The sound of vintage op amps

[Cosmik]

Irony?

When demonstrating my speakers, I often put on Elton John's Rocket Man, as an example of a beautiful recording.

I just thought I would have a look at what equipment it was recorded on. Turns out it was an MCI 416 console heavily based on MCI 2001 op amps. In other words, the audiophile's worst nightmare. Even now, people build 'discrete' amplifiers to avoid the oh so terrible sound of integrated circuits. I wonder if it is the case that the whole mix eventually passed through one stereo pair of op amps?

I am always interested in early examples of technologies that, according to audiophile legend, don't sound any good now, so should have sounded absolutely terrible in their early incarnations 45 years ago. Early digital audio is another such technology. The recordings are still available, and they don't sound terrible.

 

[fas42]

Yes, early digital recordings are fine - I have a few Denon classical CDs, done in the absolute dawn of these technologies, which are perfectly fine. Why opamps can be a problem in playback systems is that they're working in an environment where the power supplies need to deliver high current pulses - something not required while recording.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Op amps like many new technologies are said by audiophiles to sound bad. Then later get used. For so long op-amp based pre-amps and analog stages of DACs were thought inferior to discrete devices. Now, even the best of the best or at least most expensive use op-amps without mentioning it. Other than sometimes to mention they use some particular spec of op amp. There are $100k plus DACs using only op amps.

With recording consoles you have only scratched the surface. So much wire, so much switching, and transformers with not the greatest design are all over old mixing boards. Not to mention pots (as in carbon pots for level control). Though this one has Penny and Giles faders. Look at all the carbon resistors on that one. Of course people are discussing the character of it. I do wonder when people built those was it character they had in mind or just making so many things connect and work.

 

[watchnerd]

Irony?

When demonstrating my speakers, I often put on Elton John's Rocket Man, as an example of a beautiful recording.

I just thought I would have a look at what equipment it was recorded on. Turns out it was an MCI 416 console heavily based on MCI 2001 op amps. In other words, the audiophile's worst nightmare. Even now, people build 'discrete' amplifiers to avoid the oh so terrible sound of integrated circuits. I wonder if it is the case that the whole mix eventually passed through one stereo pair of op amps?

I am always interested in early examples of technologies that, according to audiophile legend, don't sound any good now, so should have sounded absolutely terrible in their early incarnations 45 years ago. Early digital audio is another such technology. The recordings are still available, and they don't sound terrible.

Were you listening to an original recording, or one that has been remastered?

 

[Cosmik]

Were you listening to an original recording, or one that has been remastered?

A very good point: remastered - so the whole of the mix (that I am listening to) didn't pass through a single pair of vintage op amps.

 

[Don Hills]

A very good point: remastered - so the whole of the mix (that I am listening to) didn't pass through a single pair of vintage op amps.

Sonce the remaster was done from the original master, it has passed through the same number of vintage op-amps as the original.

 

[watchnerd]

Sonce the remaster was done from the original master, it has passed through the same number of vintage op-amps as the original.

Not if it was remastered on a DAW.

 

[Cosmik]

Sonce the remaster was done from the original master, it has passed through the same number of vintage op-amps as the original.

Well I was distinguishing between multiple tracks that have each gone through an op amp (or more) in the mixing desk when being recorded to tape, versus the final stereo 'mixdown' that, at the time, might have all been passed through a single pair of op amps, but now is being fed off the multitrack tape into something modern and digital (as watchnerd points out below). It's the passing of everything through a single op amp where the 'character' of the op amp would show up most, I imagine.

 

[Don Hills]

Was the track remixed, or remastered? Remixing is where the multitrack is (re)mixed down to a master. Remastering is where the original master is re-equalised and re-compressed etc to a new master.

 

[Cosmik]

Was the track remixed, or remastered? Remixing is where the multitrack is (re)mixed down to a master. Remastering is where the original master is re-equalised and re-compressed etc to a new master.

Ah, maybe they're using the term wrongly, but it seems that the remasters of the Elton John albums are really remixes of the original multitrack tapes.

(You've reminded me that I used to make the distinction between "mix" and "master", and then the craze for "remastering" started, where albums were re-mixed, and I concluded that my original idea of what the term meant was wrong - thanks for "re-correcting" me )

 

[Don Hills]

Ah, maybe they're using the term wrongly, but it seems that the remasters of the Elton John albums are really remixes of the original multitrack tapes. ... )

Yep, definitely re-mixed. Thanks. From the articles, my main objection is that the digitising appears to have been done to DSD (and, by extension, the mixing was done in DXD).