The Reason Why Older Records Sound Better

[MatrixS2000]

I don't think that's why some early CDs aren't great - it's more about not doing good remastering to suit the medium but I've honestly had no big problem with my early CD's and for a long time I had both the vinyl and the CD back then, and the EQ on the vinyl versions of some records was terrible too! (all vinyl now sold, thank goodness!)

Some CDs and many digital downloads suffer from loudness maximization rather than bad EQing. Bad mastering is format independent - it can happen on any format.

 

[Redacted]

Some CDs and many digital downloads suffer from loudness maximization rather than bad EQing. Bad mastering is format independent - it can happen on any format.

Yup.
I can't say I there's much material I own has the "loudness war" thing to an extent that bothers me, but I certainly have CDs made by engineers that clearly have lost all hearing above 5kHz

 

[DSJR]

Anyone who looks on Discogs (I buy used CDs there) can see that many albums have dozens or even hundreds of releases, many of which have been remastered, and sometimes remixed. People may be surprised at the differences between some of the CDs they bought in the 80's & 90's, and newer releases of the same.

I'm a bit nerdy, and I check the DR numbers of CDs and even bit-compare them on FB2K, and against FLAC downloads. There are differences not just in the numbers but also in the sound - CD releases are not static things.

Agreed, but I was thinking of original discs in my collection, not just latest reissues

 

[MatrixS2000]

Yup.
I can't say I there's much material I own has the "loudness war" thing to an extent that bothers me, but I certainly have CDs made by engineers that clearly have lost all hearing above 5kHz

You would be surprised how much of it is out there. The only genre free of this is classical. Here is a comparison I did elsewhere:

Lady Blackbird’s "It’s Not That Easy” from her Black Acid Soul album:

Streaming version:

Digital Download version:

Vinyl version:

The above is why I digitize my vinyl. Even though vinyl has many, many flaws like you pointed out, once it is in the digital domain all of those flaws are easily reversed. Surface noise can be attenuated, click/pops removed, the low end restored and the track can be re-EQed. Unfortunately, you can’t back out loudness war damage - that is permanent.

 

[Redacted]

There nothing in my vast collection that concerns me with regard to loudness (compression) - in fact it improves a lot of music I like!
How would I know? Well I do check DR from time to time, and I come across versions of the 'same' album with say scores of 10 and 13 (let's say) and plenty of times, I like DR10 version more. Sometimes the DR13 version. Maybe it's not a valid thing. I got into saving the DR score in a tag with FB2K, but realised I didn't care that much - I either like an album or I don't! I would never consider going back to vinyl for this or any other reason!

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

What are these bad sounding early CDs? Anytime this comes up I ask for someone to name a specific title. So far no-one ever has.

If you had asked me this in 1984 I could have given you numerous examples. Now, whether they were really problematic or I just thought they were is a question lost to history. I was certainly biased against CDs at first, and like most people I hear what I expect to hear.

By the time I bought my first DAT recorder I was all-in on digital since for the first time in my audio recording career, the playback sounded exactly the same as what I sent to the tape.

 

[MatrixS2000]

There nothing in my vast collection that concerns me with regard to loudness (compression) - in fact it improves a lot of music I like!
How would I know? Well I do check DR from time to time, and I come across versions of the 'same' album with say scores of 10 and 13 (let's say) and plenty of times, I like DR10 version more. Sometimes the DR13 version. Maybe it's not a valid thing. I got into saving the DR score in a tag with FB2K, but realised I didn't care that much - I either like an album or I don't! I would never consider going back to vinyl for this or any other reason!

I didn’t post that to tell you what you should like or not like. I posted it as information - everyone has their preferences when it comes to sound. Some like loud, some don’t.

 

[Mart68]

If you had asked me this in 1984 I could have given you numerous examples. Now, whether they were really problematic or I just thought they were is a question lost to history. I was certainly biased against CDs at first, and like most people I hear what I expect to hear.

