Why/how do old recordings sound so good?

[Soandso]

Brunswick was one of the earliest (1916) USA recording studios that by 1930 with corporate partners had a US$ 28,000 (=U$ 538,500+ in 2025 dollars) mobile recording set up that weighed 1,600 pounds. Performers played in a room whose microphone cable sent the audio signal into a glass windowed sound proof room. There it was amplified and one person listened to a single speaker allowing him to order stop(s) and re-doing(s) unwanted performance(s) from the beginning. Another person with simple headphones on was tasked with controlling the onward passed audio signal volume to the recording equipment.

A technician operating the recorder had lots to do. He had a warming oven with multiple flat (not cylindrical) discs with a 1 and 1/8th inch thick coating of a proprietary metallic soap "wax" ( not rosin or bees wax) that in horizontal size were 2 inches greater in diameter than the proposed final record. One of these lathe polished (often recycled) "wax disc" was placed on a turntable, the metal recording needle placed on it's edge and a few test turns of the rig making grooves were made, a vacuum sucked away any filaments and a microscope was slid over there to verify operation and production conditions were acceptable. Only after that would the recording technician place the needle in the actual staring position and authorize a new performance could start.

[Later the cut disc's "wax" was dusted with fine graphite (sometimes first dipped in an acid) to make the recording disc's "wax" surface conductive, then it would be electroplated with a final copper layer applied. Once done the "wax" got broken away leaving copper ridges corresponding to the recorded grooves so that when that plater were then "stamped" it created a finished records' grooves. In those days the ridged plate was called the "Mother", not a "master".]

 

[Timcognito]

Brunswick was one of the earliest (1916) USA recording studios that by 1930 with corporate partners had a US$ 28,000 (=U$ 538,500+ in 2025 dollars) mobile recording set up that weighed 1,600 pounds. Performers played in a room whose microphone cable sent the audio signal into a glass windowed sound proof room. There it was amplified and one person listened to a single speaker allowing him to order stop(s) and re-doing(s) unwanted performance(s) from the beginning. Another person with simple headphones on was tasked with controlling the onward passed audio signal volume to the recording equipment.

A technician operating the recorder had lots to do. He had a warming oven with multiple flat (not cylindrical) discs with a 1 and 1/8th inch thick coating of a proprietary metallic soap "wax" ( not rosin or bees wax) that in horizontal size were 2 inches greater in diameter than the proposed final record. One of these lathe polished (often recycled) "wax disc" was placed on a turntable, the metal recording needle placed on it's edge and a few test turns of the rig making grooves were made, a vacuum sucked away any filaments and a microscope was slid over there to verify operation and production conditions were acceptable. Only after that would the recording technician place the needle in the actual staring position and authorize a new performance could start.

[Later the cut disc's "wax" was dusted with fine graphite (sometimes first dipped in an acid) to make the recording disc's "wax" surface conductive, then it would be electroplated with a final copper layer applied. Once done the "wax" got broken away leaving copper ridges corresponding to the recorded grooves so that when that plater were then "stamped" it created a finished records' grooves. In those days the ridged plate was called the "Mother", not a "master".]

Another early recording label Star Records who recorded as early as 1915 at what became Gennett label was responsible some 16000 releases in its history. What is remarkable they recorded some of the earliest African American Jazz greats, such as King Oliver, Louis Armstrong, Bix Biderbecke and many others, surprisingly right under the noses of the highly racist Indiana at the time. Later they were responsible for releases by their white copycats and innovators that spanned the the Jazz Age. The history and recording tech and techniques are revealed in this documentary.

WTIU Documentaries | The Music Makers of Gennett Records

The unlikely story of the Gennett Studios, where many great artists first recorded.

www.pbs.org

 

[Ropeburn]

Additionally to all the good points already made, historically the 50s, especially the late ones and all through the 60s were kinda a golden era in terms of sound and technical development. Europe had just recovered from the war, so had Japan, and all the big US and Japanese record companies and etc., plus the BBC in Britain and WDR in Germany (both state funded) and many others, they were all swimming in money and made investments into tech development by the millions.

