CDs. Almost every Remaster Ive ever heard, has been Compressed to Hell, and sounds Flat, and like Garbage, as a result. While the marketing Hype is that Remasters are SUPPOSED to be superior... Ive NEVER found that to be the case. The studios have Screwed over countless people, with their awful compression levels. That goes doubly for something like Apple Itunes files. They too, are compressed to Hell... then they deceptively Upscale the files... to make them Artificially Larger, to SEEM like you are getting a high dynamic range file. Its not. Now... I dont know what speakers, nor amp you use... nor have I really listened to the Animals cd (though, Im sure Ive heard songs from it, without researching it). All I can say, is that there are tons of 70s and 80s cds that I own, that are incredibly dynamic... with only 2 audiophile grade Speakers. In fact, I never knew what Audiophile really meant, until I got hold of a pair of EPI 100v speakers (with the later model upgraded tweeter). The thing that jumped out at me immediately... was that the speakers sort of vanished. It was as if the sound appeared in the room, Holographically, with no Source of projection. The other thing I noted, was not much better the Bass sounded... as this was the first SEALED speaker... vs the crappy PORTED speakers that I was used too. The Bass was far more Luscious and "Musical". It had more Range. It wasnt Droning, and or Artificial sounding, like my Techniques 3-way house speakers. The holographic 3d effect, is hard to even describe. You can stand almost anywhere in the room, and still be getting a fantastic stereo 3d image. Even the worst speaker placements, do not seem to effect what you hear / experience. The final thing I noted... was when I believe I was playing a Phil Collins song. There was a part of the song, where I never knew what lyrics he was singing... because it got muddied with the background instruments. But these EPI speakers, were able to play so clearly... that I could make out every single Word.. without any strain! The vocals remained Crystal Clear.. as did the Backing Instruments. Everything remained well Defined and Separated. I was completely blown away. I do think Multi Channel would be cool to mess with, in terms of music (Ive only used surround sound, for films). But, do realize, that good audio can sound very 3d, even with two speakers. It really depends on the level of your speakers... and the recording itself. Almost any Bi-Neural mic's... produce a level of 3d depth, that you dont typically get with standard recordings, for example. This is because they are capturing the actual ROOM, in the way that your ears would have actually heard things. The 3d Image, is thus Accurate and maintained in the recordings. Where as fake 3d stereo music.. is only as good as the engineers abilities to create a fake 3d depth "image". Actually, One of my first entries into HD Audio, was Sennheiser HD 500 headphones. They had limitations on the high frequency spectrum... but they produced an amazing 3d effect. So much so... that when I played a dvd with them on at like 2am.. I thought my entire surround sound system was on. I quickly ripped them off while diving for my Amps speaker channel toggles... only to realize, that none of my speakers were On! Its not easy to fool me with audio... as I have extremely sensitive ears (even in my now elder age). Another time, one of my MP3s played... and it started out with the sound of Thunder, and then Rain. I cant tell you how many times, that I looked out to the nearest window... to see the "Storm" outside... only to be fooled by those headphones. Headphones that only had 2 drivers total.
@@johndough8115 thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I really appreciate the effort you put into that. So my loudspeaker are B&W matrix 3 The pre-amp is QUAD 44 however it has been extensively tuned, has an external power supply and the internals have been carefully rebuilt with specially selective components to provide a that has no noise whatsoever. I mean it is pin silent. The power amps are two QUAD 405 bi amped; They each have duel mono psu with decoupling caps across the main psu caps. The components on the boards have been significantly upgraded. These are also silent. There is zero distortion. Even with two channels every instrument, vocal, is clear and joyful, the bass is deep and controlled with a definition I’ve never heard out side of Abby road or Olympic or pinewood studios mixing theatres. The sound is about as non fatigueing as one could hope for. Even my hyper critical brother said if I’d have spent £20,000 it couldn’t be improved. My point is that when I added a centre speaker and 2 rears and sub bass, I suddenly became part of the music instead of in the audience. The Beatles Abby road in 5.1 is a revelation as is The Doors LA Woman. I agree with your point on over compression, is has ruined countless records. It’s a bit like a 5 litre v8 will always be superior to a 2 litre 4 cylinder car bc it delivers effortless performance. The matrix 3e’s are about as transparent as one could imagine. Billy Cobhams Warning just jumps out in a way only the producer intended but in a tightly controlled excitingly dynamic way; each time I play it (from cd) I feel like Im hear ing it for the first time.
@@johndough8115 the other point is that I listen to a lot of sacd and dsd recordings and since discovering dsd my interest in old recordings increased immensely due to their far superior quality. Bob Dylan no w sounds like he’s in the middle of the room instead of somewhere over there
Some facts for those interested; Stereo recording began in 1943, and 3-track in 1948. Les Paul had an Ampex 8-track recorder installed in his home in 1957. The first 16-track Ampex recorder was installed at Mirasound Studios in 1967. You get the point by now.
Peter Gabriels: Security album (1982) the CD master is one of the worst quality recordings I've ever heard, Peter Gabriel's: I/O (2023) Is probably one the BEST quality recordings I've heard.
Some the absolute best / cleanest sounding recordings I've ever heard, are the old Stan Getz, Dinah Washington, Oscar Peterson era 2 track jazz recordings from the late 50's. Also the "newly" remastered 2 and 3 track "Living Stereo" RCA SACDs in the classical genre. Those sound as good as any modern all digital recording.
I collect classical, so I'm not well-informed about pop/rock from the 70s & 80s. But, isn't the flatness you describe a result of recording philosophies like Phil Specter's "wall of sound" concept? I think the idea was that maximum loudness from all directions tended to sell more records.
I collect classical, too, and while I find the sound quality of the recordings typically a lot better than with rock and pop recordings, nevertheless many classical recording became over-mic'd and over-closely-mic'd during the same period of time that rock and pop did, also diminishing the sense of a soundstage and overall realism of the sound as a concertgoer would hear it.
Most pop music from the 80’s sounds completely anaemic. No bass whatsoever. I think it’s because of the use of cheap vinyl. Today it’s almost a bit too much bass, particularly in the 60-80Hz region. I use EQ on most 70’s and 80’s. Oh, and remember the SOS technique Paul! I believe the Beatles pioneered it.
I listen to a lot of 60/70/80's music on the original LP's 90% is of those are beautifully recorded and sound great! Did he heard these old recordings digitally or on vinyl? Tape to vinyl is great! For the music then maybe it's not audiophile approved but who cares.
That was an era during which record companies were still aggressive in acquiring and recording new artists. Some of the recordings were made by experienced people that knew what they were doing but a great many were made in small studios with very limited equipment and engineering expertise. Additionally, a lot of music recorded on analog equipment was later digitized badly; this is particularly notable on early CD pressings of music originally released as an LP and then rereleased as a CD. This is evident in some files delivered via various streaming services as well. Finally, many recording studios and musical artists simply did not keep track of or maintain the original master tapes and these degraded over time to the point that their sound quality is as described by the writer. So, the answer is, no, these recordings don't sound this way because 'everybody was so stoned'.
Yes, presumably recording engineers got carried away with the technology just because they could push it. More and more tracks also goes along with closer and closer miking I assume- which helps to collapse the sense of a real soundstage.
I think about what Jimi Hendrix would have sounded like with more modern equipment. Love his stuff but the technology was limited compared to the 70s and 80s.
An amorphous mass of sound from too many unrelated tracks from different acoustic surroundings. Expecting a coherent result from such a mishmash, especially with electronic "positioning" of the individual tracks, is a pure pipe dream. Want it to sound "real" and "live" requires recording it real and live. In the "good old days" microphone positioning was a true artform, as opposed to close mic on everything and trying to "fix" it in the console. (A "soundstage" comes from a true physical layout. Our brains are more sophisticated at processing sounds that most give credit.)
As an example most of the Beatles recordings were recorded on 4 track recorders and mixed to mono. The very earliest were 2 track recorders and some of the White Album was done on 8 track. These are the LPs that were recently re- released as mono recordings because that’s how they were initially mixed. Abbey Road was the first Beatles album done on 16 tracks. All done in the 60s.
I also notice how good some of the late 50s recordings sounded. There are modern so called "audiophile albums" you can buy and they sound amazing and I think wouldn't it be good if all albums good sound this good.
Often mastering engineers back then would roll off the bottom end a bit to keep the stylus from jumping out of the groove. Also, mixing engineers, knowing the practical limitations of mass market LPs, would deliberately create bass-shy mixes, knowing that the low end would be otherwise rolled off in the mastering suite.
Deaf engineers is the reason that the sound was flat. Those deaf engineers produced for the limited bandwidth of early FM radio - to sell more records. Loudness wars happened to get the most gain and attention.
It was hit or miss back then. You had bands that recorded great sound like Pink Floyd and Rush and then there was a lot of others who seemed to have about 6 hours of studio time to record a whole album so basically they did it live with very little editing and production. Today they just turn it to a 1000 to cover up everything.
It's not multi-track recording that could be a problem, but the move to solid state recording and mixing vs. tube (valve) based. That said, most new recordings from the same artist sound better than their old ones (to me). So the newer Beatles recordings such as Abbey Road sound better than their old ones, in terms of sound quality. Newer albums by The Who are going to sound clearer than older ones, etc. Some of those old beloved 60's recordings sound murky to me. Now there are some cases of bad digital mastering, compression, etc. but that's an issue beyond the original recording quality. While there aren't a lot of "new" recordings that I love due to the quality of the music, the sound quality is often excellent now vs. then. Compare the sound quality of Tom Petty's "Hypnotic Eye" album (2014) vs. his self-titled debut (1976) and it's clear that the newer recording quality is far superior.
I think the switch from tubes to transistors, especially in the era when transistors were new were as responsible for bad recordings as overdubbing was. The Beatles' late albums were sodden with twentieth-generation tracks that didn't display any room ambience... flat, flat, flat. Steeley Dan's recordings were very overrated. Also flat and hard and glassy. I have way more lousy-sounding LPs (especially by Cream and other loud bands) than I have lousy-sounding CDs because the transistor technology had matured (in my opinion), and the dynamic range had increased because of the elimination of the hill-and-dale stylus tracking. Of course, I don't listen to much music from the sound-wars compression era.
I've noticed this as well and the "better" equipment I aquire the worse it gets. Totally lacking bottom end and punch. I'm referring to the 70's and much of the 80's recordings.
IMO at least part of this problem is due to faking stereo placement of individual tracks, by use of multi-track recordings and a mixing board -- _especially_ when every damn track is close-mic'd. There's just no way for that to ever sound as 'real' as a more typical live-to-2-track stereo recording from the 50's or 60's. All those close mics being mixed creates a listening perspective that is literally impossible -- you can't simultaneously have one ear about 6 inches from the guitar amp, another ear 6 inches from the vocalist, another ear 6 inches from the snare drum, another ear 6 inches from a tambourine... People only have two ears. And no sane person puts their head 6 inches from a guitar amp. So, part of sounding 'good' is sounding realistic, and that means a mix that is actually possible, instead of definitely impossible Don't even get me started on tracks moving around the mix, via the pan pots -- ever seen a flying guitar amp? Me neither... Having the entire band playing/recording, live to 2 tracks, necessitates some kind of studio room that sounds good, when an entire band is crammed into it. One room means one coherent set of spatial cues, etc. The entire mix is coherent, because it comes from reality, instead of a crummy pseudo-reconstruction of reality (multi-track mix). Another part of the problem is the 'upgrades' that guitar amps of the 70s and 80s got -- a perfect example is the difference between a black face Fender and a silver face... think about it -- which sounds better, and what was the last year of production? 1968, IIRC. Coincidentally, right at the decade change from the 60s to the 70s. And lastly, the style of music changed, to use different instruments, tones, vocal arrangements, etc. that just won't ever sound as good as the 50s or 60s.
Radio loudness wars - Rock was mastered to sound best on your car radio (first AM then FM). and the loudest stations had the best ratings. And that meant the dynamics were squashed and now sound flat. That’s what happened.
Close studio micing and center channel panning is not the same as a live performance recording. Thelma Houston & Pressure Cooker - I've Got The Music In Me direct to disc is a perfect example. Her and each instrument was very closely mic'd. Each is extremely crisp and clear. But there is no depth to it. With my Maggies she has a 6 foot tall mouth. I rep'ped the Sheffield line at the time and all the dealers complained about it. Even though the pressing was very well received by the public. I was repping Audio and living in Nashville in the mid '70's and calling on studios. It seemed obvious to me that center channel panning was all wrong. All it did was vary the relative volume of that object between channels. In a true stereo recording you would have to create delays as well. A joy stick was needed to pan levels as you move side to side and create delays as you move it forward and back. e.g. all the way 6 o'clock forward would be equal levels to each channel with the individual channel signals delayed slightly from the center. 12 O'clock would be side channels leading the center.
well there was good recordings back then from England Germany other parts of Europe, America was naff RCA worst ever label. you have to get English recordings first pressings or second. a lot of people saying that American stuff is flat and that's American saying that. just found this band haven't heard for 20 years managed to find them eventually unsigned but we're very good from Sheffield and Manchester in the late 90s early 2000s Karman should be more well known maybe it's still time for them you can catch them on sound cl..... Karman(uk) its my goal to make this band to have popularity, it's a shame so many good bands out there that are unknown why??? check them out tell me what you think! indie rock
At least, many recordings of the last decades, especially pop music, was optimized to sound on the popular gear of that time, and that was mostly no HiFi setup. It was radio, cheap record players, Walkman, car stereo, Discos etc. And these don't like high level and deep frequencies in the bass at all, neither great dynamics also because of listening environtment.
Frankly speaking, I think that a lot of music released today is of subterranean quality (and I'm only talking about vinyl). My impression is that a lot of newly released music is primarily mixed to be played on smartphones or tablets - and in order for something like bass to come out of it, the music actually only consists of bass. And if you then play it on a stereo system, it's too fat at the bottom. I don't really see that with the mixes from the last millennium.
Trevor Horn apparently had a fondness for Temple Balls. Yet he produced some of the best sounding records of the 80’s. Steve Lillywhite had a coke habit and he produced some of the most muddy sounding records during this decade
check them out Paul that band maybe you could sign them, wouldn't mind to see some vinyl records they do some acoustic numbers as well. one of my best bands of all time got to be in the top 4. one of my favourite songs is (see you next time), I'll give you the lyrics. I don't see you anymore it's like I never knew you at all, stood at the station resigned to walking it's years since I was down that way and times a great divider, i spent six sick months planning what to say as I stood beside her she said nothing..... she said nothing..... tell me all the things you wanted to see I will tell you all of the things I wish you'd never have been, now you're livid that you are now turning blue that time stood still behind us tracking up the lies inside behind as I lay beside her, she said I'll take a piece of you with me take a piece of me with you.. I'll take a piece of you with me take a piece me you like I need it all.. like I want it... I never see you anymore it's like I never knew you at all..now we are stood at the station but resigned to talking... repeated lyrics first verse. acoustic guitar solo etc etc. you need to hear the songs the acoustic and the rock version, both good all the songs are fantastic there's not a bad song they've made inthe lineup, that is very rare for me to like every song by a album. I encourage you to have a listen Paul like your opinion I don't think you will be disappointed. I have no association with this band except I love their music. he is a great singer and there's some great lyrics the band play tight what is there not to love??? @PSaudio
I think it has more to do with available playback devices. In the 50s 60s it was single driver speakers and mids and mid bass were were king. 70 80s we had these huge reveivers with loudness and bass controls and big woofer speakers like JBL and Cerwin vega. Flat recordings were ok because we had knobs to boost it. 90s 2000s it was huge car and home stereos and Madonna pop. Everything was boosted . Lows mids and highs. Lots of everything. Music died after that so who cares....lol
Studios started HEAVILY compressing their CDs, starting in the 90s. Each progressing year forwards... they increased compression levels. This is why most new audio, sounds like Flat Garbage. Apple Itunes also does the same with their music files. They compress them to hell... then Upscale them into larger file sizes... to make it SEEM like you are getting good quality files. Instead, they are selling you utter Garbage quality files. You can easily tell the difference between DVD or Bluray audio... and modern 90s+ CD audio... because the Eco-Radicals have not yet managed to Mass Infect Hollywood... to the point of Destroying Film Audio Quality. That said, I stopped watching most new films, because they are total Radicalized Trash, with bad actors, awful dialog, horrendous CGI, and godawful Misandry. Heck, even the Soundtracks to films, are often far worse than the older films. Dune was basically just the same few sounds, played on loop. Compare that to the original "Nightmare on Elm Street", and be prepared for a shocking difference.
Anyone with a Tascam recorder can record a live band and get better 3D imaging than virtually any studio recording. This among other reasons is why I've refuted all the Audiophile hype over gear being the source of 3D imaging. It's literally all in your head, and thus for some, spending mass amounts of money on their systems amounts to a 3D imaging placebo.
@@xxxYYZxxx The first pair of Auidophile Headphones I purchased, were the Sennheiser HD 500. When I got home, I didnt open them up and use them, until like 2 am. I had a surround sound Amp, with 4 techniques 12" 3-way speakers... all hooked up to my PC... I put a DVD into my tray, and clicked Play. Suddenly, the music BLASTED at high volume levels.. while others in the house would have been sleeping. I ripped off my headphones, thinking that all of my speakers were on... and DOVE for the Amps speaker toggles... only to realize, that NONE of my speakers were on. I was Completely Shocked, that a headphone could fool me, to such a degree. That level of Clarity, and 3d Holography, never happened on ANY of the other +30 headphones that Id owned + destroyed, before that point. None even came CLOSE to that level. It was not a "Placebo" effect. It was the proper 3D Image, being generated in such a way... to be able to fool ones senses. One of my MP3 players tracks... has a song on it, that starts out with thunder, and then rain. When it would play... I would get fooled into looking out the nearest window... every single time. I decided to test this out on my father. I handed him the player, and asked him to listen to something. I hit play... and as soon as the thunder and rain started playing.. he instantly looked out of the nearest window. It was Actually that convincing. So, no... your Theory about Audio Gear being the Weak link, is largely False. Not all high end Audio, is equal. Not all high end headphones, will be as convincing, for example. But if you find the right Gear... its pure Holographic Magic. Especially with the right recordings.
"Pink Floyd" and "Fleetwood Mac" were mastered in the 70s, and they DON'T sound remotely flat! ... Perhaps somebody needs to visit the Doctor's Office to have their ears syringed? 🤣 Please note, although I used an Americanism, "Doctor's Office," I'm actually located in the United 🇬🇧 Kingdom, and we call it a "Doctor's Surgery."
Sorry to say that, but that's a glorified look to the past with some serious factual errors regarding multitrack (Les Paul did 8 tracks with a special Ampex machine already in 1954!), overdubs (1940s) and audio compression (since mid 1930s) back then. You can find recordings from nowadays with more than 1000 tracks that have more dynamics than some of the mono and stereo "live" recordings with Phil Spector or at Abbey Road in the 60s (which also had multiple tracks, bouncing stages and overdubs - sometimes done in a "ping-pong" bouncing process with a loss of audio quality).
Really good musicians and engineers wouldn't need dozens of tracks for a small group of musicians to make a decent recording.. As tracks became cheap, their implementatation was abused, as always seems to happen with technology. Look at what the "benefit" of dynamic range from digital audio technology did to CD mastering. 😉 Edit: Btw, such abuse is typically a result of either greed or ignorance.
I have no idea what this dude is Smokin! Some of The best Dynamic music Ive heard, is from the 70s and 80s. If they are hearing "Flat" sounding music... its probably because they downloaded their music from Apple's Itunes. Apple Compresses ALL of their Audio to absolute Hell... which is why it sounds annoyingly FLAT. If you want to hear the original dynamics, hunt down the original CDs, and Compare against your Crappy Itunes files. Make sure to use a headphone / speaker, thats actually capable of revealing the depths of the differences. That said, even the lower tier gear, will still likely reveal Massive differences.
@@mrpmj00 The Format is Lossless. But the original Music was first Compressed, then Converted into a Lossless format. Basically, its stripped of its High Definition, before it was turned into a Lossless file format. You can do the same thing with an Image. Take a 4k photo... and convert it into a 640x480 resolution. Now... Upscale it back up to 4k resolution. Its going to look like CRAP... but, you can now SAVE it as a lossless file. It might be a Lossless file, but the actual Photo itself.. is NOT actually the same 4K photo anymore. Its now missing like 80% of the original Details. One can easily tell this, by zooming in (heck, you might not even have to zoom in). With Music... its easier to Fool idiots like yourself. If you dont have the EARS to hear the difference... and or, you simple "Believe" Apples claims of quality... Then you will NEVER KNOW... unless you run the file through an Audio Program, that shows the Dynamic Range (and compare it against the Dynamic Range of the Original CD releases).
@@bergennorway Wrong. Most compressors used nowadays have their roots in inventions from the 50s und 60s. Even back then records were heavily compressed. Take some of the "wall of sound" records from producer Phil Spector from the 60s. You could draw a straight line from start to end on the top end of the level. Nearly no dynamic.
@@Fastvoice When people talk about «Loudness war», they normally think of CD’s and digital mastering, and their compressed dynamics. I don’t care about «loudness war» at FM radio, here in Norway we hardly use FM anymore, radio here is digital. Luckily I was born in the 70’s, so a lot of my CD’s has good/great dynamic range. Compressors used during recordings is normal, but limiting/compressing the dynamic range should not be done!
Because so much of today's music is so compressed an older recording can sound flat simply because it isn't perceived as loud. You probably need to adjust your volume accordingly especially because of the Fletcher Munson curve.
I think this guy is high, because music recorded in the 50 and 60s was terrible for the most part. Elvis and the Beatles were not recorded well. If you have a highly resolving system they do not sound good. However, most rock bands in the 70s sound amazing. Dark Side???? The wall??? The list goes on and on. Put the ear buds down and get a better system and you can clearly see that 70s and 80s music amazing for the post part.
Indeed, live recordings with little processing sound the most dynamic, but a good mic setup is key. 70's & 80's material varies a lot, some sounds good, some sounds flat. It is the 90's and later studio products I have an issue with; far too much compression in general. Fortunately there is music good enough artistically that I can live with the compression. Nevertheless, my favourite material is still live recordings in small venues issued by the venues' management rather than the record label. The _mix_ isn't always perfect but there is usually little in the way of compression. Rarely available on CD or as a download, but there are plenty of those recordings on TH-cam.
Late 50’s & early to mid 60’s mono records are phenomenal sounding despite not using a true mono cartridge. 1958 mono copy of Soultrane is $800 on Discogs!
Too stoned? The Grateful Dead made the very finest sounding studio recordings during the 70's and 80's. It's really just a question of your honesty, yeah - your honesty.
@@intothevoid9831 Besides the G/D releasing some of the best sounding studio recordings of all time, my point was in response to the "...were they too stoned..." comment. If you want to compare recordings, post yours first and I'll retort.
steely dan, supertramp, boston, reo speedwagon, alan parsons project all had amazing production
Dire Straits, MJ too
Exactly! I commented a similar thing, citing "Pink Floyd."
Yes so many well recorded albums. Santana too and many more.
Whilst technology has moved on, too many recordings suffer from the overuse of compression, resulting in them sounding flat. Also, I feel that some of the soul has been removed due to overproduction. I would prefer to hear some of the imperfections as this is what makes listening to music more of a human experience.
The Loudness War has destroyed countless great recordings.
Also, the early recordings were done on vacuum tubes 😊🎷
"Some of the imperfections"! Great point to make. Yes, yes, yes !!!!!!
I'm with James on this one.
The other thing with modern technology is that it can be used to mask the performer’s shortcomings, particularly where vocals are concerned. My view is that artists from the 60s and 70’s had to have natural talent as such shortcomings could not be fixed with current post recording techniques such as auto tune.
I believe there are good and bad recordings from all eras with the most important factor being the monitors used in mixing and production; what Floyd Toole calls the circle of confusion. If you are using monitors with very little bass , you will get a bass heavy mix for instance. And then we have people playing back these recordings on speakers with different but equally inaccurate speakers and things get really messy. What this viewer is referring to, I believe, is the loudness wars, where everything became compressed for maximum volume at the expense of dynamic range. This started in the 80’s.
My impression is the exact opposite. The Beatles music is thin and tinny compared to something like Dark Side of the Moon. 70's recordings are MUCH fuller and lively, I think.
Me 2 bro
Listen to the new mixes of the Beatles. Plus if you were listening to the stereo mixes of Beatles recordings those are not the mixes the Beatles and George Martin worked on. The stereos were an afterthought and performed by the engineers with no input from the band.
"Flat and thin"...
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, Doobie Brothers - Toulouse Street, Grand Funk - We're An American Band, Led Zeppelin 3 and 4, Deep Purple - Machine Head and countless others would like a word.
Most of the albums you listed sound pretty bad.
@@intothevoid9831 Compared to what?
@@intothevoid9831 You are likely listening to bad, Compressed, Re-Mastered versions, and or Apple Itunes files, which are Both compressed to hell. Most 70s and 80s music cds, have MUCH greater depth and dynamics, that anything that followed. You have to find the Original Studio cd releases. And stay CLEAR away from Itunes. Once the 90s hit... All the record labels started to compress their CD released o hell... in the name of "ECO-Radicalism".
Compressed music, takes less amp power to drive it to louder levels... which is why they started doing it. They tried to blame it on "The Loudness Wars".. but that was never the REAL truth. The Studios were infected by Eco-Radicals, quite some time ago... and they have single handedly Destroyed high dynamic audio.. as a result.
You can also measure just about every "Remaster" out there... and See the Dynamic Range, be Compressed to hell. All of it, is Intentional, Despite peoples anger about it.
@@intothevoid9831 See the albums from 70' and 80s I mentioned above and tell me if you really think they sound bad...
@@intothevoid9831stick to cocaine brother, if you dont like one or another album of dark side of the moon something is wrong with you😂
I would agree that as engineers were developing multi-track recorders, it provided greater opportunities for sound engineers, which can be both good and bad. The better studios and sound engineers were able to make some exceptional recordings while others struggled. Great example was Mick choosing the now famous Record Plant in Sausalito to record Rumours. The 2 sound engineers the recorded those tracks were already industry legends and the resulting recording is truly exceptional. There are other great recordings from that studio in the 70’s from Bob Marley, Sly & Family Stone, Santana, Grateful Dead, Peter Frampton…
Another famous studio with some truly brilliant recordings from 70’s is Fantasy Studios in Berkeley where CCR, Dave Brubeck and several others recorded. I have many direct from master 1/2” tapes from these studios that are exceptional sounding.
There are some really awful recordings from that era, especially the 80’s, but everything I own from those 2 studios is really exceptional
Amazing work for everyone.Thank you.
These tips are absolutely fascinating and educational for home recording artists like me,. tysm Paul
60s &70s recordings are infinitely better than to-day. stereo started in the late 50s
I agree with Paul, but can I point to the ditching of valve (tube) gear in the recording chain, AND the infiltration of cocaine into many producers' working lives...may seem trivial, but its not to be underestimated.
Cheers from London everyone!
Steve Lillywhite being a good example
I think the cocaine actually helped 🙄
Hello Paul, Love these video’s as well as your equipment! I want to add my 2 cents. I will take a well recorded album from the 70s on a great sound system every time over the pristine digitized sounds of today! Even the albums from the 50s, Big band Jazz albums. Massive depth and air in the mixes.
One aspect you failed to mention is the transition to solid state equipment along with the multi-tracking. Tubes were around for a while at that point. Solid State was new and developing. I think this happened in the 80's as well with recordings using early digital equipment. which can be hard to listen to, regardless of the performance. Hearing musicians perform together in a room has a quality that can't be duplicated and I think it connects with the listener is a more visceral way.
I haven’t thought about 70s and 80s rock being recorded poorly in a long time. It’s a wake up call for me to remember back to round out my knowledge of the timeline of our recordings were made. Great question! Educated answer!
With multitrack came close miking and a loss of ambience. I find most of the classic 70s to have a full sound, but dry. Of course by the end of the 80s and Phil Collins there was big reverb. The movement away from tube gear also had a learning curve.
Record companies make the music sound "good" on devices of the time. AM radio, portable 45s, FM radio, Music-centres, Walkmans, Home HiFi,, Mobile phone speaker, Bluetooth speaker.
Ian Anderson's comments on the production of Aqualung might be of interest. Paul's video made me chase down the timeline of Eno's work and the engineers he worked with. Interesting to see the progression and see who worked on what albums.
Depends on the recording tubular bells, sounds amazing
I was always told that the flat sound was because engineers were Compressing the sound to benefit radio Broadcast.
Paul, you mentioned a few times the word " life" . Yes the 70's recordings can sound worse compared to modern recordings but there is a big plus in the "old" way of recording to .
The fact that the band had limited technology to work with meant that they needed each other, there was that group dependency.
That dependency being joy of playing togther , frustration for not getting it right, fear of slipping the time window , you name it . all of that is adding an invisible layer to the recording. That's the emotional layer and without that emotional layer I'm not involved, I'm disconnect from the band .That's the 60's and 70's at their best
Many years ago I had some phase 4 LP records. They just sounded amazing to me. But they were very few and hard to find. Just wondering if you had the pleasure to ever hear one and what your thoughts are about these LPs. Thanks for all your great work
"Phase 4" was Decca's (London in USA) recording concept of extreme directionality and multi-miking. They were intended to sound good on console stereos where the speakers were a mere 24 inches apart. My late mother-in-law had such a console stereo. Phase 4 records sounded great on her stereo, and she loved 'em. On hi-end equipment, they can sound very exciting, but you need to leave concepts of "being in the concert hall" behind when you enjoy Phase 4 records.
Beatles get back album was recorded on 8 track. The documentary on Disney+ is a must watch for any music enthusiast. They also talk about Rolling Stones using an 8track and that’s why they got an 8 track for the project :)
Les Paul besides being an iconic guitarist he came up with the fist for of multi tacking in the studio! he then wanted to reproduce the multi track sound live at his gigs he invented a device which later evolved in to what is now vey popular the looper
I remember being in studio in the 80’ and there was those giant (2x15” and horn) monitors… I think that one of the problem was the engineers mixing in those boomy box. (Thin mix sounds better in those) And then, there was the end user playing that music in shit box that distort if bass frequency was under 80hz… so thin music sounds better two in cheap speakers… plus, when you add a lot of tracks on tape multitrack, you want to minimize noise and hiss and never overload, so you compress the signal a lot.
Fascinating discussion.
The 'OneMic Series' on YT is obviously mono, and mostly sounds pretty good. But in my experience in recording studios, it was the introduction of IC's in the mixers, and the circuit design for them that affected the sound quality the most IMHO (excluding the use of compression etc).
Some studio mixer manufacturers used 5532 IC's quite well, but many starting using the TL072/4 and TL082/4 which were awful for sound, regardless of their implementation.
I noticed that too, but from recordings from the mid to late 70s. A bit dull with top end reduced, as if it were a cassette master.
I am a huge music fan with a huge range probably the entire range of music falls into my scope from classical to reggae to rock , blues to jazz. There’s nothing I won’t listen to. What I listen to again and again are recordings that are dynamic and punchy which involve and immerse me, are exciting with plenty of dynamic range. Recordings like Love over gold. The LP sounds fantastic on my humble Thorn TD 160 Very deep, very resonant and blows me away each time I play it. Fast forward to modern times, since I have been listening to multi channel recordings I have found that 5.1 speakers allows each channel to to cope with a lot more detail and range than if it was just funnelled into two channels so old recordings remastered in multi channel have suddenly opened up and become incredibly interesting and exciting.
I.e. Pink Floyd‘s animals was always a dull uninteresting recording, even on CD it sounded dull but the new multi channel release has made it into an experience which I play again and again; it is involving and immersive. You can hear every single detail before the details were all hidden and muddy. multi channel recordings, The Doors, Deep Purple as well as classical record have proved the solution to complex recordings. For me it’s multichannel all the way .
Part of that depends on your Speakers. Lower quality Eco-Speakers, dont have enough magnetic strength... to be able to control the cone with precision accuracy. When many sounds are playing at the same time... you will notice some muddy distortions, where instruments... vocals..etc.. blend into each other... rather than remaining separate and well defined. If your speakers are good enough, they can maintain the proper cone control, and acceleration levels.. to be able to produce a Flawless representation of the original source. The details and separation, will remain... even when so many things are playing at the same time.
Now... realize, that the less you challenge your speakers... the less distortion potentials that there is to be had. For example.. if you play a single instrument + single vocalist on your stereo speakers.. both should be pretty clear. However, once you add in several more instruments, and some additional singers... things can quickly start to muddy... as the speaker is simply not able to keep up with all of the demands of the music.
This is why, when I first used my center channel on my 5.1 amp... with my crappy house speakers... I was floored at some of the differences. You see.. by diverting a lot of the sounds to a center speaker... it allowed the side speakers to play with FAR more clarity and separation. Why? Again, because... since there was less needed to be played/represented... it was far easier for the speakers to deliver the results, with far less Micro-Distortions.
That said, I hated using the Center channel... because the center never sounded good. It was way too limited... and way to notable. It seemed more like listening to Mono, than Stereo... for a good deal of the movie... so I stopped using it. Of course, that was with an old 5.1 system... and not even the new Digital Standard version of surround sound. Maybe things have improved enough to be Decent. I personally think there should be Two center speakers, rather than a single center.
The other part, might be if you are playing Re-Master CDs. Almost every Remaster Ive ever heard, has been Compressed to Hell, and sounds Flat, and like Garbage, as a result. While the marketing Hype is that Remasters are SUPPOSED to be superior... Ive NEVER found that to be the case. The studios have Screwed over countless people, with their awful compression levels. That goes doubly for something like Apple Itunes files. They too, are compressed to Hell... then they deceptively Upscale the files... to make them Artificially Larger, to SEEM like you are getting a high dynamic range file. Its not.
Now... I dont know what speakers, nor amp you use... nor have I really listened to the Animals cd (though, Im sure Ive heard songs from it, without researching it). All I can say, is that there are tons of 70s and 80s cds that I own, that are incredibly dynamic... with only 2 audiophile grade Speakers.
In fact, I never knew what Audiophile really meant, until I got hold of a pair of EPI 100v speakers (with the later model upgraded tweeter). The thing that jumped out at me immediately... was that the speakers sort of vanished. It was as if the sound appeared in the room, Holographically, with no Source of projection. The other thing I noted, was not much better the Bass sounded... as this was the first SEALED speaker... vs the crappy PORTED speakers that I was used too. The Bass was far more Luscious and "Musical". It had more Range. It wasnt Droning, and or Artificial sounding, like my Techniques 3-way house speakers. The holographic 3d effect, is hard to even describe. You can stand almost anywhere in the room, and still be getting a fantastic stereo 3d image. Even the worst speaker placements, do not seem to effect what you hear / experience. The final thing I noted... was when I believe I was playing a Phil Collins song. There was a part of the song, where I never knew what lyrics he was singing... because it got muddied with the background instruments. But these EPI speakers, were able to play so clearly... that I could make out every single Word.. without any strain! The vocals remained Crystal Clear.. as did the Backing Instruments. Everything remained well Defined and Separated. I was completely blown away.
I do think Multi Channel would be cool to mess with, in terms of music (Ive only used surround sound, for films). But, do realize, that good audio can sound very 3d, even with two speakers. It really depends on the level of your speakers... and the recording itself. Almost any Bi-Neural mic's... produce a level of 3d depth, that you dont typically get with standard recordings, for example. This is because they are capturing the actual ROOM, in the way that your ears would have actually heard things. The 3d Image, is thus Accurate and maintained in the recordings. Where as fake 3d stereo music.. is only as good as the engineers abilities to create a fake 3d depth "image".
Actually, One of my first entries into HD Audio, was Sennheiser HD 500 headphones. They had limitations on the high frequency spectrum... but they produced an amazing 3d effect. So much so... that when I played a dvd with them on at like 2am.. I thought my entire surround sound system was on. I quickly ripped them off while diving for my Amps speaker channel toggles... only to realize, that none of my speakers were On! Its not easy to fool me with audio... as I have extremely sensitive ears (even in my now elder age). Another time, one of my MP3s played... and it started out with the sound of Thunder, and then Rain. I cant tell you how many times, that I looked out to the nearest window... to see the "Storm" outside... only to be fooled by those headphones. Headphones that only had 2 drivers total.
@@johndough8115 thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I really appreciate the effort you put into that. So my loudspeaker are B&W matrix 3 The pre-amp is QUAD 44 however it has been extensively tuned, has an external power supply and the internals have been carefully rebuilt with specially selective components to provide a that has no noise whatsoever. I mean it is pin silent. The power amps are two QUAD 405 bi amped; They each have duel mono psu with decoupling caps across the main psu caps. The components on the boards have been significantly upgraded. These are also silent. There is zero distortion. Even with two channels every instrument, vocal, is clear and joyful, the bass is deep and controlled with a definition I’ve never heard out side of Abby road or Olympic or pinewood studios mixing theatres. The sound is about as non fatigueing as one could hope for. Even my hyper critical brother said if I’d have spent £20,000 it couldn’t be improved.
My point is that when I added a centre speaker and 2 rears and sub bass, I suddenly became part of the music instead of in the audience. The Beatles Abby road in 5.1 is a revelation as is The Doors LA Woman.
I agree with your point on over compression, is has ruined countless records.
It’s a bit like a 5 litre v8 will always be superior to a 2 litre 4 cylinder car bc it delivers effortless performance. The matrix 3e’s are about as transparent as one could imagine. Billy Cobhams Warning just jumps out in a way only the producer intended but in a tightly controlled excitingly dynamic way; each time I play it (from cd) I feel like Im hear ing it for the first time.
@@johndough8115 the other point is that I listen to a lot of sacd and dsd recordings and since discovering dsd my interest in old recordings increased immensely due to their far superior quality. Bob Dylan no w sounds like he’s in the middle of the room instead of somewhere over there
Some facts for those interested; Stereo recording began in 1943, and 3-track in 1948. Les Paul had an Ampex 8-track recorder installed in his home in 1957. The first 16-track Ampex recorder was installed at Mirasound Studios in 1967. You get the point by now.
We're going to need some examples of recordings this guy is referring to.
Peter Gabriels: Security album (1982) the CD master is one of the worst quality recordings I've ever heard,
Peter Gabriel's: I/O (2023) Is probably one the BEST quality recordings I've heard.
@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiterokay that's one example but that hardly qualifies for making sweeping generalizations about decades worth of recordings.
Some the absolute best / cleanest sounding recordings I've ever heard, are the old Stan Getz, Dinah Washington, Oscar Peterson era 2 track jazz recordings from the late 50's. Also the "newly" remastered 2 and 3 track "Living Stereo" RCA SACDs in the classical genre. Those sound as good as any modern all digital recording.
I collect classical, so I'm not well-informed about pop/rock from the 70s & 80s. But, isn't the flatness you describe a result of recording philosophies like Phil Specter's "wall of sound" concept? I think the idea was that maximum loudness from all directions tended to sell more records.
I collect classical, too, and while I find the sound quality of the recordings typically a lot better than with rock and pop recordings, nevertheless many classical recording became over-mic'd and over-closely-mic'd during the same period of time that rock and pop did, also diminishing the sense of a soundstage and overall realism of the sound as a concertgoer would hear it.
Most pop music from the 80’s sounds completely anaemic. No bass whatsoever. I think it’s because of the use of cheap vinyl. Today it’s almost a bit too much bass, particularly in the 60-80Hz region. I use EQ on most 70’s and 80’s. Oh, and remember the SOS technique Paul! I believe the Beatles pioneered it.
I listen to a lot of 60/70/80's music on the original LP's 90% is of those are beautifully recorded and sound great! Did he heard these old recordings digitally or on vinyl? Tape to vinyl is great! For the music then maybe it's not audiophile approved but who cares.
It's called "the wall of sound" syndrome. We do it in broadcasting by crunching the hell out of everything.
"Was everyone just too high and stoned?" Lol.
That was an era during which record companies were still aggressive in acquiring and recording new artists. Some of the recordings were made by experienced people that knew what they were doing but a great many were made in small studios with very limited equipment and engineering expertise. Additionally, a lot of music recorded on analog equipment was later digitized badly; this is particularly notable on early CD pressings of music originally released as an LP and then rereleased as a CD. This is evident in some files delivered via various streaming services as well. Finally, many recording studios and musical artists simply did not keep track of or maintain the original master tapes and these degraded over time to the point that their sound quality is as described by the writer. So, the answer is, no, these recordings don't sound this way because 'everybody was so stoned'.
80's maybe, with all the synth pop and hasty vinyl production had some thin sounding stuff, but the good 70's albums are most of my demo albums.
Central Limit Theorem: "track after track after track" -> Gaussian noise.
Yes, presumably recording engineers got carried away with the technology just because they could push it. More and more tracks also goes along with closer and closer miking I assume- which helps to collapse the sense of a real soundstage.
I think about what Jimi Hendrix would have sounded like with more modern equipment. Love his stuff but the technology was limited compared to the 70s and 80s.
It’s the the RIIA curve and the loudness wars that cause the main difference between the 50’s and 80’s
I bought Steely Dan's Gaucho (LP) in the mid 80's. What makes that recording so different?
An amorphous mass of sound from too many unrelated tracks from different acoustic surroundings. Expecting a coherent result from such a mishmash, especially with electronic "positioning" of the individual tracks, is a pure pipe dream. Want it to sound "real" and "live" requires recording it real and live. In the "good old days" microphone positioning was a true artform, as opposed to close mic on everything and trying to "fix" it in the console. (A "soundstage" comes from a true physical layout. Our brains are more sophisticated at processing sounds that most give credit.)
As an example most of the Beatles recordings were recorded on 4 track recorders and mixed to mono. The very earliest were 2 track recorders and some of the White Album was done on 8 track. These are the LPs that were recently re- released as mono recordings because that’s how they were initially mixed. Abbey Road was the first Beatles album done on 16 tracks. All done in the 60s.
I also notice how good some of the late 50s recordings sounded. There are modern so called "audiophile albums" you can buy and they sound amazing and I think wouldn't it be good if all albums good sound this good.
Often mastering engineers back then would roll off the bottom end a bit to keep the stylus from jumping out of the groove. Also, mixing engineers, knowing the practical limitations of mass market LPs, would deliberately create bass-shy mixes, knowing that the low end would be otherwise rolled off in the mastering suite.
Deaf engineers is the reason that the sound was flat. Those deaf engineers produced for the limited bandwidth of early FM radio - to sell more records. Loudness wars happened to get the most gain and attention.
Is that FR20 on the left? Why is soo big compare to FR30?
That music was mastered to sound good on your car radio where it had to compete with road noise.
the advancement of multi-channel tape recordings. Thinner tracks mean thinner bass.
What's this guy talking about? There was excellent sounding music throughout 70s and 80s. People are weird.
It was hit or miss back then. You had bands that recorded great sound like Pink Floyd and Rush and then there was a lot of others who seemed to have about 6 hours of studio time to record a whole album so basically they did it live with very little editing and production. Today they just turn it to a 1000 to cover up everything.
@finscreenname -most people complain over things that are so finite and irrelevant. I have listened to music for many decades. The majority is great.
It's not multi-track recording that could be a problem, but the move to solid state recording and mixing vs. tube (valve) based. That said, most new recordings from the same artist sound better than their old ones (to me). So the newer Beatles recordings such as Abbey Road sound better than their old ones, in terms of sound quality. Newer albums by The Who are going to sound clearer than older ones, etc.
Some of those old beloved 60's recordings sound murky to me. Now there are some cases of bad digital mastering, compression, etc. but that's an issue beyond the original recording quality. While there aren't a lot of "new" recordings that I love due to the quality of the music, the sound quality is often excellent now vs. then. Compare the sound quality of Tom Petty's "Hypnotic Eye" album (2014) vs. his self-titled debut (1976) and it's clear that the newer recording quality is far superior.
I think the switch from tubes to transistors, especially in the era when transistors were new were as responsible for bad recordings as overdubbing was. The Beatles' late albums were sodden with twentieth-generation tracks that didn't display any room ambience... flat, flat, flat. Steeley Dan's recordings were very overrated. Also flat and hard and glassy. I have way more lousy-sounding LPs (especially by Cream and other loud bands) than I have lousy-sounding CDs because the transistor technology had matured (in my opinion), and the dynamic range had increased because of the elimination of the hill-and-dale stylus tracking. Of course, I don't listen to much music from the sound-wars compression era.
I've noticed this as well and the "better" equipment I aquire the worse it gets. Totally lacking bottom end and punch. I'm referring to the 70's and much of the 80's recordings.
IMO at least part of this problem is due to faking stereo placement of individual tracks, by use of multi-track recordings and a mixing board -- _especially_ when every damn track is close-mic'd.
There's just no way for that to ever sound as 'real' as a more typical live-to-2-track stereo recording from the 50's or 60's. All those close mics being mixed creates a listening perspective that is literally impossible -- you can't simultaneously have one ear about 6 inches from the guitar amp, another ear 6 inches from the vocalist, another ear 6 inches from the snare drum, another ear 6 inches from a tambourine...
People only have two ears. And no sane person puts their head 6 inches from a guitar amp. So, part of sounding 'good' is sounding realistic, and that means a mix that is actually possible, instead of definitely impossible Don't even get me started on tracks moving around the mix, via the pan pots -- ever seen a flying guitar amp? Me neither...
Having the entire band playing/recording, live to 2 tracks, necessitates some kind of studio room that sounds good, when an entire band is crammed into it. One room means one coherent set of spatial cues, etc. The entire mix is coherent, because it comes from reality, instead of a crummy pseudo-reconstruction of reality (multi-track mix).
Another part of the problem is the 'upgrades' that guitar amps of the 70s and 80s got -- a perfect example is the difference between a black face Fender and a silver face... think about it -- which sounds better, and what was the last year of production? 1968, IIRC. Coincidentally, right at the decade change from the 60s to the 70s.
And lastly, the style of music changed, to use different instruments, tones, vocal arrangements, etc. that just won't ever sound as good as the 50s or 60s.
Todd Rundgren did an amazing job *by himself* on 3 of the 4 sides of the double album Something / Anything?.
Half of the Beatles "Let It Be" was recorded live on a roof top!
Radio loudness wars - Rock was mastered to sound best on your car radio (first AM then FM). and the loudest stations had the best ratings. And that meant the dynamics were squashed and now sound flat. That’s what happened.
Close studio micing and center channel panning is not the same as a live performance recording. Thelma Houston & Pressure Cooker - I've Got The Music In Me direct to disc is a perfect example. Her and each instrument was very closely mic'd. Each is extremely crisp and clear. But there is no depth to it. With my Maggies she has a 6 foot tall mouth. I rep'ped the Sheffield line at the time and all the dealers complained about it. Even though the pressing was very well received by the public.
I was repping Audio and living in Nashville in the mid '70's and calling on studios. It seemed obvious to me that center channel panning was all wrong. All it did was vary the relative volume of that object between channels. In a true stereo recording you would have to create delays as well. A joy stick was needed to pan levels as you move side to side and create delays as you move it forward and back. e.g. all the way 6 o'clock forward would be equal levels to each channel with the individual channel signals delayed slightly from the center. 12 O'clock would be side channels leading the center.
What is that gray thing to the left??? Looks foxy🎉
Aspen FR20
I think it's the reflection of the FR30 on the side of the black lacquered speaker
Sometimes less is more.
Interesting that it's an overzealous adoption of a new technology. Not the first time.
To me 60s and 70s rock sounds like the tape was just over saturated. Too many instruments playing too loud.
well there was good recordings back then from England Germany other parts of Europe, America was naff RCA worst ever label. you have to get English recordings first pressings or second.
a lot of people saying that American stuff is flat and that's American saying that. just found this band haven't heard for 20 years managed to find them eventually unsigned but we're very good from Sheffield and Manchester in the late 90s early 2000s Karman should be more well known maybe it's still time for them you can catch them on sound cl..... Karman(uk)
its my goal to make this band to have popularity,
it's a shame so many good bands out there that are unknown why??? check them out tell me what you think!
indie rock
This is not the whole story. I have brilliant full sounding recordings of lesser known artists from the seventies that are some of the best sounding.
At least, many recordings of the last decades, especially pop music, was optimized to sound on the popular gear of that time, and that was mostly no HiFi setup. It was radio, cheap record players, Walkman, car stereo, Discos etc. And these don't like high level and deep frequencies in the bass at all, neither great dynamics also because of listening environtment.
Frankly speaking, I think that a lot of music released today is of subterranean quality (and I'm only talking about vinyl). My impression is that a lot of newly released music is primarily mixed to be played on smartphones or tablets - and in order for something like bass to come out of it, the music actually only consists of bass. And if you then play it on a stereo system, it's too fat at the bottom. I don't really see that with the mixes from the last millennium.
Wow STEREO is enough.Some people will not be satisfied even if will have the TECH for 1000 track
Trevor Horn apparently had a fondness for Temple Balls. Yet he produced some of the best sounding records of the 80’s. Steve Lillywhite had a coke habit and he produced some of the most muddy sounding records during this decade
too much of anything is Nutin
Paul, AGAIN, , 24 track is 2", I have a 16 track here and it is 1" tape. Had corrected you on this before. 😐
check them out Paul that band maybe you could sign them, wouldn't mind to see some vinyl records they do some acoustic numbers as well. one of my best bands of all time got to be in the top 4.
one of my favourite songs is (see you next time), I'll give you the lyrics.
I don't see you anymore it's like I never knew you at all, stood at the station resigned to walking it's years since I was down that way and times a great divider, i spent six sick months planning what to say as I stood beside her she said nothing..... she said nothing..... tell me all the things you wanted to see I will tell you all of the things I wish you'd never have been, now you're livid that you are now turning blue that time stood still behind us tracking up the lies inside behind as I lay beside her, she said I'll take a piece of you with me take a piece of me with you.. I'll take a piece of you with me take a piece me you like I need it all.. like I want it... I never see you anymore it's like I never knew you at all..now we are stood at the station but resigned to talking... repeated lyrics first verse. acoustic guitar solo etc etc. you need to hear the songs the acoustic and the rock version, both good all the songs are fantastic there's not a bad song they've made inthe lineup, that is very rare for me to like every song by a album. I encourage you to have a listen Paul like your opinion I don't think you will be disappointed. I have no association with this band except I love their music. he is a great singer and there's some great lyrics the band play tight what is there not to love??? @PSaudio
CLOSE your eyes and listen MUSIC.
I think it has more to do with available playback devices. In the 50s 60s it was single driver speakers and mids and mid bass were were king. 70 80s we had these huge reveivers with loudness and bass controls and big woofer speakers like JBL and Cerwin vega. Flat recordings were ok because we had knobs to boost it. 90s 2000s it was huge car and home stereos and Madonna pop. Everything was boosted . Lows mids and highs. Lots of everything. Music died after that so who cares....lol
It's all down to the arrangement not the number of tracks etc..
Make sure you're not listening to record club pressings ;-)
It depends on the taste of the producer.
An 'honest' recording is Not bass-heavy.
Most modern recordings Are bass-heavy.
0:30 LOL
"My name is Paulo...and I was at the studio of Giorgo"...*music*
Original 80s recordings sound fine to me, its the remasters that dwstroyed the 70s and 80s recordings
You forgot to mention Les Paul who was doing multiple tracks in the '50's.
Wall of sound...
Has anyone else found phone recordings to sound more life-like and compelling than mega buck pro recordings?
It's probably cause phones have directional microphones now
Studios started HEAVILY compressing their CDs, starting in the 90s. Each progressing year forwards... they increased compression levels. This is why most new audio, sounds like Flat Garbage. Apple Itunes also does the same with their music files. They compress them to hell... then Upscale them into larger file sizes... to make it SEEM like you are getting good quality files. Instead, they are selling you utter Garbage quality files.
You can easily tell the difference between DVD or Bluray audio... and modern 90s+ CD audio... because the Eco-Radicals have not yet managed to Mass Infect Hollywood... to the point of Destroying Film Audio Quality. That said, I stopped watching most new films, because they are total Radicalized Trash, with bad actors, awful dialog, horrendous CGI, and godawful Misandry. Heck, even the Soundtracks to films, are often far worse than the older films. Dune was basically just the same few sounds, played on loop. Compare that to the original "Nightmare on Elm Street", and be prepared for a shocking difference.
Anyone with a Tascam recorder can record a live band and get better 3D imaging than virtually any studio recording. This among other reasons is why I've refuted all the Audiophile hype over gear being the source of 3D imaging. It's literally all in your head, and thus for some, spending mass amounts of money on their systems amounts to a 3D imaging placebo.
@@xxxYYZxxx The first pair of Auidophile Headphones I purchased, were the Sennheiser HD 500. When I got home, I didnt open them up and use them, until like 2 am. I had a surround sound Amp, with 4 techniques 12" 3-way speakers... all hooked up to my PC...
I put a DVD into my tray, and clicked Play. Suddenly, the music BLASTED at high volume levels.. while others in the house would have been sleeping. I ripped off my headphones, thinking that all of my speakers were on... and DOVE for the Amps speaker toggles... only to realize, that NONE of my speakers were on. I was Completely Shocked, that a headphone could fool me, to such a degree.
That level of Clarity, and 3d Holography, never happened on ANY of the other +30 headphones that Id owned + destroyed, before that point. None even came CLOSE to that level. It was not a "Placebo" effect. It was the proper 3D Image, being generated in such a way... to be able to fool ones senses.
One of my MP3 players tracks... has a song on it, that starts out with thunder, and then rain. When it would play... I would get fooled into looking out the nearest window... every single time. I decided to test this out on my father. I handed him the player, and asked him to listen to something. I hit play... and as soon as the thunder and rain started playing.. he instantly looked out of the nearest window. It was Actually that convincing.
So, no... your Theory about Audio Gear being the Weak link, is largely False.
Not all high end Audio, is equal. Not all high end headphones, will be as convincing, for example. But if you find the right Gear... its pure Holographic Magic. Especially with the right recordings.
A&M CDs have excellent sonics.
"Pink Floyd" and "Fleetwood Mac" were mastered in the 70s, and they DON'T sound remotely flat! ... Perhaps somebody needs to visit the Doctor's Office to have their ears syringed? 🤣
Please note, although I used an Americanism, "Doctor's Office," I'm actually located in the United 🇬🇧 Kingdom, and we call it a "Doctor's Surgery."
Sorry to say that, but that's a glorified look to the past with some serious factual errors regarding multitrack (Les Paul did 8 tracks with a special Ampex machine already in 1954!), overdubs (1940s) and audio compression (since mid 1930s) back then. You can find recordings from nowadays with more than 1000 tracks that have more dynamics than some of the mono and stereo "live" recordings with Phil Spector or at Abbey Road in the 60s (which also had multiple tracks, bouncing stages and overdubs - sometimes done in a "ping-pong" bouncing process with a loss of audio quality).
I am a big fan of Giorgio Moroder, who was a way ahead of his times....
Really good musicians and engineers wouldn't need dozens of tracks for a small group of musicians to make a decent recording..
As tracks became cheap, their implementatation was abused, as always seems to happen with technology.
Look at what the "benefit" of dynamic range from digital audio technology did to CD mastering. 😉
Edit: Btw, such abuse is typically a result of either greed or ignorance.
I love the music on Layla, but the recording is terrible.
Try the version on 'The lady in the balcony', that's not a bad sounding album.
@@peterlarkin762 I actually meant the entire double album, but I'll look out for that version
Pity Hendrix albums were not better recorded.
I have no idea what this dude is Smokin! Some of The best Dynamic music Ive heard, is from the 70s and 80s. If they are hearing "Flat" sounding music... its probably because they downloaded their music from Apple's Itunes. Apple Compresses ALL of their Audio to absolute Hell... which is why it sounds annoyingly FLAT. If you want to hear the original dynamics, hunt down the original CDs, and Compare against your Crappy Itunes files. Make sure to use a headphone / speaker, thats actually capable of revealing the depths of the differences. That said, even the lower tier gear, will still likely reveal Massive differences.
No, Apple Music is lossless and hires lossless in Alac format.
@@mrpmj00 The Format is Lossless. But the original Music was first Compressed, then Converted into a Lossless format.
Basically, its stripped of its High Definition, before it was turned into a Lossless file format.
You can do the same thing with an Image. Take a 4k photo... and convert it into a 640x480 resolution. Now... Upscale it back up to 4k resolution. Its going to look like CRAP... but, you can now SAVE it as a lossless file. It might be a Lossless file, but the actual Photo itself.. is NOT actually the same 4K photo anymore. Its now missing like 80% of the original Details. One can easily tell this, by zooming in (heck, you might not even have to zoom in).
With Music... its easier to Fool idiots like yourself. If you dont have the EARS to hear the difference... and or, you simple "Believe" Apples claims of quality... Then you will NEVER KNOW... unless you run the file through an Audio Program, that shows the Dynamic Range (and compare it against the Dynamic Range of the Original CD releases).
Motown records sound good.
Loudness wars
Loudness war started in the 90's.
Just look at different albums from same artist in the DR.Loudness database.
@@bergennorway Wrong. Most compressors used nowadays have their roots in inventions from the 50s und 60s. Even back then records were heavily compressed. Take some of the "wall of sound" records from producer Phil Spector from the 60s. You could draw a straight line from start to end on the top end of the level. Nearly no dynamic.
@@Fastvoice When people talk about «Loudness war», they normally think of CD’s and digital mastering, and their compressed dynamics.
I don’t care about «loudness war» at FM radio, here in Norway we hardly use FM anymore, radio here is digital.
Luckily I was born in the 70’s, so a lot of my CD’s has good/great dynamic range.
Compressors used during recordings is normal, but limiting/compressing the dynamic range should not be done!
Because so much of today's music is so compressed an older recording can sound flat simply because it isn't perceived as loud. You probably need to adjust your volume accordingly especially because of the Fletcher Munson curve.
I think this guy is high, because music recorded in the 50 and 60s was terrible for the most part. Elvis and the Beatles were not recorded well. If you have a highly resolving system they do not sound good. However, most rock bands in the 70s sound amazing. Dark Side???? The wall??? The list goes on and on. Put the ear buds down and get a better system and you can clearly see that 70s and 80s music amazing for the post part.
first!
th-cam.com/video/cH8iv4n2kco/w-d-xo.html
Last!
So sad.
Indeed, live recordings with little processing sound the most dynamic, but a good mic setup is key. 70's & 80's material varies a lot, some sounds good, some sounds flat. It is the 90's and later studio products I have an issue with; far too much compression in general. Fortunately there is music good enough artistically that I can live with the compression. Nevertheless, my favourite material is still live recordings in small venues issued by the venues' management rather than the record label. The _mix_ isn't always perfect but there is usually little in the way of compression. Rarely available on CD or as a download, but there are plenty of those recordings on TH-cam.
Late 50’s & early to mid 60’s mono records are phenomenal sounding despite not using a true mono cartridge. 1958 mono copy of Soultrane is $800 on Discogs!
Good question
Too stoned? The Grateful Dead made the very finest sounding studio recordings during the 70's and 80's. It's really just a question of your honesty, yeah - your honesty.
Man if you genuinely think the Grateful Dead is the peak of 70s recording techniques, then you live in a serious bubble.
@@intothevoid9831 Besides the G/D releasing some of the best sounding studio recordings of all time, my point was in response to the "...were they too stoned..." comment. If you want to compare recordings, post yours first and I'll retort.