By the time I bought my first DAT recorder I was all-in on digital since for the first time in my audio recording career, the playback sounded exactly the same as what I sent to the tape.

My experience also and that of many others. But since then I have bought several vintage players and many early CD issues and sound quality of both is excellent. I can only suggest that the problem back then was due to the partnering equipment.

That CD did not die a death as a format and rapidly became dominant suggests that many/most people found it to be better right from the start and that we were in the minority with our experience.

 

[Chr1]

It would appear that there's a number of factors.
I do think that by the mid 80s, many, certainly pop/rock sound engineers/producers, were aiming for a sound with more treble. Less "warm", if you will than in the 60s and 70s.

To me, many recordings from this era sound overly bright, and need a fair bit of bass, midbass boost to sound anywhere near right to me.

Another possibility is that valve amps were more prevalent back then, so a bright mix gets that warmth back via the playback equipment. (As is also often the case with vinyl, via the cartridge, preamp etc.)

A couple of examples off the top of my head are ones I posted in a thread about "Yacht Rock"

Post in thread 'Got Yacht Rock?' https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/got-yacht-rock.71002/post-2578451

Note : Though the SQ of YouTube is not the best, I can attest to it not being vastly different to CD and even 24bit quality with these two tracks.

Definitely a bright sound. Went with the questionable clothes...
Jan Hammer... Miami Vice etc!

Have to say that I prefer this type of 80s bright stuff through my valve amp, but EQ definitely works too.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

It would appear that there's a number of factors.
I do think that by the mid 80s, many, certainly pop/rock sound engineers/producers, were aiming for a sound with more treble. Less "warm", if you will than in the 60s and 70s.

To me, many recordings from this era sound overly bright, and need a fair bit of bass, midbass boost to sound anywhere near right to me.

Another possibility is that valve amps where more prevalent back then, so a bright mix gets that warmth back via the playback equipment. (As is also often the case with vinyl, via the cartridge, preamp etc.)

A couple of examples off the top of my head are ones I posted in a thread about "Yacht Rock"

Post in thread 'Got Yacht Rock?' https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/got-yacht-rock.71002/post-2578451

A bright sound. Went with the questionable clothes...
Jan Hammer... Miami Vice etc!

Have to say that I prefer this type of 80s bright stuff through my valve amp, but EQ definitely works too.

At this time SSL consoles became "the thing". In my subjective experience they were "brighter" than competitors, especially when using the in-channel compressor.

Producers and any musicians that actually cared loved the in-channel compressor/limiter; it allowed individual channels to combine EQ and compression and make things really "punch".

I've always felt the sound of the 80s was the sound of SSL...

 

[Redacted]

An old friend used to design hardware for SSL decks - I'm sure he would have told me if nobody bothered using the EQ when recording.
I'm pretty sure "bright" is a choice.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

An old friend used to design hardware for SSL decks - I'm sure he would have told me if nobody bothered using the EQ when recording.
I'm pretty sure "bright" is a choice.

When the EQ was flat, they of course measured flat (I used to do line-up and repair on studio consoles).

I quite liked how they sounded. But of course I could not do a blind, level-controlled, switched comparison with, say, a Neve control panel in the same room

 

[Redacted]

When the EQ was flat, they of course measured flat (I used to do line-up and repair on studio consoles).

I quite liked how they sounded. But of course I could not do a blind, level-controlled, switched comparison with, say, a Neve control panel in the same room

Yes - Amir is probably not going to do comparison measurements between various historical consoles!
But I know a chap who has several floor to ceiling piles of 'studio sound' or whatever was the mag they all bought - the tests are probably in there

 

[DSJR]

What are these bad sounding early CDs? Anytime this comes up I ask for someone to name a specific title. So far no-one ever has.

There's not as much bass on older recordings that's true, we didn't get serious bass until CD became mainstream and they no longer had to consider the limitations of vinyl playback when recording.

There's so many myths surrounding early CDs, and early CD players never seen an iota of evidence that either had any issues whatsoever.

