How do you like your oldies music?

[StetsonHomburg]

How do you like your golden age music?
Restored and "clear" sounding, or the
original "grainy" sound straight from the
Gramophone? I Personally like the original
sound of it, I believe it gives the already
amazing music a distinctive touch...

 

[Undertow]

I think this was an issue during the move from vinyl to tape cassette and later to compact disc. I've heard many people talk about the massive stereo systems they used to own in the 70's that could rip the windows from the walls, but only playing vinyl. When CDs became popular, some aspect of the song was lost in the transfer. I think any medium possesses its strengths and weaknesses.

That being said, I think I prefer the grainy sound as well, especially when listening to the old blues and folk sounds from the south and from the mountain country. However, I prefer a cleaner sound when listening to crooners like Crosby because I like to pick up everything he's laying down.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I listen to everything through vintage radios, so overall sound quality is pretty much the same -- tube-type mono all the way. But I do notice a big difference between transfers I've done from original 78s and the sound I get from CD reissues of those same records. Digital "restoration" *does* remove some of the original sound, and anyone who claims otherwise has clearly never actually heard the original recordings.

Some of the 78rpm transfers going around on the internet are absolutely unlistenable thanks to cheap "restoration" software that makes the finished product sounds like it was recorded in a barrel of molasses. I'd rather listen to a worn-out Grey Gull with a worn-out needle on a portable Victrola with a broken diaphragm than be stuck with that stuff.

That said, I make every effort to transfer my records as cleanly as possible. After all, they didn't sound like hash when they were originally made.

 

[Undertow]

Tell me if I'm on the same page as you, Lizzie -

I think one vastly noticable difference between a vinyl recording and a digital recording is the lack of body via digital.

Some people call it "warmth" or "soul"; both describe the overall corpus of a piece that is lost almost entirely. There's no essence - it feels almost hollow. When you play a record, you can hear something there, something subtle and full; when you play a CD, the noise is there but the life is not.

I suppose it's similar to a machine woven rug compared to a hand woven rug.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm not so sure as it's the digital medium itself as it is the way the sound is processed before it's taken digital. "Restoration software" is basically just a fancy name for filtering out surface noise, and since all of that noise falls in the audible spectrum -- with a lot of it right in the 2 or 3 kc range which falls right in the most important part of that spectrum -- when you filter it out, it's impossible not to take some of the original sound with it. Digital tools try to "interpolate" to replace what was originally taken out, but at best this is still just a synthesis of the original sound, and if it's done badly, the result is monstrously bad. If you've ever heard a vintage recording with swirly swishy ripply flangy effects around the edges of the sound, you're hearing the results of a hack's attempt at digital restoration.

There are some digital tools that are very effective when used judiciously, but when they're used judiciously they don't remove all the noise. However, modern people tend to demand an absolutely noiseless recording -- and it's that absolute lack of any background noise at all that, for me, destroys the life of a recording. I think that's the illusion people are talking about when they talk about "body" missing.

 

[Rundquist]

There is no real answer to this. As a kid I hated cracks and pops. I never thought that they were cool. They take away from the recorded music. But I do agree that even with the extra “music” that comes with vinyl, it can be preferable to a poorly mastered cd.

But a cd is not a cd. The first thing is that cd’s that came from the late 80’s aren’t really admissible as evidence of poor fidelity. The media was in its infant stage and it is not really fair to judge those cd’s. Yeah, at the time vinyl was better. But cd’s have come a long way.

The sampling rates on modern cd’s are so high that the human ear can’t detect that it’s digital. What many of us are hearing in a cd that doesn’t sound as good as a piece of vinyl, is poor mastering. Poor mastering is caused for one of two reasons or both. First off, whoever does the mastering could have a poor ear, or one that doesn’t jibe with yours, or he is just using computer programs to do the work without really using his own ears.

The other factor is that the mastering is done today with lousy speakers in mind. We live in an age where people listen to music on computer speakers or through tiny unobtrusive speakers. We live in a society that doesn’t put a value on high fidelity. In the 70’s a good amp and speakers could cost you $5,000-10,000, and everyday people would shell out for it. A good sound system was a status symbol. The only concession to the equipment in the old days was that I think that they would roll off some of the base in the 60’s and prior to it.

I know a dj and he is very finicky about sound on records and cd’s and he told me that every album is different. He said that some cd reissues are lousy because of how they were remastered and some sound much better than the original vinyl release. He told me that some albums were just pressed on noisy vinyl and/or were mastered badly. They never sounded good from day one. He’s found unopened copies of certain records and the vinyl just doesn’t sound good.

