Recording during the 70's

tak1

... as the Recording Industry moved from tube equipment to solid state ... say from late 60’s to late 70’s, it took almost a decade for sound engineers to get "the bugs" out of the ss equipment which is why recordings from the 80’s generally sound better than those from the 70’s ... There were some exceptions however in the 70’ ... but there are many LPs from that decade that were just horrible ... love Jethro Tull’s Agualung, but that album along with say, what Boston (another great group) put out .... terrible .... seem to be representative generally .... so much mush.

I think you’re mistaken. There have always been badly made records. After all, it’s much easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right. In general, I think what you may be noticing is record pressing quality, which in the ’70s was affected by oil embargoes. There was a lot of bad vinyl at that time - some of it recycled, and sometimes with flecks of record labels in the mix - and I still have some examples of it.

In particular, your mention of the Boston album rather proves my point. That is an extraordinarily well recorded and produced LP, but most pressings don’t really reveal it. CBS Mastersound released a half-speed pressing of that LP that is a sonic masterpiece.

This is not true of Classical EMI,DECCA etc the quality remained the same.

I listened to vinyl for about three hours last night. With the exception of one stereo record, all of the rest were recorded in mono. They were all original pressings.

Brubeck’s "Jazz Impressions of The USA," Miles Davis’ "Round Midnight," and Chet Baker’s "Pretty Groovey" were "in the room" amazing. Who needs stereo when there are mono records like these to listen to?

Frank

You've inadvertantly muddled several different things together and drawn bad conclusions as a result.  

The number one factor in sound quality is the talent of the recording engineer. Going from tube to solid state never was a factor because the best recording engineers always used the best as selected by ear. But then the next number one factor is the mastering. Then with records you get the real number one problem: the pressing!

Which is why I am with tablejockey, the pressing is the problem. Tom Port deserves major credit for recognizing just how much variability there is between seemingly identical pressings of the same record.  

Also besides finding absolutely stunning sound quality records you will find an impressive amount of information at better-records.com it is unfortunately scattered around the site and hard to find, but its as accurate as it is hard to believe. Honestly until you hear a White Hot Stamper you have no idea what the recording quality was. You only know what the pressing quality is of the particular copy random chance put in your hand. 

That is not to say all White Hot Stampers are created equal. Peter Gabriel So, Fleetwood Mac Rumours, Tom Petty Southern Accents, and the Beatles Help! (to name a few of mine) are all completely different recordings, White Hot or otherwise. It is not like The Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen are going to magically sound all audiophile perfect just because Tom Port found a good pressing. They simply did not put a lot of effort into recording quality, and it shows. Although even here there are exceptions, as Darkness on the Edge of Town, maybe because of The Mastering Lab? https://www.better-records.com/product.aspx?pf_id=sprindarkn_1910_4   I don't know. Mention it only to make the point vinyl is so individualized you have to be careful making generalizations about it.

I find that people like the OP who seemingly have an axe to grind over one or two experiences, use highly inflammitory words like "terrible or horrible" in order to make their point but in reality, it doesn't rise to that point by most thoughtful people.