Why/how do old recordings sound so good?

[WillBrink]

Listening to older recordings, I'm often gobsmacked by how good they sound. I assume there's more to it than simple compression. Listening to Peggy Lee, recorded mostly in the 50s, and Nat King Cole, 40s, 50s, the quality of the recordings is jaw dropping some times. I have heard there's debates among engineers and related the mics of the time were especially good, but no idea how accurate, or what other variables account for the differences. I find recordings from the 40s, 50s, and early 60s are the best I ever hear on my system. Stream for example Ultimate Peggy Lee some time and see what ye think.

 

[Robin L]

Listening to older recordings, I'm often gobsmacked by how good they sound. I assume there's more to it than simple compression. Listening to Peggy Lee, recorded mostly in the 50s, and Nat King Cole, 40s, 50s, the quality of the recordings is jaw dropping some times. I have heard there's debates among engineers and related the mics of the time were especially good, but no idea how accurate, or what other variables account for the differences. I find recordings from the 40s, 50s, and early 60s are the best I ever hear on my system. Stream for example Ultimate Peggy Lee some time and see what ye think.

The two examples you cite are from Capitol records. Before the Beatles became the biggest name in their catalog, Capitol records focused on performers like Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee and, especially, Frank Sinatra. Capitol's studios were state of the art at the time and the vocal microphone they used most often was the Neumann U47 tube condenser microphone. It is still regarded as one of the best ever. The going price for a good example is around $20,000.00 these days. If anything is the "secret sauce" behind these recordings the Neumann U47/48 would be it. While the U47 may not be the most linear or accurate microphone as of 2025, it still does wonders with vocals.

U 47 - Switchable Condenser Microphone

The U 47, introduced in 1949, was a technical revolution and is still considered the indisputable reference for perfect sound. With its well-balanced, extremely vivid response and excellent low-noise performance, this tube microphone raised the bar to a whole new level.

www.neumann.com

 

[Oddball]

I find that artist's emotions and performance are ultimately the key to what is conveyed in the recoding, that itself can help or harm the performance. One of my favourite songs of all times does not date that way back, but is not that fresh either. The performance was epic as times evidenced. JJ Mercedes Benz.

Not surprised that you find the same in the older competent recordings. It was important how they recorded them, but much more what they had to say.

 

[WillBrink]

The two examples you cite are from Capitol records. Before the Beatles became the biggest name in their catalog, Capitol records focused on performers like Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee and, especially, Frank Sinatra. Capitol's studios were state of the art at the time and the vocal microphone they used most often was the Neumann U47 tube condenser microphone. It is still regarded as one of the best ever. The going price for a good example is around $20,000.00 these days. If anything is the "secret sauce" behind these recordings the Neumann U47/48 would be it. While the U47 may not be the most linear or accurate microphone as of 2025, it does wonders with vocals.

U 47 - Switchable Condenser Microphone

The U 47, introduced in 1949, was a technical revolution and is still considered the indisputable reference for perfect sound. With its well-balanced, extremely vivid response and excellent low-noise performance, this tube microphone raised the bar to a whole new level.

www.neumann.com

Ah, so I was not barking up the wrong direction with my comments on that. Cool!

 

[Sokel]

Stereo performance of the 50's is what always amazes me in classical, the well defined 3D soundstage is only matched by a few new recordings.
Why? I have asked numerous seasoned people about audio about it. And it's simpler than we think.

Is probably just that the newly found format to the era (stereo) was actually followed standards based on the research as it seems.
And as it was new these standards was closely followed.
And then came "opinions" and things start to go sideways as everyone wanted a "signature" . Even if that "signature" disrespected the known principles.

Don't get me wrong, todays recordings are amazing too (lots of them) but not 70 years of evolution better.

 

[Robin L]

Stereo performance of the 50's is what always amazes me in classical, the well defined 3D soundstage is only matched by a few new recordings.
Why? I have asked numerous seasoned people about audio about it. And it's simpler than we think.

Is probably just that the newly found format to the era (stereo) was actually followed standards based on the research as it seems.
And as it was new these standards was closely followed.
And then came "opinions" and things start to go sideways as everyone wanted a "signature" . Even if that "signature" disrespected the known principles.

Don't get me wrong, todays recordings are amazing too (lots of them) but not 70 years of evolution better.

In the early years of stereo engineers would use fewer microphones, resulting in less phase artifacts. As stereo became the norm producers and performers were less interested in "The Absolute Sound" and started to do such things as bringing instruments in and out of the mix. The Leopold Stokowski Decca Phase 4 recordings are a good example, as are Herbert von Karajan's 1970's recordings.

 

[Chr1]

High quality valve gear adding that rich warmth to the sound, lol.

(Objectively: just distortion. Subjectively: often a wonderful lushness, when done right obvs)

(See previous post re Neumann U47 etc)
My 2c.

 

[Robin L]

Ah, so I was not barking up the wrong direction with my comments on that. Cool!

