Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Old analog recording vs new digital recording
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Old analog recording vs new digital recording - Page 2

post #16 of 26

Do you know what a 4 dB boost above 7kHz sounds like? That is slightly over the line of a noticeable difference in the frequency spectrum that is less important than the others to music. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Plus, the 4dB is a nice smooth line. Simple to correct for with EQ.

 

Compared to response curves of speakers and headphones and even tube amps, this is as flat as a pancake.

post #17 of 26
DG in the 60s did notoriously thin-sounding recordings. It was partly aesthetic, partly simply to do with making records that wouldn't have the needle jumping out of the groove on the turntable. Dynamic range was limited by that, and the master recordings limited by tape saturation limits. Mixing and mic techniques varied widely. I always preferred the sonic characteristics of Philips recordings from that era.

But I do think a lot of it had to do not with equipment but with aesthetic preferences. You can learn to enjoy those, once your ears have recovered from current squashed loud recording conventions, which I think are far worse.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanonathena View Post

Hi there

I always had this question that bothers me, I found recent digital recording sound noticeably clearer and more defined than analog recording in the 70s. Admittedly, I only heard analog recorded music converted to digital format like Karajan's Bruckner symphonies, I found the sound to be thin and shrill, not rich and meaty. Take a even more extreme case, comparing Beatles' recordings to Lady Gaga's recording, the sound is much worse. I am sure the difference has to do with other aspects of recording being improved over time.

This bothers me when I choose classical CDs, lots of good recording are made in Karajan's generation (70s or even early) but I really can't enjoy the shrill sound of these recordings. Even though they are digitally mastered, the tone just sound totally off. Can someone please clarify on this please?

The ugly truth:
it depends......
you can find terrible new and old digital recordings and analog recordings
you can find outstanding new and old digital and analog recordings

check out some of the modern Reference Recordings (that's the name of a company)
check out some of the classic RCA and Mercury classical recordings.
post #19 of 26

i guess it,sounds great even as far back as 1954. But a lot of pop music in the early 70s was heavily overdubbed and turned into sound soup.thanks

11.gif

post #20 of 26

It depends on your definition of "sounds great". I have 78s from the late 20s and early 30s that are well balanced, sound full and have clear presence. They aren't hifi, but they sound great anyway. Great sound is a matter of the way the music is recorded.

post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by willgobiqu View Post
 

i guess it,sounds great even as far back as 1954. But a lot of pop music in the early 70s was heavily overdubbed and turned into sound soup.thanks

11.gif

 

There are a few excellent sounding pop records from way back in the 70s

 

Like Supertramp's "Crime Of The Century"

Heart's "Dreamboat Annie"

Cat Steven's "Tea For The Tillerman".

post #22 of 26

I don't know about the other two, but Crime of the Century was not particularly good on first release. The pressing was noisy and I had to return a couple of copies because of warps. That album didn't sound good until the half speed mastered copy came out. I imagine the CD blows that away now. The mix could quite certainly be described as soupy though, but that was Alan Parsons' style.

 

The best sounding vinyl from that era was Steely Dan. (at least after Aja) I think they had some sort of arrangement with the record company to give them better than average recording facilities and pressings.


Edited by bigshot - 11/8/13 at 5:41pm
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

There are a few excellent sounding pop records from way back in the 70s

Like Supertramp's "Crime Of The Century"
Heart's "Dreamboat Annie"
Cat Steven's "Tea For The Tillerman".

I have all of these on gold cd and they sound excellent. Heart blows me away every time is listen to it. The Mofi COTC is one of the most dynamic CDs I own. It's almost too dynamic.
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioking59 View Post

I have all of these on gold cd and they sound excellent. Heart blows me away every time is listen to it. The Mofi COTC is one of the most dynamic CDs I own. It's almost too dynamic.

Hey, thanks for the tip!
I'll have to pick up a copy of MoFi's COTC!
post #25 of 26

my band rehearses in a furnished living room with heavy curtins and stuff. the riffs we crank out come out sounding darn close to that procol harem tune, with a bit less white and more pale. I mean the video itself looks like the music, all rounded and muted. It's a fantastic experience. It only sounds off to you because you grew up in a digital world. Ain't no harm in going back yourself and see what was what. You may be surprised at what you experience. just 'cause the universe spit you out in 1995 or whatever doesn't mean that has to limit your picture or limit of reality. unless you want to live in a smaller world, which i guess has it's lure. certainly it does tonight, when some space junk is supposed to break up into our biosphere and fall to earth somewhere. cross your fingers. I don't know 'bout you but i think I'm gonna sleep in the basement tonight ! so a sharp projectile doesn't interrupt my beauty sleep.

http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/305114/1/Satellite-Expected-To-Crash-On-Earth-


Edited by thelostMIDrange - 11/10/13 at 10:43pm
post #26 of 26

For me most of the new digital recordings doesn't have that detail "old" stuff has. I'am quite young so even music from 80's is "old" for me. 

 

Not saying I don't like new music, I do, but it's just sounds quite different to me.

 

Some songs for example :

 

Tom Petty - Refugee (1979)

Pat Benatar - Heartbreaker (1979)

Led Zeppelin - Stairway to Heaven (1971)

 

Definitely can't say these sound thin to me, I would say quite the opposite rich and more detailed. These 3 should be analog.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Old analog recording vs new digital recording