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

[themagicmanmdt]

Interesting posts (by some, not all).

But, there's a definite list of albums that, yes, would be good if produced today (or in a different time period), but they wouldn't be 'as good', because it's not just a song, but the tone of the song that adds to the magic.

albums that, if taken out of their time period, wouldn't be as good:

sgt pepper's - the beatles
sf. sorrow - the pretty things
the doors - the doors
odessey + oracle - the zombies
into the great wide open - tom petty
loveless - my bloody valentine


and the list goes on.

[Johnny B]

Relax Francis,
...
I didn't suggest that ALL the recording were crap. I stated that most don't have a good sound quality (this is separate from the music and performance) I think I stated that I wasn't judging the performances or playing. Most of the records you listed are good. There are some that were recorded in the earlier 60's and late 50's that would be considered great recordings. BUT many great performances suffer from less than good sound quality due to limitations of the gear.
...
My question is based on the concept of,
if the recordings did not sound all that good, once again from a technical sound quality standpoint, then what is the deal with people spending big bucks on old gear or modern clones of this old gear?

I understand your question, and the concept it's based on. And what I'm taking issue with is that concept. I disagree that most albums recorded before the 1980s don't sound good. That is all. Yes, there are plenty or recordings from all eras of recording that are badly done. But, I think that the statement "most don't have a good sound quality" is too broad a generalization.

My answer to the question is that it is my belief that in many cases people are wasting their money. Not all, certainly. There is a misconception, I think, that many people hold which is that the gear makes the recording. You can see that from "newbie" posts on this board, and even more on other boards. If you look around, you will see posts from people asking what mic/pre/etc. they should buy to make, say, vocals sound better. And then they are surprised when questioned about their technique. And further surprised when people suggest that before they upgrade their gear they learn to use it.

I believe that the sound on older "good" sounding recordings (at least by my standards) is often despite rather than because of the equipment. This belief is driven by statements of people like Tony Visconti, who said basically as much in the introduction to the Tape Op book.

I also think there is confusion in the minds of people as to the role of things like performance on the overall sound of a record. Gear manufacturers, of course, understress this role because they want to sell you gear. And people, being people and fallible, and maybe a bit lazy as well, want to believe that the gear will make their recordings sound better, when the truth is that learning more about the craft of recording will make their recordings sound far better than any gear upgrade will.

So, I guess my answer to your original question is that, unbelievably enough, I care nothing about vintage sound. My enjoyment of any recorded music, old or new, lies in the music more than anything else. If something is recorded poorly enough, then it lessens my enjoyment. If something is recorded extremely well, then I notice and I appreciate the effort that went into it. I'm not looking for a sound. And when I record, I try to capture the band's sound as well as I can using my own abilities and whatever gear happens to be available.

And, anyway, I am relaxed. I just think I was a little tired when I posted before, and was a bit, umm, less than polite.

[vvv]

An interesting illustration might be the recent releases of the 2005 English remasters of The Jeff Beck Group's Truth and Beckola.

On vinyl the records were very good, even though they somehow were not as "big" or "defined" as other contemporaneous recordings, ex., such as Led Zepplin, Let It Bleed, Tommy.

The first JBG CD's really kind of sucked in that they lacked bottom and clarity; I'm pretty sure little if any mastering directed at the CD medium was done.

The new releases are amazing; you can hear parts that were barely there on vinyl and inaudible on the first CD's, the spatial imaging is magnified, the reverbs stunning.

And so to adress the thread topic, listen to "Old Man River" from Truth, and tell me that the way plate reverb is used doesn't, amongst other elements, make that recording sound "vintage."

[creature.of.habit]

Vintage is what wine snobs talk about.

I hope you don't have anything against good wine! Good wine requires good soil, good climate, good grapes, good handling, picking at the right time.... that's before the actual 'wine' is even pressed and fermented! There's a lot to it... styles and techniques change....

I think good recorded music is quite similar.

is your analogy refering to musician's talent/preparation going into the recording process to make it excelent? or is the wine comparison relating to gear..

if it's relating to gear, i disagree with what you just said. my family has a farm where they grow a dozen hectars of some pretty decent stuff, and i know a little bit about it. recording, gear wise, is nothing like wine.

if you don't have the land and all the climate that goes into making the exact wine you want, if you don't have the right background, the right tools, etc for wine production, you can just forget it or sell it for 1 dollar a bottle and be rich, like most of the world does, but it's whole different market i guess, and it can't be called great, or even average let along vintage. even the damn wind matters when you're talking about wine..

give any great engineer a samson board, a couple of bright as hell chinese mics and a soundcard, and assuming the performance is good, something very decent is bound to come out of it, at least in my opinion.

[creature.of.habit]

loveless - my bloody valentine

that's one of my favourite albums..i understand what you're saying, but i kind of disagree.

that album is all about the gear (outboard, amps, stomps, guitars, samplers, etc), but not necessarly recording gear as in capture devices. i think it could be done today, as long as he had the exact same setup. from what i recall reading, the actual shields studio was pretty normal/unspectacular (read: desk, monitoring, etc).

