That "vintage" sound....what is it?

Oldnsaxy · Post by **Oldnsaxy** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:13 pm

It seems to me that there is so much hype and talk of vintage gear and new products trying to attain "that classic sound".

I want to know, what is that classic sound?

I have my opinions on what great sound in a recording is or was, but a lot of vintage recording are just old and suffer from poor quality tape, bad balance due to lack of musicianship, engineering and technology.

To me one of the best sounding records is Miles Davis Kind of Blue or the Getz/Gilberto album. Those are good recordings but a lot of it was great musicians who knew how to mix themselves.

So what is the classic sound that people are trying to attain and what do you consider great recordings?

Electro-Voice 664 · Post by **Electro-Voice 664** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:17 am

'Classic and Vintage' can mean many things to many people. I wouldn?t say older recordings suffered from poor quality tape, if anything tape used to be made better. Older technology was once cutting edge, sell your telecaster and buy a Jackson. A lot of the old records I listen to have great musicianship and engineering, some have neither. I think manufactures refer to stuff as sounding vintage to reflect the idea that they are trying to duplicated designs that were used on those old recordings. Hype or not some designs were used on old stuff.

So what is the classic sound that people are trying to attain

Everyone wants the 13th floor elevators? jug sound

what do you consider great recordings?

One of my favorites ?Lubricated Goat Plays the Devils Music? http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... d=27503762 is from the 80s and isn?t considered a great recording (Joel?s 'Old Great Ones' recording is new and is recorded awesome)
As far as older stuff I like a lot of it, but do you want to know what I think was recorded really great, or what I like to listen to..Because I'd take Daniel Johnston over Def Leopard, Charles Manson over Pearl Jam etc.

Are you upset at companies that try to sell us nostalgia in little $1500 boxes?

TheGreatOne · Post by **TheGreatOne** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:31 am

The vintage sound? Listen to The Cowboy Junkies "The Trinity Sessions".
I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that record was the band situated around one Calrec Ambisonic microphone. It was a band playing together without technology getting in the way. My 2 cents.

KLB

AGCurry · Post by **AGCurry** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:42 am

When you ask or tell about "classic vintage" sounds, you must define: WHICH vintage. Is it 1940, 1946, 1956, etc..

And, there is obviously more than technology involved. Can you imagine the Jimi Hendrix Experience doing their thing in, say, Sam Phillips's place in 1955? It is a confluence of factors which makes classic vintage - just like wine.

Jeff White · Post by **Jeff White** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:56 am

Tubes and transformers and lack of EQ??? Relying more on mic placement and stereo micing (or ensemble micing with no overdubs)??? The harmonic distortion that analog tape provides???

I would imagine this list could go on and on and on.

Jeff

mjau · Post by **mjau** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:13 am

Personally, I'm convinced that "vintage" is 99% marketing and 1% truth. That 1% may have something to do with tape and the lack of the fire-breathing hydra named L2/auto-tune/snap-to-grid.

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:51 am

izotope vinyl plugin = instant vintage

LifeGoesOff · Post by **LifeGoesOff** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:05 am

impurities in the metal of older transformer designs.

Jeff White · Post by **Jeff White** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:16 am

mjau wrote:Personally, I'm convinced that "vintage" is 99% marketing and 1% truth. That 1% may have something to do with tape and the lack of the fire-breathing hydra named L2/auto-tune/snap-to-grid.

Is that the fire-breathing hydra... ummm... hunk.... in your avatar that you're talking about?

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:30 am

wintershed wrote:I wouldn?t say older recordings suffered from poor quality tape, if anything tape used to be made better.

Er...not always. Read some interviews with engineers from the 50s, 60s, 70s and you'll find lots of horror stories.

LifeGoesOff · Post by **LifeGoesOff** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:36 am

dwlb wrote:
wintershed wrote:I wouldn?t say older recordings suffered from poor quality tape, if anything tape used to be made better.
Er...not always. Read some interviews with engineers from the 50s, 60s, 70s and you'll find lots of horror stories.

I remember reading an interview with the guy who did the Steely Dan records (name escapes me now), and he said that even after a few passes, the playback sounded horrible. And by the end of the day, it sounded nothing like what they started with.

??????? · Post by **???????** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:40 am

I heard an anecdote about Bohemian Rhapsody where the tape was in such horrible shape after all the overdubs that they decided they better print it real quick because the tape might not hold up.

mjau · Post by **mjau** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:42 am

ipressrecord wrote:Is that the fire-breathing hydra... ummm... hunk.... in your avatar that you're talking about?

The great Freddie Ljungberg, my friend.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:42 am

LifeGoesOff wrote:
dwlb wrote:
wintershed wrote:I wouldn?t say older recordings suffered from poor quality tape, if anything tape used to be made better.
Er...not always. Read some interviews with engineers from the 50s, 60s, 70s and you'll find lots of horror stories.
I remember reading an interview with the guy who did the Steely Dan records (name escapes me now), and he said that even after a few passes, the playback sounded horrible. And by the end of the day, it sounded nothing like what they started with.

The other one that springs to mind is the Zappa record where he spliced together bits from 2 concerts that were recorded on different brands of tape. When it came time to do the remaster they found one brand had aged better than the other and there were huge EQ differences between the edited segments that hadn't been there when the record was first mastered. They had to re-EQ every eight bars or something through the whole record.

Electro-Voice 664 · Post by **Electro-Voice 664** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:11 am

Alright, tape sucked in the old days. I was wrong. They should put new 2" reels in the freezer (opposite of baking them) for that vintage shedding sound.

Message Board

That "vintage" sound....what is it?

That "vintage" sound....what is it?

Who is online