does vintage gear progressively sound better as it ages?

[wing]

that's a very vague subject title, but i couldn't think of a better thing. basically, my idea has come from the thread i started about getting that 3M tape machine. i was wondering how it is that music recorded on the same gear today will sound a lot better than music recorded on it when it was brand new back then.

in other words, when i listen to records recorded in the 60s and 70s, they have that 60s-70s era sound (which isn't bad)... where drums are relatively thin sounding, and everything is just more muffled... and vintage in sound. overall, many vintage recordings seem to have less bottom end and sound less full.

don't get me wrong, i love the vintage sound, and i love 60s and 70s rock... i'm not trying to say anything against old recordings. but when i get that 3M tape machine, i should hope it doesn't limit me to only sounding that way. i don't want to sound like a 70s band; i don't want people to hear my recordings thinking they're straight out of the 60s or 70s (not in musical structure but in production/recording quality).

i guess i haven't been very direct with my question... but what i don't understand is how there are so many records being made today (by many of you here) with tape machines, consoles, mics, outboard stuff, etc, that is like 20-30 years old. yet somehow magically, many of these recordings sound totally stellar and cutting edge, and not as if they were recorded during that era. unless the artist designs it to sound that way, using vintage gear like this doesn't have to make it sound vintage... at least from what i can tell. i hear a lot of records today made with gear that is from the 70s, yet i cannot understand why it doesn't sound like a 70s recording. it's as if it sounds BETTER with the gear being 30 years old than when the gear was brand new!

i have offered to myself the reasons why this may be.... i have thought that it may be the differences in mastering, computer technology (not necessarily on the recording end but perhaps in the post-production stage), improvements in tape, etc. are any of these close? or is it possible that gear magically sounds BETTER as it ages?

i guess my main point is just that i want to get into that early 70s 3M M56, but i hope it doesn't limit my sound to sounding particular to that era. as i said before... while i love the way those recordings sound, i simply don't want to be limited to that sound. regardless i'll be buying it anyway just for the understanding and experience, and opportunity to track drums to it. but still... i should hope i'll have a versatile deck that is capable of sounding more than as if i were livin in 1971.

i'm confused can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?

[mingus2112]

I can't TOTALLY answer your question, as I do not know that much about recording gear. I do, however, know guitar amps.

With vintage tube amps, the sound they make today is AMAZING compared to the 60s. The reasoning? VOLTAGE. Originally wall voltage was 110 volts (someone correct me if i'm wrong). These days, they run at 115volts or SOMETIMES even 120! What does that mean to the amp? It means it's running hotter. More power, harder working tubes. Louder amps, etc etc. That's how it is with that kind of equipment. Translate it how you want for other audio stuff, but I BET voltage has something to do with recording gear, tape calibration, etc.

-James

[soundguy]

blu-

what you are hearing is more about mastering trends, mixing trends and production techniques far more than the gear itself. The gear doesnt sound better as it gets older, its not wine.

A good example to look at is the "motown sound". A lot of motown stuff was mixed on a QE console with only a two band EQ. You had like three frequencies on the top and three on the bottom and loads of records were done like that. If you found those EQ points and EQ'd like that, youd have maybe not something that sounded simlar, but something that maybe sounded in the same vein. If you took whatever recorder they had, hell, if you took the EXACT recorder they had and then mixed on a console with all API 550B eq's, youd have lots and lots and lots and lots more eq points available to you, so you can mix a totally different sounding thing just based on the eq points available on mixdown. does that make sense?

So what you have today are people recording on say, an old machine like that 3M but maybe mixing those tracks on an SSL, or mixing on any other variance of gear that didnt exist back that.

Add that to a totally different direction in mixing where things are WAY more comrpessed and in your face then they were then. Ass that to a totally different direction in tracking where a drum kit that john densmore played might have had 4 mics on it while today a drum kit that matt cameron plays might have 25 mics on it. Just a very different way of approaching getting things to and from tape. Then there is mastering and you can drone on and on about the difference in level between recordings then and now which in many cases can be in the order of 9 dB on a VU meter.

