The 1960's Audio Recording Quality

[Howdy Doody Time]

I found my collection of 1960's Hit Records on DVD in an unopened for years box in the garage. Even considering that I listened to them digitized, and played back via a blue tooth squawk box, the quality of the vocals in particular is spectacular. Kind of soft and warm but clear and focused.

I didn't imagine it - it was in your face obvious.

I have read most of the analog v digital arguments but I think there is much more going on here. Great vocals to begin with, superb microphones, excellent preamps, lovely arrangements and talented and experienced studio staff.

What a treat to listen to. I'll be listening to a lot more.

[Tim Gillett]

Yes very listenable, at least when original tapes have survived largely undamaged and have been expertly remastered. But very listenable in spite of the gear of that time, not because of it. And pop music was relatively easy. Recording demanding classical works tested the limits of the gear of that day.

Perhaps more for us oldies, good listenable sound from the 60's is no big deal. I recently commented publically on what I heard as poor remastering of a 1983 track by a top pop vocalist. The rebuke came: "chill out. it was recorded in the 80's wat do u expect?" ...

[Sam Spoons]

There was some weird sh1t going on too though, especially in the early days of stereo. I'm working my way through The Beatles discography (looking for tunes for my upcoming Gypsy Jazz CD..... this comment is to be taken with the large pinch of salt it deserves BTW ) and some of the early stuff has drums on left with vocals and (other) instruments on the right! No attempt at realism. But, as you both say they are eminently listenable, helped by great, and (mostly) truly original, songs recorded with genuine joy and enthusiasm.]

[Hugh Robjohns]

I have read most of the analog v digital arguments but I think there is much more going on here. Great vocals to begin with, superb microphones, excellent preamps, lovely arrangements and talented and experienced studio staff.

What a treat to listen to.

What you're noticing is nothing to do with the analogue/digital arguments, and very little to do with the equipment either.

It's almost entirely down to the talent and performance -- very capable performers who knew how to perform and work the mic, and who were sufficient practised to deliver a quality rendition without needing someone to comp down 50 takes to try and build one half-decent take afterwards!

The other significant factor was the way in which the equipment is used. Vocalists didn't 'eat' the mics in those days; they weren't placed right in front of the mouths (mostly). The recording studios were properly designed and sounded good which allowed more sensible placement of mics relative to performers. That approach inherently gives a more natural sound, as well as enabling the performer to work the mic in a way which delivers a better soundtrack in the first place and doesn't require micro-management of dynamics, sibilance and all the rest...

Also, the vocals were usually recorded simultaneously with the backing track -- the band/orchestra were often in the room (or an adjoining room) at the same time, so it really was capturing a performance rather than constructing a track through overdubbing -- although there were exceptions of course, as the (late) 60s was the era when the powers of the multitrack were just starting to be realised.

H

[Mike Stranks]

Hugh: nail... head

It's something I notice a lot here in the forum... there are a few of us oldies about the place who started recording in the mid/late 60s... While we might be able to play an instrument (me, piano, very very badly!) our primary driver was (and probably still is) to capture a performance with the attendant issues of mic placement, EQ on the way IN etc etc. Thus, one of my earliest mentors used omni mics a lot because of their faithful capture and because he was working with spill, not fighting it.

Many of you guys are skilled musicians who use the technology to create a 'performance'. Nothing wrong with that and I applaud both your technical and musical skills.

We have two approaches, but with a common passion!

[Tim Gillett]

There was some weird sh1t going on too though, especially in the early days of stereo... and some of the early stuff has drums on left with vocals and (other) instruments on the right! No attempt at realism.

Not sure which tracks you refer to but I know some early Beatles tracks were recorded on a 2 track as a basic multitrack, (2 track machines were all they had then), then mixed down to mono for release.

The story goes that Capitol, the EMI US label, decided in their wisdom that since people liked stereo more than mono, they would release to the public the 2 tracks "as is". Apparently George Martin wasnt impressed...

In other words, it was never intended for the public to hear that weird stereo.

[Sam Spoons]

That sounds very likely, IIRC some early Beach Boys stereo albums had similarly odd stereo choices.

[Howdy Doody Time]

H wrote:

What you're noticing is nothing to do with the analogue/digital arguments, and very little to do with the equipment either. It's almost entirely down to the talent and performance -- very capable performers who knew how to perform and work the mic

While I agree, I do think it had a lot to do with the skill of the studio guys too, and the stuff they used. Otherwise why are we buying emulations of the mic pre's, compressors and EQ's they had and knew inside out.

