1944 sounded wonderful . . .

[vernier]

Right, and its not about restoration anyway. Lets get off the math, we're diggin' the music!
'

[khai]

Originally Posted by blim

No, it doesn't sound, to use your word, "wonderful." You're not listening to it with an audio engineer's ears, you're listening to it through a romantic filter

I guess what Vernier likes despite the narrowed frequency width you're referring to, is how "natural" and "musical" this recording sounds. Natural : live, no compression, no separation, probably no or very little EQing, not more than one mic per instrument (and not 15 mics on the drum kit…), no close miking… Musical : great ribbon mics, slow and colored tube gear, tape.

Also the sound frequencies of this video are the ones the human ear feels most comfortable with. You can play it loud and it never hurts.

[theblue1]

No compression???

Listen to that vocal! (Compare it to the surrounding instruments.)

Compression and program limiting were important part of the audio toolkit in radio and movies from early on, and eventually in more advanced studio recordings.

__________________

BTW... not sure what this has to do with anything but I was sitting yesterday at the coffeehouse with a fellow who's won two Emmy's for TV sound work. Even though he was on contract to ABC, he was once called in by NBC (if I'm remembering the story his brother told me correctly) because Streisand had asked for him specifically when she got frustrated with the NBC sound guys.

We were talking about the winery he and his wife run on the side. He was strumming my $50 guitar and saying he wished he could play like me [trust me, I ain't nothin'] and asking if maybe we couldn't jam sometime... life is a funny thing.

He seemed to be enjoying the afternoon breeze and the relaxed atmo... said he wished he was free to just sit and strum -- but then they had to go because he had to go coordinate 6 sound trucks for some big show last night.

[khai]

I'm not sure they were using compression on individual instruments during tracking at the time. But maybe you're right. I was not there…

But I know there was separation for the singer and often drums. Like there :

http://www.coutant.org/altec639/lena.jpg

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by khai

I'm not sure they were using compression on individual instruments during tracking at the time. But maybe you're right. I was not there…

But I know there was separation for the singer and often drums. Like there :

http://www.coutant.org/altec639/lena.jpg

Yeah... me neither. Just doing a little off the cuff audio forensics, if you will.

The first thing I considered when hearing her vocal was that the whole track might have been compressed (and it may have, anyhow, don't get me wrong) either then or in restoration -- but I've now listened several times particularly to the differences in the vocal and the back tracks and I feel fairly sure that the vocal is compressed separately.

Certainly, compression of lead vocals would become very commonplace within a few years. Listen to pop standards by Sinatra and others from the early 50s and you'll hear some bold vocal compression... they wanted those vocal to be big and detailed and they often were.


Sometimes we think all the crazy technology came later.

Don't forget -- even the vocoder was around in the swing era. (The Sonovox was, I think, the first vocoder type device, popularized in part in a handful of movies like the Kay Kayser musical-horror-comedy "You'll Find Out" in 1940 and for novelty recordings and things like station ID's.)

Originally Posted by MisterScott99

Gilbert Wright invented the acoustic Sonovox in this clip around 1940, but the similar all-electric Vocoder was invented at Bell Labs by Homer Dudley in the mid 1930's. I see on Wiki that Alvino Rey used a "carbon throat microphone to modulate his electric guitar sound" in 1939, but "didn't develop it further." Interesting topic.[MisterScott99]

[vernier]

I guess what Vernier likes despite the narrowed frequency width you're referring to, is how "natural" and "musical" this recording sounds.

Right, the musicians grabbed me ..they're creating magic.

But the term "narrow frequency", while excepted by most, is odd. You can't automatically assume that wider is better, and its good we have filters to deal with it.

Btw, the Jack Guthrie song ..anyone like it? ..its a clean recording, and the fiddle sound, exceptional.
YouTube - OKLAHOMA HILLS by Jack Guthrie
'

[3rd&4thT]

They had limiters to prevent overloading, and slow compression for overall level, but they were much more into manual gain riding - concentric pots rather than sliders, but the hands never stopped. That's what you're hearing with the instruments.

3rd&4thT

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

They had limiters to prevent overloading, and slow compression for overall level, but they were much more into manual gain riding - concentric pots rather than sliders, but the hands never stopped. That's what you're hearing with the instruments.

3rd&4thT

Good point!

[Bob Olhsson]

It sounds a lot more like typical 1954 than 1944 to me.

[dropblacksky]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

It sounds a lot more like typical 1954 than 1944 to me.

I thought pretty much the same thing when I heard it...

[henryrobinett]

Ah, no. I can't hear 1954 in that. To me it sounds like '44-47. But I might be having a hard time divorcing myself from the performances.

I've listened to an awful lot of those recordings, even on 78s. Some of the later 78s sound damn good too. They started getting the technology together right before the long playing 33 1/3s came out.

'54 had more high end as I recall. More crispy cymbals. But it's all in perception and I could be wrong.

[Bob Olhsson]

I don't think tape sounded as good as 78s until well into the early '50s.

It sounds relatively close miked with a chamber to me. Probably recorded and filmed in LA where they still used mostly ribbons well after NYC had begun using mostly condensers.

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I don't think tape sounded as good as 78s until well into the early '50s.

A lot of late 40's 78s sounded fine on 78 and awful when reissued on LPs or CDs. Maybe something about the size of the 78 groove, and then all you hear in the subsequent transfers is killer levels of THD. I don't think it's all stylus selection either.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

It sounds relatively close miked with a chamber to me. Probably recorded and filmed in LA where they still used mostly ribbons well after NYC had begun using mostly condensers.

Thanks, Bob. We've largely forgotten about chambers now but they were VERY big in those days.

+1 on it sounding more like 1954 than 1944. That's what aroused my suspicion in the first place.

3rd&4thT

[The Studio RI]

Originally Posted by Recycled_Brains

The fidelity is not what makes it "wonderful". It's what they're playing.

It wouldn't sound better in a studio with modern gear and acoustics, just different, and possibly less interesting.


-R.

+1

I think if you recorded this the modern way, it would lose all it's character.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by The Studio RI

I think if you recorded this the modern way, it would lose all it's character.

my experience has been that the biggest loss of character happens when the headphones come out and you start overdubbing.

[vernier]

You can say that again.
'

[gurubuzz]

Sorry to Hi jack the thread but the John Lee Hooker link on the side is
amazing wow...



Anyway the sound was great in the Jazz link.

I think that if you made a recording like that today the musicians would
go to another engineer and do it again.

BUt

I think that elements of that era mixed with modern sounds would be
a real winner and I think that we all striving after the best sounds from
history to make modern recordings

[gurubuzz]

I also think that in the late forties there must have been the odd

"play back a recording of music and get the singer to sing just the right distance from the loudspeaker and record that" ... trick