One disc I know of (which actually sounds okay today), is the Academy of Ancient Music performance of Vivalidi's Four Seasons (Trevor Pinnock if memory serves) from the early 80s. It sounded shrill and seriously 'squeaky' into the rigs we UK flat earthers were peddling, yet tolerable on the vinyl. many years later, I heard the same disc into a more neutral playback rig and the sound was absolutely fine, the off timbres being the original instruments and not the 'digital' format at all! the early CD of Abacab by genesis wasn't nice either, but I returned the disc and never replaced it.

As for CD players, I used to regularly visit UK reviewer Jimmy Hughes (Gawd bless him) and was able to hear many different early players, this in the years before he put reflected sound from his speakers first over the direct one. The early Sony's were fine, the sense of 3-D improving subtly with each generation (I find the CDP 101 a bit 'dry' in comparison, or did last I compared with a modern player), but the earliest 14 bit Philips players had something going on which gave me a headache after 3/4 hour. At work, we had the Mission DAD7000 and B&O CDX, both sounding fine and I borrowed also an early Micromega Solo player (heavy disc 'weight' and perspex lid) which sounded awful in an 'over egged 'analogue' way' to me at least. The Meridian MCD-Pro hit the spot and I bought one in 1985, all but bankrupting myself on discs to play on it - and off I went from there.

Some early CD masterings were iffy I admit. Phaedra by Tangerine Dream had a nasty edit halfway through the title track which is missing in all subsequent issues and using headphones, the earlier CD players didn't 'reproduce' tape hiss very well compared to later ones! Voyage of The Acolyte by Steve Hacket sounds hard and 'odd' in eq, fixed beautifully I feel a few years later in a seemingly sensitive remastering. Yet on the other hand, Trilogy by Emerson, Lake & Palmer and Lizard by King Crimson (both originally Island Records releases), sounded great from first CD release... I recall JM Jarre's Oxygene sounding 'dirty' on its UK Polydor release, yet the French Disque Dreyfuss CD issue sounded great - and so on and so on. Finally, Decca used to 'tidy up' their early CD issues, usually by adding sensitive venue ambiance instead of digital silence between movements/leader-breaks in the master tape. Said ambiance was analogue or digital sourced I believe, depending on the recording and if memory serves, could be subtly eq'd to match the recording best. I could go on regurgitating memories, so apologies for excess length so far.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

But I know a chap who has several floor to ceiling piles of 'studio sound' or whatever was the mag they all bought - the tests are probably in there

The mag we all subscribed to was Mix magazine. I don't recall seeing very many objective tests of the sort that Amir does. IIRC, it was mostly interviews with producers and engineers giving their subjective opinion on various topics and describing their techniques and approaches.

The other rag was Pro Sound News, which was sent for free to anyone who asked - it was mostly about the business end rather than the production aspect of the business.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The mag we all subscribed to was Mix magazine. I don't recall seeing very many objective tests of the sort that Amir does. IIRC, it was mostly interviews with producers and engineers giving their subjective opinion on various topics and describing their techniques and approaches.

The other rag was Pro Sound News, which was sent for free to anyone who asked - it was mostly about the business end rather than the production aspect of the business.

Agreed. When I worked on consoles, there were no public measurements of the desks. Instead the manufacturer measured it and shared the results with the purchaser.

I tested new installations to confirm that the agreed specs were met. It was a very tedious task, even with automated testing tools. With very complex desks, each channel had hundreds of possible permutations, meaning a deep test of a single channel could take hours...

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

And looking at the current reviews in Mix, they are adjective-heavy and measurement-light. Might as well be reading Stereophile.

For example, here's their review of the Senheiser 480 Pro. It'd be great to see what Amir would have to say after measuring these.

 

[Redacted]

And looking at the current reviews in Mix, they are adjective-heavy and measurement-light. Might as well be reading Stereophile.

For example, here's their review of the Senheiser 480 Pro. It'd be great to see what Amir would have to say after measuring these.

You could be onto something here - an ASR site for the pro-gear market, with the test results!