All the important technical foundations had already been laid before, and now they all could focus on developing some real quality gear, at seemingly no limit to expenses. So they went wild, and all this (then) high end stuff slowly but steadily trickled down to consumer products as well. We all still today profit from the huge development efforts from those years and decades.

 

[Soandso]

Another early recording label Star Records who recorded as early as 1915 at what became Gennett label was responsible some 16000 releases in its history. What is remarkable they recorded some of the earliest African American Jazz greats, such as King Oliver, Louis Armstrong, Bix Biderbecke and many others …

Merely a mention than Biderbecke was not African American. Originally he was from Davenport, Iowa which was an early historical USA important upriver Mississippi river port; coincidentally where steamboats, sometimes with African American jazz musicians coming out of New Orleans, turned around. He carried his cornet (not trumpet) in a paper bag and enjoyed playing the piano.

 

[August West]

Sonny Rollins recorded an album "Way Out West" in 1957. Its a beauty. It sound and feels like the band is at the back of the stage and you're standing in front of them. I think it sounds amazing and just feels like you were there when listening to it.

 

[Timcognito]

Merely a mention than Biderbecke was not African American. Originally he was from Davenport, Iowa which was an early historical USA important upriver Mississippi river port; coincidentally where steamboats, sometimes with African American jazz musicians coming out of New Orleans, turned around. He carried his cornet (not trumpet) in a paper bag and enjoyed playing the piano.

View attachment 460146

I stand corrected and had forgotten, as his style was pure NO Jazz. This tribute album is very good as many of his very early originals are lost, though there are some.

 

[Sokel]

Now, forgive me about the specifics but I have a golden sample of what anyone is searching about stereo playback.
And I mean the scene, the depth, the way the recording makes speakers totally disappear (so much I had to check if such a stable center image was actually mono and not the stereo which it is)

It's Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto in D major, Op. 35 - Jascha Heifetz, Fritz Reiner with CSO.

It's from 1957 and the performance is divine as expected.


To come to audio though, one thing is screaming about it: simplicity.
Amongst the rest of the points been made by far more educated members, it seems like an obvious factor.

Edit: cannot help myself but comment. I'm laughing my heart out about how Heifetz is totally showing off against his better judgment under Reiner's iron hand.
And he's getting away with this!

 

[Robin L]

Now, forgive me about the specifics but I have a golden sample of what anyone is searching about stereo playback.
And I mean the scene, the depth, the way the recording makes speakers totally disappear (so much I had to check if such a stable center image was actually mono and not the stereo which it is)

It's Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto in D major, Op. 35 - Jascha Heifetz, Fritz Reiner with CSO.

It's from 1957 and the performance is divine as expected.


To come to audio though, one thing is screaming about it: simplicity.
Amongst the rest of the points been made by far more educated members, it seems like an obvious factor.

Edit: cannot help myself but comment. I'm laughing my heart out about how Heifetz is totally showing off against his better judgment under Reiner's iron hand.
And he's getting away with this!

I've got 22 of the "Living Stereo" SACDs that came out in the early 2000's, including that Tchaikovsky violin concerto performance, coupled with the equally amazing performance of Brahms' violin concerto. The technical notes say that "Neumann U-47 cardioid and M-49/50 omnidirectional microphones were favored. . . "

M 49 - Remote Switchable Condenser Microphone

The M 49 was the first studio microphone with a continuously variable directional pattern. It used the same large diaphragm capsule as the U 47 and ranks among the most sought-after tube microphones of all time. In 2022 it was reissued by Neumann as the M 49 V Set.

www.neumann.com

M 50 - Condenser Microphone (omni)

The M 50 was instrumental in developing the Decca tree recording technique. The open mesh headbasket houses a small diaphragm capsule flush mounted in a small sphere. Its unique acoustic properties are ideally suited to orchestral recordings.

www.neumann.com

Neumann's notes on the m-50 say that it was favored by Decca for their famous "microphone tree".

I remember seeing a chart displaying the placement of microphones for "Living Stereo" recordings. There were only a few microphones involved, something like ORTF + outriggers and room microphones.

Edit: You note how the center image on the Tchaikovsky recording was so solid, you wondered if it was mono. At the time RCA Victor would use a single microphone on the soloist. My understanding is that they did this to properly balance the soloist v. orchestra. I guess this was also a way of making the soloists happy. I know that later recordings would use more microphones on soloists, so they had more of a "stereo" effect on playback..

 

[Chr1]

Questions for those in the know:

Why are these valve microphones still being used?
Are there not modern microphones that are cheaper and/or superior?

I find it curious that as valves essentially add distortion, that they are still in use in music production.

PS I use valves (optionally) in one of my playback systems, so am not inherently anti-valve per se. I am just curious as to why they have not been superseded by something else by now.

 

[oleg87]

Questions for those in the know:

Why are these valve microphones still being used?
Are there not modern microphones that are cheaper and/or superior?

I find it curious that as valves essentially add distortion, that they are still in use in music production.

PS I use valves (optionally) in one of my playback systems, so am not inherently anti-valve per se. I am just curious as to why they have not been superseded by something else by now.

People still use all sorts of tube gear, they still track to tape and push it into saturation - any studio claiming world-class status will have heaps of classic vintage compressors and the like. Transparency isn’t always the intent.

 

[Robin L]

Questions for those in the know:

Why are these valve microphones still being used?
Are there not modern microphones that are cheaper and/or superior?

I find it curious that as valves essentially add distortion, that they are still in use in music production.

PS I use valves (optionally) in one of my playback systems, so am not inherently anti-valve per se. I am just curious as to why they have not been superseded by something else by now.

Neumann makes updated versions of these microphones, some using solid-state devices instead of valves, some using updated tubes. But microphones are transducers, after all, and have unique sonic qualities. An example—Neumann's KM 84 uses FETs, the first updated version (KM 140) uses op-amps. The update has a lower noise floor, very useful for digital recordings. However, the KM 84 has a different sound signature and has become yet another Neumann microphone that currently has high prices, though nowhere as high as the prices of the U-47:

https://reverb.com/p/neumann-km-84-i?utm_source=aw&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=http%3A%2F%2Fwildlink.me&sv1=affiliate&sv_campaign_id=407399&awc=67144_1751209327_a6074ee3acc411226e5c74890974e78b

I've used both, actually preferred the sound of the original KM 84 (though, with the kind of recordings I made the 140 was more practical). Klaus Heyne modified KM 84s are much more expensive and, frankly, better, with a lower noise floor and greater transparency:

https://reverb.com/item/33121871-neumann-km84-stereo-pair-klaus-heyne-modded-rare-vintage-microphones-mic?utm_source=aw&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=http%3A%2F%2Fwildlink.me&sv1=affiliate&sv_campaign_id=407399&awc=67144_1751209774_6e872ad756d8fecd97b3a5f99b9d81a8

 

[DSJR]

Much of the vibe has already been covered in earlier posts, but isn't it amazing how most if not all of it can easily be heard via lo-res YouTube or basic digital platform? - the remaining anti-digital peeps take note

Mind you, I rather like some of the post-punk recordings of the early to mid 80s, where the mixes seemed more 'raw' and 'live' for a while, lacking the overly dry multi-mono sound of 70s rock albums. One band I like (The Fixx) had a particular sound and production when recording in the UK, but when they moved to a high-tech studio in the US for a follow-up, the producer sapped all that eager-enthusiasm out and, although a little of the previous vibe was left, the 'more technically correct' production destroyed it for me.

I believe at least one remastered King Crimson album went through a valve line stage or at least a valve emulation on its way to the digits back in the noughties (Robert Fripp's diary) as if memory serves, both Mr Fripp and the mastering engineer (Simon Heyworth) felt the music was served better by doing this, or words to that effect...

 

[Waxx]

You have two kind of condensor microphones, the coloured ones (like Neumann and AKG) and the very clean ones like DPA and Schoeps, and both have their function. In pop and rock and jazz coloured are often better to get the sound that sound like they are in the room, clean does not work for that, it sounds artificial. But for classic today the prefer mostly the very clean microphones. But not in other music genres as it just don't sound right.

