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
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.
buconero117
2,311 posts
 
In all decades their were few great engineers that produced great recordings. They knew how to put the tape machines, mics and processors together an make outstanding recordings. Sadly, they never got the recognition they deserved.
robsker
132 posts
 
The jazz recordings made from 1958-1963 were, in general, recorded with better sound than in any other time period (amazingly, including even today). Modern jazz recordings do not have (generally) the stereo imaging of the classic recordings. Today they tend to center-fill each soloist and not have them in a natural position like they did in 58-63. Those older recordings sound more "real" and natural than most modern recordings. They had much wider sound stages with instrumentalists playing from their positions on the stage --- rather than centering each soloist dead center. That said, Nagel Heyer out of Germany records modern jazz well.
marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
there were good and bad sound engineers from 1950's uptill now, but in general the recording equipment today is WAY better than in 1950's.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,213 posts
 
"The jazz recordings made from 1958-1963 were, in general, recorded with better sound than in any other time period (amazingly, including even today)."

That was the time when stereo lps started to hit the market. Sound quality was a selling point and major labels touted their wares accordingly. It was a true golden age for music lovers. The sound quality possible was the culmination of many years of technological developments prior! Good sound gradually became a commodity after that. That's where we stand today. More good sounding recordings of a greater variety accumulated over time than ever, but not all can be winners. 50 years later, there are lots of good recordings and much better equipment to play it on than ever. No audiophile should be complaining IMHO. But have we hit the plateau in regards to how good a recording can sound? I suspect we may be getting pretty close, at least until someone comes up with a way to improve our ears as much as the stuff we listen to has improved over the last century.
More to discover