I guess the challenge now is to reproduce that wonderful sound (after finding a great singer of course)

[Hugh Robjohns]

Otherwise why are we buying emulations of the mic pre's, compressors and EQ's they had and knew inside out.

The power of marketing!

The modern fad for multiple plugins on everything, vintage gear a-go-go all over the place, special preamps for special sources and all that is largely nonsense.

Studios in the 60s were mostly built in-house, and mostly pretty simply, at that. They rarely used 'outboard preamps' because they didn't have them. You plugged things into the desk and just got on with it.

EQ wasn't available on every channel; it was normal to have a small handful of EQ modules that were patched into the channels as needed... which as rarely. Mostly, equalisation was obtained by getting the source to sound right in the studio, followed by careful mic selection and placement. The same applied to compression.

It is often the relative absence of electronic processing that lends the more natural sound character -- bearing in mind that they also had the benefit of transient suppression /compression from the tape recording itself.

The fad for choosing specific preamps for specific sources, using EQ and dynamics processing on every channel, and all that jazz didn't really come about until the mid-late 70s and onwards with the multitrack age...

And even then a lot of it is a misconception. Enthusiastic amateurs assumed the reason their recordings sounded crap was because they didn't have all that lovely expensive professional studio gear, when the reality was that they were using crap semi-pro equipment in crap locations with little knowledge of what they wee actually doing!

[Drew Stephenson]

I guess the challenge now is to reproduce that wonderful sound (after finding a great singer of course)

Not to attempt to compare myself with anyone actually good, but I found that my vocal recordings improved hugely by changing my mic position (after reading about it on here of course). I no longer sing 'into' a mic 6" away; the mic is now about a foot away, just above my eye height and pointing down. And sometimes using an omni pattern.
Same mic, pre, interface etc, very different sound - dare I say "warmer"...

[James Perrett]

In my experience, so much of that sound was about musicianship and the ability to play together with exactly the right feel. If you record a good player from that era you find that the sound is there - no matter what gear you are using.

[Howdy Doody Time]

Great stuff! Well now I can listen again with a purpose other than just enjoying it. The more I think about it the more I think you are correct, because the very best recordings I made were of a famous British Blues Guitar player who wandered in, set up and played. He played everything in fact, the bass, the drums, the piano and of course the guitar. all I did was set up the microphones, and press record. No sequencer, just track by track recording. Thing was, that bloke could play. I never get tired of listening to those recordings.

[ConcertinaChap]

Indeed. I've been banging on elsewhere about a solo CD I recorded and the bloke what did it. but one of the things that hugely impressed me was the multi-tracking. We started by recording a track (fiddle or mandola as he wanted) for a few tracks on a Friday. I'd mix them a bit and send him the bounces and the next week he'd arrive and do overdubs, which very rarely needed retakes or fixing - he'd worked them out and practised them over the week until they were absolutely ready to go. The whole album was built up in this way, he had it all sorted at each stage before he came into the studio. All I had to do was record it then mix it, just a little compression and reverb and get the balance right, that's all. It was quite an experience and like you I don't tire of listening to it.

CC

[Sam Spoons]

Making it sound like a group of musicians playing and singing together in a room has always been my goal when recording. Partly, I guess, 'cos I lack the skills and patience to get deep into the 'plug ins' and extreme editing, and partly because that's what many of my favourite recordings sound like. It's much easier if you are recording a group of musicians in a room, playing and singing together and I have much admiration for those who can achieve that working alone

FWIW I have a mate who presented my with a recording he'd done in his bedroom studio that had 104 tracks. I would have, basically, deleted about 90 of them before my brain imploded then mixed what was left. Whether my mix would sound better than his I don't know but he likes working that way...........

[Drew Stephenson]

I've always admired the engineers who have the skills (and the confidence) to make a recording like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4GN4vTUCGY
One mic, perfectly balanced. Something I mean to experiment with myself at some point.

[ConcertinaChap]

I find myself wondering why they were wearing headphones, though. You could argue it was to help the performers find their balance but it was right from the beginning, which suggests a number of trial runs.

CC

[Drew Stephenson]

I wondered that too, possibly for a bit 'more me'?
Or maybe it's what they're comfortable with?

[Sam Spoons]

It is a truly beautiful recording of a beautiful song.

Given that was the "official music video" though it most likely wasn't the session the actual audio was recorded on so why they were wearing cans is anybody's guess......

Even is they were getting foldback in the cans, with one mic 'more me' would be unavailable )unless they were just using them as a high tech version of the old folk singers 'finger in the ear'.....).

[Drew Stephenson]

Even is they were getting foldback in the cans, with one mic 'more me' would be unavailable

Doh! Of course. Sorry. See disclaimer in sig...
Perhaps being used for isolation rather than anything else then.
Always good when there's a banjo about.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Given that was the "official music video" though it most likely wasn't the session the actual audio was recorded on so why they were wearing cans is anybody's guess......

If they were miming for the (annoyingly wavy-cam) video it was probably the easiest way of helping them stay in sync. Not all studios have replay speakers in the recording room, plus, wearing headphones shouts 'recording studio' for many viewers.

But if this was genuinely a single-mic recording, they would need to wear the cans while performing to ensure they maintained the appropriate performance balance with their colleagues -- it would be the only way to know they were getting it right...

I'm intrigued as to why there appeared to be mechanical screens (music racks?) between the banjo and mic for most of the video, but they weren't there for parts of the rehearsal images... Of course, banjos can be very loud (and quite annoying... ) so it may have been an attempt to dial the instrument volume down a bit while keeping the players vocals at a sensible level (as she was singing over the top of the screen).

I'd have put the banjo in a separate room. Shut the door please... Yeah, sounding great now...

H

[Drew Stephenson]

I assumed the stands were to take the edge of the banjo; they are bloomin' loud.

I might make sure that all future links contain banjo music for Hugh's further delight...

[Sam Spoons]

They are but she seemed to be playing it very gently if that's possible with a b@njo (sorry can't bring myself to say that word)......... Squeeze boxes are not known for there retiring nature either mind you.....

[ConcertinaChap]

Where I give this some credence is as a performer and organiser on the folk scene (albeit at the lower levels of said scene) for many years. Most (not all) English folk clubs are and always have been totally acoustic without any PA, right back to the '60s and '50s which brings us back to the thread. in that environment if you're in a group of any kind you learn to balance your sound without the benefit of a mixer to do it for you. Yes, there are people in England who can play the banjo quietly! And squeezeboxes too, come to that (in that circumstance I have a quiet and sweet sounding concertina that I love deeply).

So if this video is genuine and not mimed then the credit goes to the group more than the engineer, I would say, for having the skill to adjust their mutual balance to make the recording work.

Having said all that it's a shame it's just one mic. Stereo would have been nicer. That would have called for a different positioning. When we perform we always sit or stand in an arc so we can all see each other (crucial for timing) while still projecting the sound more-or-less forward. A stereo recording would require something similar, I think.

CC

[CS70]

It's a video, what's the result of the final editing may or may not have anything to do with the actual recording. Unless it's the recording of a live event, it's the silver screen magic. Or perhaps another metal now that we do it in 4K. For this video, the cuts and their quality make it clear that there were a few takes with cameras (or phones) in different positions and with different pan heads (and obviously handheld with at most a mechanical stabilizer) and the coloring is obviously in post .

However, filming actual takes is a very cost effective way to get good for footage for music videos, renders well with the viewers (the studio vibe Hugh wrote about) and so long things are enough in sync you can pick and choose the parts you like, so pretty sure they were actual take or reharsals.

One mic can be done tough, and certainly works well with voice and guitars, after all what you hear at jam night when a good singer songwriter is there is magic, and there's often just one mic. When the drums come in, my $.10 is that it works for a certain sound - namely the one where the drums aren't prominent. And the drummer very much needs to know his dynamics, and you need a fairly large room. You don't get rock'n'roll, but you get good music.

See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9cnpyV9WBA - I really like this (and the filming style is just the way I like it, using one or two well positioned lamps to create pools of light and shade.... just like a good mix! )

For this one at least the filming is clearly live, it's one continuous take, no cuts. There's pretty certainly some little post (and likely a little post on the audio as well, the reverberation is lovely.. but I don't know. A good sounding room may just sound good), but pretty basic. I'd guess is shot in 24p with a nice grain. Just a great performance of a lovely song, beautifully filmed.

They seem to use ribbons - whose sound in general I love on pretty much everything.

[Drew Stephenson]

There's a couple more in that series that show the room and mic set up a bit better - well worth a look, thanks for sharing that CS70