 

[HalSF]

I've often wondered about this myself. I remember the first time Iistened to Duke Ellington Masterpieces and being blown away at not just how wonderful the music is, but the products quality. It was on Columbia records so reading below now it makes more sense to me.

Thanks for mentioning Masterpieces, recorded in December 1950 at Columbia’s 30th Street studio using an Ampex 200 on magnetic tape at 15IPS and among the greatest, most vivid mono sound I’ve ever heard. Of course the music is pure genius.

 

[Robin L]

You have two kind of condensor microphones, the coloured ones (like Neumann and AKG) and the very clean ones like DPA and Schoeps, and both have their function. In pop and rock and jazz coloured are often better to get the sound that sound like they are in the room, clean does not work for that, it sounds artificial. But for classic today the prefer mostly the very clean microphones. But not in other music genres as it just don't sound right.

Don't know much about the DPA microphones, other than that brand started out as B & K. Those are considered measurement microphones, suitable for measuring speakers and such, though also used for orchestra recordings and other recordings of acoustic sessions. The small diaphragms can push the high frequency resonant peak out of the audible range, but they do this at the price of elevated self-noise compared to large diaphragm condensers. I have worked with the Schoeps small diaphragm microphones. Of course, the old 221B microphones I worked with were very colored. The "Collete" series has its own distinctive color, perfect for recording the harpsichord just as the Neumann KM 84 and AKG 451 are suitable for acoustic guitar. All are small diaphragm microphones. Large diaphragm condensers are more suitable for vocal work. All microphones have colorations. Recording engineers use different microphones for different purposes. I've been assistant engineer at recording sessions for orchestra at Skywalker that involved Neumann, Schoeps and Sennheiser microphones in use at the same time.

 

[Sjkrabbe]

another truely great sounding monorecording from the Capitol Studios is FRank Sinatras "In The Wee Small Hours" - so amazing <3

 

[Robin L]

another truely great sounding monorecording from the Capitol Studios is FRank Sinatras "In The Wee Small Hours" - so amazing <3

 

[Sjkrabbe]

Don't know much about the DPA microphones, other than that brand started out as B & K. Those are considered measurement microphones, suitable for measuring speakers and such, though also used for orchestra recordings and other recordings of acoustic sessions. The small diaphragms can push the high frequency resonant peak out of the audible range, but they do this at the price of elevated self-noise compared to large diaphragm condensers. I have worked with the Schoeps small diaphragm microphones. Of course, the old 221B microphones I worked with were very colored. The "Collete" series has its own distinctive color, perfect for recording the harpsichord just as the Neumann KM 84 and AKG 451 are suitable for acoustic guitar. All are small diaphragm microphones. Large diaphragm condensers are more suitable for vocal work. All microphones have colorations. Recording engineers use different microphones for different purposes. I've been assistant engineer at recording sessions for orchestra at Skywalker that involved Neumann, Schoeps and Sennheiser microphones in use at the same time.

the DPAs are great mics both 4006 omni, 4011 cardiod and all the others- I use them a lot when recording classical music. But I´m quite biased towards them because I worked in Bruel&Kjær as a electronics mechanic in the 1980s around the time they designed the 4011 So the DPA mics are sort of family :-D

 

[Robin L]

the DPAs are great mics both 4006 omni, 4011 cardiod and all the others- I use them a lot when recording classical music. But I´m quite biased towards them because I worked in Bruel&Kjær as a electronics mechanic in the 1980s around the time they designed the 4011 So the DPA mics are sort of family :-D

One of my favorite recordings for both musical and technical aspects is Hopkinson Smith's recording of Ennemond Gaultier's pieces for lute. The back cover note states that B + K type 4003 microphones were used at that session. I'm struck by the sense of presence in that recording, even though it has audible hiss (or at least used to, as I don't seem to hear much hiss anymore). I was also struck by the fact that the 4003 microphones used a 130-volt power source instead of the usual 48 volts.

I'm sure I'd be biased towards them if I ever got the chance to get my hands on them.

 

[SKBubba]

On a somewhat related question, is it just me or were some of the Motown recordings (possibly earlier ones?) were kinda bad. Lots of distortion, limited dynamics, muffled mixes. Was that on purpose?