There are a couple of generalities of course. Many people say that jazz sounds better on vinyl and classical sounds better on cd. It’s probably true.

Now modern records sound crummy because of recording techniques and equipment. It doesn’t have much to do with the final digital format. Analogue recordings do sound better than digital. But really the analogue preamp is the most important thing in a recording (that's where the "warmth" comes from), even more so than using tape, which really doesn’t exist anymore anyway. The second most important thing (or equal) is the mics. Anyway, I’ve rambled enough. I just wish that they made better music today in general.

 

[vitanola]

Vinyl? CD???

Has there been any music worth listening too that was not originally issued on shellac, Condensite, celluloid or wax?



Well, the Goodman 1938 Carnegie Hall concert aside, It was first issued on LP.

Why bother with a re-issue?

I prefer my music in its original format, if possible, in as good a condition as I can afford, played on the most advanced machine of its day.

I've actually found few reissues to have the brilliance and clarity of a clean original disc. The Nimbus issues of the '90's are exceptions to this general caveat, but then they were produced by playing nearly perfect discs on a very advanced acoustic machine in a room of exceptional acoustics and then digitally recording the resulting music with modern microphones.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

I love grainy, poppy, static-y, lo-fi old music the way it was meant to be heard. It gives it charm and character.

I also despise this "bass" cover-up that lots of "remastered" 1920s songs have. Ick. It's MEANT to sound tinny and that's the way we all love it.

If you're talking newer music (90s-today), I like it the way it was originally recorded and meant to be heard...digitally. I'm a huge music lover from the late Victorian days to now. I prefer all recordings in their "natural" state

 

[vitanola]

I love grainy, poppy, static-y, lo-fi old music the way it was meant to be heard. It gives it charm and character.

Well, a clean disc can be remarkably free from surface noise, particularly those Columbia pressings (Especially the Viva-Tonal, "Flag" and Harmony/Velvet Tone/Diva budget discs)

I also despise this "bass" cover-up that lots of "remastered" 1920s songs have. Ick. It's MEANT to sound tinny and that's the way we all love it.

Actually, the late 1920's electric recordings of better make (Victor, Columbia, Brunswick and Edison) all were recorded with a WALLOPING bass, and (hopefully) a crisp, clear upper register. The best talking machines of the period (any of the Victor Electrola, Brunswick Panatrope or Columbia-Kolster electric machines, or the larger Orthophonic, Viva-tonal, or "Panatrope, Exponential type") reproduce this rich bass with great presence. The best of the 1920's records only sound tinny when played on inferior talking machines.

If you're talking newer music (90s-today), I like it the way it was originally recorded and meant to be heard...digitally. I'm a huge music lover from the late Victorian days to now. I prefer all recordings in their "natural" state

Well, we are certainly in agreement on this point.

Unfortunately, to play the music of the first half of the Twentieth Century under ideal conditions with original equipment one would need at a minimum the following machines:

A) Edison "Triumph" combination type, fitted with "O",
Diamond B and Automatic reproducers, and a 12-panel
straight horn.

B) Edison Diamond Disc Phonograph (any one of the "Lab Models")
Equipped with both "Standard" and "Edisonic" reproducers

C) Victor V open horn talking machine, fitted with Concert, Exhibition
and Victrola No. 2 reproducers, along with a Pathe sapphire
conversion attachment.

D) Victrola Credenza, Columbia Viva-tonal 800/810, or Brunswick Cortez.

E) Good early electric machine, a Brunswick P-10, Electrola 12-25,
or a large early Columbia-Kolster, such as a 900. A good Edison C-2
would suffice in this case, as would one of the common Victor
"Micro-Synchronous" combinations, such as the RE-45. The RE-45
is actually one of the best palying machines of the era, and is quite
reliable. WHen fitted with one of the later "inertia" tone arms it
doesn't even wear records to any great extent.

F) Quality pre-war phonograph, such as the RCA Victor R-99, or one of
the better 1930's combiunations.

G) Quality post-war combination (the still relatively inexepnsive Scott 800-B
is a good choice for this machine.

Such a group of machines would occupy a considerable amount of real estate, and would be a bit costly, but no more so than many modern
collector's sound systems.