A real good example of what the Capitol engineers were working on in the mid-1950s:

 

[bluefuzz]

I was always impressed by the minimalism of early Buddy Holly recordings before they stuck an orchestra behind him. Some of the early Sam Cooke stuff has the same spine tingling sparseness. A well placed plate reverb can work wonders.

There are other memorably good sounding recordings of that era by Roy Orbison, The Impressions, Etta James, Jackie Wilson ...

 

[kemmler3D]

A simple stereo pair of good mics already sounded good in the 50s - 60s, as @Sokel mentioned. Mixing tools and effects were also a lot more basic, so the quality of the initial capture was very important and there wasn't as much engineers could do to fix / screw up the recording from that point.

Later on with more tracks and effects available they gained the ability to create artificial soundstages, combine more instruments from more takes, etc. This could be much more artistic and interesting (Sgt. Peppers was a watershed album in that regard) but also leaves behind the realistic clean sound of a simple high quality recording.

 

[DVDdoug]

In my experience, MOST pre-60's recordings aren't that great. Some have been remastered (noise reduction and EQ) and maybe some without the loudness war compression and limiting.

Buy the 1960s it seems like most recordings were getting pretty good, especially after stereo became standard. By the 1970's, I'd say "good enough" but the vinyl records weren't that great. I grew-up with vinyl and I didn't realize how good the studio recordings were until the CDs were released.

I have heard there's debates among engineers and related the mics of the time were especially good, but no idea how accurate,

Studio mics aren't supposed to be "accurate". Most of the difference is frequency response and of course that can be tweaked with EQ. Back in the tube & analog days they didn't have graphic EQ or parametric EQ. There is software to make one mic sound like another and there are "modeling mics" that come with software to model various models.

I read about a test where they tested 2 vintage mics of the same model and a clone. The 2 old mics measured and sounded different from each other (shock! ) and the clone was closer to one than the other...

There is a fair amount of mythology in the pro world but they aren't as crazy as "audiophools"!

Some vintage preamps are expensive too, and some amateurs buy any-old tube preamp.

Nobody is going to listen to a recording and know what mic was used and they're not going to say, "They used a great mic", or "They used a great preamp.



Here' s a quote from Ethan Winer's book:

Many aspiring recording engineers today appreciate some of the great recordings from the mid-twentieth century. But when they are unable to make their own amateur efforts sound as good, they wrongly assume they need the same gear that was used back then. Of course, the real reason so many old recordings sound wonderful is because they were made by very good engineers in great (often very large) studios having excellent acoustics.

 

[Leporello]

Partly because we have gotten used to the Blue Note sound (for example): this is what real jazz sounds.

 

[DVDdoug]

There are other memorably good sounding recordings of that era by Roy Orbison, The Impressions, Etta James, Jackie Wilson ...

I'm not a big Roy Orbison fan but I saw Black and White Night (from 1988) on PBS and bought the DVD. Great sound! (And surround.) IMO much better sound than the old original recordings.

 

[oleg87]

I mean there's plenty of unimpressive recordings from the time as well - the technology was there to make good-sounding records, so as in later decades, it's a matter of budget, effort, and the taste and competence of the people doing the recording.

 

[Timcognito]

Check out any of these titles if one is a Jazz fan all done with the U-47 and AKG mics. Most are pretty stunning in lifelike quality. My fav "You Get More Bounce With Curtis Counce"

 

[Matt_Holland]

Here' s a quote from Ethan Winer's book: Of course, the real reason so many old recordings sound wonderful is because they were made by very good engineers in great (often very large) studios having excellent acoustics

I’ve always assume this. Because of minimal processing and mixing, the microphone technique, the room acoustics and how the band were setup were the only tools to change or optimise the sound.

The best jazz and classical from later 50s onward can sound amazing for sure. I very much enjoy these older recordings.

 

[bluefuzz]

IMO much better sound than the old original recordings.

The Black and White Night thing was pretty good, and amusing to see so many of rock's glitterati grinning like schoolkids from just being on the same stage as Orbison. But I think Roy Orbison's 50s and 60s recordings stand up very well. Some of them are virtually indistinguishable from later rerecordings. Orbison was consistently great on pretty much anything he touched IMO. At least until he fell into the clutches of the awful Jeff Lynne ...

 

[Robin L]

It's those Monument recordings that are early engineering marvels.

I've got no problem with Jeff Lynne. He was a Travelling Wilbury, after all.

 

[Matt_Holland]

It's those Monument recordings that are early engineering marvels.


View attachment 460008
I've got no problem with Jeff Lynne. He was a Travelling Wilbury, after all.

Candy Man is startlingly good sounding!

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

The thing I’ve noticed with the CDs in my collection (many originating in the analog era) is that the best-sounding ones appear to have minimal compression. Of course, superb EQ in the master is a tremendous factor, but these recordings all have dynamics in spades. For one example, check out Chuck Mangione's "Feel So Good" CD. (It sounds pretty good on Youtube, but not as good as the CD.)

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt