Calling all Recording Engineers


I am a jazz fan and alot of the CD's I have were origionally recorded in the late 1950's and early 1960's. I have quite a few CD's from the Bill Evans Trio, Art Blakely, Miles etc. that were recorded in this time period and they are absolutely superb, far superior to some CD's I have that were recorded recently. I would have thought that with today's digital recording techniques, this would not be possible. I am simply curious why and thank you all in advance for your explanations.
liguy
Excellent points Frogman! I know you are a Bill Evans fan. On his album "Waltz for Debbie" the drummer uses brushes quite alot. On one particular number (I do not recall which) he rubs his brushes on his snare and it is the most live sounding recording I have ever heard. I could of swore the guy was in my living room with his snare and brushes. This recording was done on analog tape and it is one of the best I have ever heard, "pure ear candy". Funny thing is, with all the advanced digital do-dad's available today this recording which was done in 1961 is still the best IMHO.
Do you agree?
I'm not sure it's the best, but it certainly is one of the great jazz recordings of all time. Aside from the usual superb playing by Evans, that recording captures the sound and feeling of the Village Vanguard like no other that I have heard. I had the privilege of hearing Evans three times at the Vanguard, and have been there probably somewhere around twenty times over the years to hear other artists, so the characteristic sound of that club is familiar to me. It's really spooky how a recording can take you back to a particular venue if it's done right. The only problem for me with that recording, and it's a very minor one, is that at the Vanguard the piano is on the left as the audience faces the musicians. On "Waltz For Debby" one gets the perspective of the club from the bandstand facing the audience; in other words the piano is on the right. By the way and speaking of drummers, the last time I heard Evans he was auditioning drummers. That night Bob Moses and Joe LaBarbera took turns. To me LaBarbera was far superior in that setting; very intuitive and with a wonderful touch. Great brushes too. Regards.
Frogman, you lucky dog! I have not been fortunate enough to have seen the Bill Evans Trio play live. I live on Eastern Long Island and have to travel to NYC for good jazz. I try to stop by Fat Tuesdays and the Blue Note whenever I am in the city but I have never seen anybody as good as the Bill Evans Trio. I will be seeing Cassandra Wilson at the Planting Fields Aboretum this summer though. I can't wait. Think I will go listen to some Art Blakely now. Ciao...
Frap and ALbert both make valid points. Everything was very simple back then...the recorders were usually 2 or 3 track, not 4,8,16,24,48, or in the digital realm, 100+. A 2 or 3 track, 1/2" or 1" tape devotes more space to each track than a 1/2" or 1" tape that holds 8 or 16 tracks. The recorders, preamps and microphones were all top notch...as a matter of fact, they're still favored today (some in the form of reproductions).

They were also recorded on analog tape, as compared to Chesky or Stereophile recordings. Those people make very well engineered, digital recordings, but some people prefer the sound that the analog tape (and the tape compression) impart on the recording.

I think the main difference between then and now is in the engineering know-how. I'm definitely not saying that engineers don't know what they're doing today...they do...but many aren't accustomed to the basic recording that best captures an orchestra or a jazz band. They're used to close micing, multi-tracking, using a lot of outboard gear, digital recording, etc. The old engineers had no choice at that time...they mastered that simple form of recording. As mentioned above...I would also say that's one reason the Beatles albums sound much better than their pop contemporaries. They were recording in a top studio with George Martin and Geoff Emerick...two guys who had a lot of experience with orchestras and comedy records (Peter Sellers), and they knew how to record things properly (although, they certainly learned how to compress stuff and mess with the sound too).
Kudos to all who've responded. As with much in popular culture, there is a tendency to sink towards the lowest common denominator. The only force that seems to be able to raise itself above the average is "talent". To a large extent, talent makes the technology irrelevant. There's nothing "wrong" with synthesizers, multi-track recorders, samplers, spot miking, or any of the other modern recording tools. The question is whether the musicians and the engineers have the talent to maximize the technology? Apparently, very few do.

BTW, the Beatles were among the first to use 8 and 16 track recorders. They loved the freedom the increased number of tracks afforded. Then again, they were talented.