2. analog
  3. 1362462514

Recording quality by decade

As I've been listening to my records, a pattern seemed to emerge that prompted this question - did the recording technology advance significantly between the previous decades and the mid/late '70s? Most of the classic rock records I own pressed in the '60s sound like crap compared to the classic rock records recorded in the mid to late '70s.

My Cream, Doors, Led Zeppelin, Beatles, and Jimi Hendrix records, just to mention the biggest acts, sound awful compared to Pink Floyd, Foreigner, Supertramp, Kate Bush, Rickie Lee Jones, or Fleetwood Mac records I have that were released in the '70s (and '80s). There are arguably a few exceptions, such as good pressings of some of the Led Zeppelin records, but on average any record recorded and pressed in the '60s sounds just bad compared to most records from the '70s and '80s. All of the Cream records I have are just painful to listen to - muddled, veiled, flat, and essentially garage quality.

I understand I'm making a big generalization, but seriously, I can't think of one record from the '60s that sounds really good. This puzzles me as there is a plethora of superbly recorded jazz records from not only the '60s, but also the '50s. Has anyone else noticed this?
actusreus
tonywinsc
583 posts
 
If I were to generalize based upon my experience, Classical and Jazz recordings from the 50s up to 1980 are generally superb. I don't have a lot; but friends of mine that were deep into classical and another into Jazz had some outstanding mono recordings from the 50s. Some early Muddy Waters will keep you pinned to your seat. After 1980 digital mastering became popular. I have a few classical recordings that were made from digits. They sound pretty good until you put on an older analog recording and then the space opens up.
To me, the Beatles White Album (serialized pressings) from the 60s sounds really good; but in general, it seems rock from the 70s just never got to the level of Jazz recordings with some exceptions like Heart, Pink Floyd and Eric Clapton. He rocks. There are others too but I will still listen to many lower grade pressings for the music. I like ELP's early records but I swear at times I'm about ready to put a penny on my headshell. (Gasp!)
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,213 posts
 
"Some early Muddy Waters will keep you pinned to your seat."

I have some newer CD remasters of early Muddy Waters tracks (mono) that sound absolutely stunning!

In general, I think I find that most GOOD modern digital remasters of old stuff like that sounds really quite excellent! It tells me that digital these days especially on a MODERN rig is capable of delivering quality sound that can rival the best recordings from the "golden age of hifi". ANd of course the original vinyl on a modern system in particular is capable of taking old recordings to new heights.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
dbphd
1,628 posts
 
Mapman,

I've been comparing the sound of vinyl played on a TD 124 with SME Series III arm and Ortofon SME H30 cartridge with that of SACDs played on an Oppo BDP-105. Both sources are analog into a Cary Cinema 11a set to bypass. Specifically, the vinyl and SACD recordings of Jazz at the Pawnshop and Time Out sound remarkably similar, both having great timbre detail and soundstage. For me, the bottom line is SACD is easy, vinyl more fun -- I enjoy all the adjustment devices on the TD 124 and SME arm. Choice depends on my mood and purpose.

db
schubert
7,386 posts
 
It wasn't called sex, drugs and rock and roll for nothing.
Before computers, smartphones and HT ate up all the consumer income, music and stereo were BIG business, rock records were made in the hundreds of millions in the 60's. Sound not a priority .
swanny76109
382 posts
 
Watch the Dave Grohl documentary Sound City. It's a pretty good survey of how recording technology peaked in the 70s and digital did it in during the 80s and how pro tools leaves us now. Very good stuff.
More to discover