I no longer have a complete group of this sort, after my late fire losses, 'though I'm getting pretty close. Oddly enough, the early stuff is pretty easily obtainable. The 1930's stuff seems to have gone into hiding. Am looking for a nice R-99 and perhaps an 800-B.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When I want to listen to my records "raw" I use a Philco RP-1 wireless phono unit, played thru the Philco console in the living room. Not the best choice for acoustic records, or anything postwar, but thirties dance-band stuff sounds ducky.

These units are very very cheap nowadays, and once you get the crystal pickup rebuilt they're champion performers. Highly recommended accessory for those with thirties radios they want to get more use out of.

 

[RetroToday]

I prefer to listen to the original recordings on original equipment, but for convenience I listen to quite a lot in mp3 format on my ipod.
Although, I'm usually playing that ipod through a 1940s radio with phono input!

I like to have the recordings in good condition with as little noise as possible. After all, that's how people would have wanted them to sound originally.

To keep them that way (and have the nostalgia of using original equipment) I do my best to play many of my earlier 78s on my Victrola XVI-E using fibre needles. Those needles don't damage the records like steel needles do and they have a nice mellow tone.

I will often play 1930s-50s 78s on my 1970s Yorx combination stereo / cassette / 8-track unit. It has great sound. Uses a dual headed stylus you flip over to play either 33s or 78s.

I even listen to cylinder records from time to time on my Edison Home phonograph.

 

[Shangas]

Either crystal or grainy. Either is fine by me, so long as I can hear it well enough to enjoy it and sing along.

 

[BinkieBaumont]

" Quite often the "Snap, Crackle and Pop" at my Breakfast table is from my Wireless/Ipod"

 

[Mr Vim]

I love the old grainy sound, it's fantastic.

 

[Talbot]

Coming out of a chrome dashboard grille covering a monaural speaker....

...being drowned out by gear whine, noisy tappets, and glasspacks .

 

[Honey Bee]

In it's original format, please.
The grainy sound, the pop and crackle, make me feel like I am sitting in front of the old radio my dad has (must get pics of it to share with you when I visit them next week!). It actually makes me slow down and enjoy all of the effort that was put into the recording, the talent that was there.
But I confess: I listen to Bing, Frank, Tony, Dean, Django while I walk my two miles every morning
"They'll be a hot time in the town of Berlin, when the yanks go marchin' in!...."
That's me, snapping her fingers and enjoying her brisk pace in the lovely park I walk in each morning!

 

[Chas]

I listen to my 78s, vinyl and cd's. Remastering, when done properly, is vital to disseminating and preserving the music. When done poorly it detracts from it. I have a modern TT for my 78s with the correct stylus, and I hear stuff on my 78s that I don't think that I would hear on older equipment.

That being said, there's nothing like a 78.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I love my Records, I listen to them all the time. I got a swell Record/Radio/8-Track Combo. They all sound great through it. Not a big CD guy, don't own a lot of them. Have about 30 CD's, 20 Cassettes, I've got tons of 8-tracks and Records, and an iPod full of tunes, but that's only for in the car. I love to hear my Conway Twitty with all that clicks and pops and white noise included.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

The "bass" used on some digital restorations of 1920s music is terrible. It is overly-thumping and leaves a lot of "dead air" over the track in an attempt to cover up the charming pops and hisses.

I still prefer my old music to sound OLD and mono and somewhat tinny. That's the way I like it.

 

[Edward]

Lizzie's expertise confirms much of what I have long believed on this front. Essentially, I'm of the opinion that:

1] Vinyl is a superior sound... but to fully appreciate that, you have to have high fidelity equipment which is far beyond the budgetary restrictions of most of us.

2] The vast majority of the difference in sound across formats is due to modern mixing being done with the likes of radio airplay in mind (as I understand it, gone are the days when labels would send out a separate mix for airplay).

3] CDs are infinitely more convenient than vinyl will ever be.

I love original vinyl and the sound off it, not least for the sheer sense of ritual asociated with putting on an LP or a 7" single. But that said, I also love the convenience of CDs. At present I have a lot of my CDs boxed away as I'm trying to find the time to redecorate my lounge, so much of my listening is done using an iPod docked into a Revo Domino 3 digital / wifi radio in the kitchen. Cracking sound from a tiny mono speaker. Of course in an ideal world I'd have everything on vinyl, but you really can't dismiss the convenience of a CD either. I wouldn't opt for a docked iPod as the best way to enjoy music, on the other hand, sometimes the convenience factor outweighs all else. And after all, the most important thing is enjoying the music. I'd rather a decent digital transfer than wearing out rare and irreplaceable vinyl in the last instance.