Recording on the old gear wont give you an old or new sound, it will just give you the sound of the machine, its up to you as to what to do with that sound. 70's dudes decided to use that sound to make some really dry records, 80's dudes used those machines to make some really fake reverby souning records. Its all in the hand of the user. What a good quality gear allows you to do is make a bombastic recording with minimal effort, or well, minimal time spent banging your head against the wall trying to make a cool sound.

Think of this. Fender amps in the 60's came with a hang tag that explained to the user to set the volume to a point where no distortion was heard. Even though fender amps make the most rocking affairs, the ideology at the company was to design the cleanest sounding amp they could, and when you look at the evolution of fender amps from tweed through blonde through black to silver, most changes were changes installed to make a more efficient amplifier with bigger and bigger clean headroom. If you turn a blonde bassman on 10 you will hear the sound of rock. You dont really hear that sound on a lot of records though. You certainly dont hear it on records made in 1963, that is for damn sure. So really, its just a question of ideology. I have an akg tube mic from 1964 ish, a fender amp from 1962 and an altec tube mic pre from around the same time. When I sit with that gear, I can get the front line of the rock and roll war going on, but the 60's dudes who had THE EXACT ITEMS in their studios never thought to utilize the same pieces to make a similar sound. If you wanted fuzz back then, you plugged in a fuzz box. Very few engineers were turning up amps and recording them in studios. very few.

Its really about what you do with the gear. You can make a very modern sounding record on that deck or a very 60's sounding record on that deck, its all about which ideology you bring to the plate when you sit down to record. The benefit of using a machine like that is that it is good enough that it gives you the choice to be creative in that sense as opposed to some cheaper gear that is just going to give you the sound of the 90's, adats and that ilk comes to mind.

You should either buy that machine or buy that machine and sell it to me. And blu, dont just track drums to it, do your whole record on an 8 track. 8 track is a mean format piles and piles of historic rock records were done on 8 track. If its good enough for rolling stones and black sabbath, its good enough for you.

dave

[assfortress]

wine sounds better when its older?

[wing]

wine sounds better when its older?

hahaha

thanks for the help dave... i was being facetious for the most part when i suggested that vintage gear sounds better as it ages, as that makes the least amount of sense. it just seemed as if gear improves, so does the sound of records. i had no idea it had little to do with that!

oh yea, and i do intend to track everything to the 8 track. guitars and vocals would sound kick ass on one of those, i know. i just mentioned drums because, well, i am a drummer, and it's probably the most important thing to my ears-- i just mean it's what i'm most looking foward to hearing on the deck.

[sthslvrcnfsn]

Then there is mastering and you can drone on and on about the difference in level between recordings then and now which in many cases can be in the order of 9 dB on a VU meter.

...and when you look at the evolution of fender amps from tweed through blonde through black to silver, most changes were changes installed to make a more efficient amplifier with bigger and bigger clean headroom.

question 1: I did not know that older albums had such a high level - why were they done like that?

question 2: when recording Fender amps, which have always been made for the highest possible clean headroom, how did the engineers get a final product with such a high level? Did they record fender amps - and assumable lots of others: vox amps come to mind right away - at a very high level, or was it done in mastering, or...?


Blu - As far as old gear sounding "vintage" or "better", I think it has a lot to do with all of the OTHER equipment, especially if it's a tape machine. You can make completely different sounds - for example with guitars, lots of different tones, put through different compression, eq'd a lot or not very much, and then to tape. Also mixing is different now it seems. Third thing - there was a good thread this week about adding depth to mixes naturally (the room, mioc placement, placement of the instruments for recording a band live in the studio, etc), and how people had to get creative in the mono days. It just questions how much you treat your signal, and if you could make manufactured sounds naturally.

thanks all-knowing soundguyDave
jim

ps - soundguy, you seem to have come back from sort of exile, so i think you missed a thread of mine from last week. I found a Roberts 778x 4 track tape machine that I might buy. It will be my first tape machine, and I don't mind paying to have it calibrated if I buy it for $75, which is what the guy is asking. It's in good shape, so no major repairs necessary, even at $75 (the poor old guy has run the same record store in the rough neighborhod downtown for 35 years or so - he has been sitting in the same damn chair, chain smoking and buying random electronics) ... any thoughts? Help a young brother out. For the record, I've just been using my ... not-so-store-bought copy of Sound Forge 6 (and feeling pretty guilty every time I record a track).

[soundguy]

I am hardly all knowing.

older records were recorded at a much lower flux and the vinyl was mastered at a much lower level. Led Zeppelin 2 for instance was definitely mixed at 185nW/m, while its very popular today to record on high level stocks suck as gp9 at 355nW/m. Thats a difference of 9dB just in the 0 reference. When you talk about mastering, even since the early 90's, records are getting mastered at obscene levels. Most new commercial rock does not get any louder when you raise the volume, the shit is totally maximized to be as loud as it will get with your stereo on 1. Compare that to the heyday of vinyl mastering where you turned up your stereo and the shit actually got louder. Those days, for now, are long gone.

as far as my statement on amps, most of the amps that we will crank up and record distorted today, when those amps were new in the 60's, it was not a common practice to record them distorted, it was not a desirable effect the way it is today. Sure, you had the beatles and the who and a small handful of other bands, but for the gross majority, people did not take a guitar amp put it on ten and then stick a mic in front of it. There are classic examples of this from the engineers who refused to record hendrix because his amps were to loud to guys that were afraid to record bonham for the same reason.

I dont know a thing about roberts decks.

good luck.

dave

[wing]

have tape formulas changed over the years in such a way that may affect sound quality?

[sthslvrcnfsn]

Dave-

I didn't mean to be offensive by calling you "all-knowing". You professional guys just usually have a lot of insight for us kids who record in our bedroom during our spare time, that's all.

Oh, and for the record, I would be afraid to record Bohnam too. He's just so damn LOUD.

You also make a good point in saying that new stuff is generally mastered VERY loud. I hadn't noticed, not conciously, but as soon as I readit, i said "oh yeah, i guess so". What the hell is the purpose?

jim

[soundguy]

hardly offensive, no worries.

the point is so that the CD will be the loudest one in the changer, more or less.

sad.

dave

[llllllllllllllllllllllll]

hardly offensive, no worries.

the point is so that the CD will be the loudest one in the changer, more or less.

sad.

dave

Its kind of off-topic, but the people doing sound for commercials do the same thing, don't they? Make it as loud as possible to attract the viewer?

And speaking of older equipment, I've heard that guitars sound better with age... I can believe that 20+ years of string vibration will change the tonal properties of the wood, but I think there's a lot of hype as far as vintage instruments go. But then again, I've never played an instrument made before 1980, so there you go.

[soundguy]

yes, commercials do the same thing with their audio, but they also do the same thing with video, specifically with whites. The FCC is supposed to regulate the broadcast gamma, but people are always trying to fuck with that when they do their online edits. Im sure NYdave can shed more light on that, I think he used to work in broadcast.

dave

[lichthaus-media]

With wood instruments, the wood composition changes (crytalizes) over time to reflect the resonant frequency of the body. With a well designed instrument, that will create a fuller overall tone. Caveat: The instrument cannot sit on a shelf for 50 years - it must be played.

My experience with old electronics: An old well designed preamp or compressor will sound worse than a new well designed preamp or compressor. Oil & paper caps and ancient resistors sway over time (and eventually crap out). But, that said, an old box can be recapped and sound like $33,000 bucks.

Video: I always comply with the FCC. I love the dishwater shade of safety

-james

[eeldip]

have tape formulas changed over the years in such a way that may affect sound quality?

heck yea.

they vary even from batch to batch.

from what i hear when ampex sold their tape formulas and manufacturing techniques to quantegy, quantegy did all it could to replicate what ampex was doing... but they just couldnt. it is just that difficult of a process. so complex that it cannot even be described all that well...

it is easy to imagine that over 50 years or so of making tape and changing formulas and changing things that one wouldnt expect to affect the tape, but did... it had to have changed quite a bit.

of course there is no way to know for sure....

[wing]

did those engineers of the time simply not try enough towards these sort of sounds? phil spector was pretty revolutionary in the things he did, yet you can still tell it was of that era, because it sounds like it...