[creature.of.habit]

I'd say that the true "vintage" sound is background noise, covering up other problems.

i agree...i'm being prooven that on a daily basis recording to a tascam 244 with good outboard stuff. and it's very very rewarding.

another side of things is that i really think that what most people mean by vintage these days is more of an aesthetic thing than anything else, and in terms of marketing, that can be dangerous and make lots of people waste a pretty dollar.

and it's undeniable that it has links to a certain era...these days, the first entry level mixer manufacturer that puts wood side panels on his product will sell hundreds based on that alone, even without people ever hearing the board at all.

[Oldnsaxy]

Relax Francis,
...
I didn't suggest that ALL the recording were crap. I stated that most don't have a good sound quality (this is separate from the music and performance) I think I stated that I wasn't judging the performances or playing. Most of the records you listed are good. There are some that were recorded in the earlier 60's and late 50's that would be considered great recordings. BUT many great performances suffer from less than good sound quality due to limitations of the gear.
...
My question is based on the concept of,
if the recordings did not sound all that good, once again from a technical sound quality standpoint, then what is the deal with people spending big bucks on old gear or modern clones of this old gear?

My answer to the question is that it is my belief that in many cases people are wasting their money. Not all, certainly. There is a misconception, I think, that many people hold which is that the gear makes the recording. You can see that from "newbie" posts on this board, and even more on other boards. If you look around, you will see posts from people asking what mic/pre/etc. they should buy to make, say, vocals sound better. And then they are surprised when questioned about their technique. And further surprised when people suggest that before they upgrade their gear they learn to use it.

I believe that the sound on older "good" sounding recordings (at least by my standards) is often despite rather than because of the equipment. This belief is driven by statements of people like Tony Visconti, who said basically as much in the introduction to the Tape Op book.

I also think there is confusion in the minds of people as to the role of things like performance on the overall sound of a record. Gear manufacturers, of course, understress this role because they want to sell you gear. And people, being people and fallible, and maybe a bit lazy as well, want to believe that the gear will make their recordings sound better, when the truth is that learning more about the craft of recording will make their recordings sound far better than any gear upgrade will.

So, I guess my answer to your original question is that, unbelievably enough, I care nothing about vintage sound. My enjoyment of any recorded music, old or new, lies in the music more than anything else. If something is recorded poorly enough, then it lessens my enjoyment. If something is recorded extremely well, then I notice and I appreciate the effort that went into it. I'm not looking for a sound. And when I record, I try to capture the band's sound as well as I can using my own abilities and whatever gear happens to be available.

And, anyway, I am relaxed. I just think I was a little tired when I posted before, and was a bit, umm, less than polite.

Excellent post! No worry on being tired and posting, I do it too at times.

This follows my beliefs as well.
There are so many articles and interviews in the magazines that hype the gear so much though that it creates confusion in the newbies. More so than many of the manufacturers do quite often.

I mentioned that I use two mono spring reverbs for vocals, sax and synths often. I do it because I've compared it to hardware and many of the software reverbs and they don't give you the stereo image and depth that these old cheap springs do.
I've gotten away from using them in recent years because I have plug-ins and hardware digital reverbs, but listening to them lately I'm realizing how much I've sold my projects short by not making use of them.
I play a 60's sax because the new ones sound like samples because their tone and pitch are too even. This is a case where the product that actually performs better, sounds worse.
I also agree that many of the old recordings have a nice sound because of the context that they are in. Mentions were Sgt. Pepper the Doors, I would say the late 70's punk like Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, 50's jazz. Taking them out of that sound context and into perfectly clear modern recordings, would take them out of the time context that they were originally in.
In those cases the gear limitations and workflow limitations helped capture a more musical music.

I think a lot of the "get that vintage sound" advertising sells to new and in many cases young people is that there is such the fast food mentality to things that kids don't want to take a 57 a bathroom and a speaker and try to make a unique sounding reverb. People look to buy the next processor or mic or mic pre that will do the experimenting for them.

I think that as recordists, musicians and mixers the importance is in not allowing the speed of the computer and plug-ins to make us lazy ( I say this as one who uses this stuff all the time and goes the short cut instead of doing it right way too often). I've gotten into taking the easy way out too often and have rediscovered the things I did when all I had was a 3340, an analog delay and a couple of cheap mics and made better sounding recordings because they all had unique personalities based on the oddball work arounds I was forced to do.
The gear limitations actually make me work in a more musical way.

[TV Lenny]

Actually, I think everyone has overlooked something very critical. All of the older (aka vintage) gear went up to 11.

Blue Note Records released a BeBop Jazz double album several years ago. I think those records sound amazing. I believe the years of actual recordings took place in the early to mid 60's. Not only the reason I stated earlier do I think these records sound better, but also during that time many studios used chairs with a different quality of fabric in the control rooms. This adding to the "coloration" of the playback.


Actually, when I think of vintage or classic sounds, I think of hot tubes, bouncing VU meters, rolling tape, a large mixing console, and a group of great musicians.