Classic gear, how good was it really.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='spectoremg' timestamp='1442266907' post='2865697']
My recent (CD) copy of MIJ sounds awesome - especially the bass.
[/quote]
To my ears, the vinyl pressing in comparison (provided it is played on a decent turntable) is on another level IMO.

[cheddatom]

It's probably a different master for each format, which is why the two sound different. If they put the vinyl master on CD you shouldn't be able to tell (except it'd be missing the needle scratching etc)

[Dad3353]

The original bass sounds were good at the time; folks played with what was available; some 'pushed the envelope' and newer sounds became current. This, in turn, inspired other players to push further yet. Was any of this faithfully recorded..? Not much (depending on which era one wishes to consider...), as recording technique was not up to it. As extreme example, try listening to 78 rpm or shellac disks; the original sound was not like that. Was the gear better then..? No, but it was different. A good, old, amp from the '70s still sounds great, if playing in the '70s style.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1442309966' post='2865869']
It's probably a different master for each format, which is why the two sound different. If they put the vinyl master on CD you shouldn't be able to tell (except it'd be missing the needle scratching etc)
[/quote]
Well you should take better care of your vinyl

[spectoremg]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1442308724' post='2865862']

To my ears, the vinyl pressing in comparison (provided it is played on a decent turntable) is on another level IMO.
[/quote]See vinyl v digital threads ad nuaseum...

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='spectoremg' timestamp='1442313907' post='2865920']
See vinyl v digital threads ad nuaseum...
[/quote]
Not wanting to go there.For me its not either or, I am a big fan of both CD and Vinyl, they both have their place.
My comment relates to my experience of listening to both formats regarding 'Made in Japan'

[ivansc]

Saw Deep Purple in a cinema in Cambridge in the fairly early days with Glover on bass and singing. The whole of the stage behind them was full of bass amps and 4x12 or 4x15 speakers.
Ian Paice was right off to one side of the stage, Jon Lord you could hardly see on the other side, No sign of Blackmores amps at all.
Bass was bloody thunderous.
Same with Cosy Powells Hammer when my band opened for them in a smallish civic centre in either Harlow or Boreham Wood.
By the mid seventies I had an Orange 120watt graphic head and a 2x15 parabolic reflector cabinet with Altec Lansing speakers in it.
Played what is now the Hammersmith Apollo with that and nothing in the PA. I was definitely audible.

[spectoremg]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1442315997' post='2865944']
Not wanting to go there.For me its not either or, I am a big fan of both CD and Vinyl, they both have their place.
My comment relates to my experience of listening to both formats regarding 'Made in Japan'
[/quote]Fair enough, point taken.

[Beer of the Bass]

It occurs to me that the bands who appeared on OGWT didn't tend to be the biggest touring acts of the day (your Led Zeps and Deep Purples), more the upper-mid level of the business. I don't mean to say that they weren't great bands, more that they were the sort of acts who'd appear in a decent sized hall or club in town rather than a stadium. So I wonder if those bands didn't quite have the resources to have huge, well maintained state-of-the-art gear (with the crew to match) like the biggest bands would.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Beer of the Bass

[blue]

I was looking at Orange Bass Rigs a while back. The sales person said;

[i]"If your looking for the Orange you fell in love with back in 1972, this ain't it."[/i]

Do you think that means the new Orange Bass Amps are better than the vintage Orange?

Blue

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1442342027' post='2866255']

Do you think that means the new Orange Bass Amps are better than the vintage Orange?

Blue
[/quote]

The first Orange heads were built by Matt Mathias at Matamp and badged Orange. Orange was just a music store in London at the time selling mainly second hand gear. Matt was a purist and perfectionist who was not at all keen on hi-gain. It was one of the reasons Matt and Cliff Cooper fell out, as Cliff was pushing for more dirt.

So vintage Orange will be cleaner. Plus all the older Orange stuff is 100% hand-wired and very reliable, unlike the new Chinese built printed circuit board stuff. I don't think you could even compare them, two totally different things.

[blue]

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1442342585' post='2866263']
The first Orange heads were built by Matt Mathias at Matamp and badged Orange. Orange was just a music store in London at the time selling mainly second hand gear. Matt was a purist and perfectionist who was not at all keen on hi-gain. It was one of the reasons Matt and Cliff Cooper fell out, as Cliff was pushing for more dirt.

So vintage Orange will be cleaner. Plus all the older Orange stuff is 100% hand-wired and very reliable, unlike the new Chinese built printed circuit board stuff. I don't think you could even compare them, two totally different things.
[/quote]

Good info, thanks Billy.

Blue

[Leonard Smalls]

[quote name='obbm' timestamp='1442184563' post='2865039']
Video recording started in the late 1950s and by the 1970s it was still a bit of a black art. Because it was the most difficult priority was always given to recording the pictures. The audio tracks were a bit of an afterthought and the concept of synchronising a multi-track audio recorder wasn't even considered.

The workhorse video recorders of the broadcast industry were the Quadraplex Ampex VR2000 and the RCA TR70 which both 2-inch tape. The video was recorded transversely across the tape using a 4-headed scanner. Audio tracks were longitudinal and somewhat rudimentary by modern standards. The BBC used mainly VR2000s. Here is the brochure. Have a look at the audio specs. [url="http://www.digitrakcom.com/literature/VR2000BbrochureWEB.pdf"]http://www.digitrakc...brochureWEB.pdf[/url] . Initially there was no electronic editing so the only way to edit was by developing the tape to see where the control track pulses were and then physically cutting and splicing the tape to make a simple cut.

Anything recorded prior to the mid/late 1970s was on one of these machines. By the mid 1970s the Quad machines started to be replaced by the C-Format 1-inch VTRs and then in the 1980s by the Analogue Betacam SP Cassette Recorders. Finally in the 1990s recording started to become digital and proper full-bandwidth audio was possible.
[/quote]

I trained as a BBC sound recordist in the late '80s, and as part of the training I had to be able to run a transmission suite or VT cubicle, which meant being able to line up a 1" or 2" machine for broadcast. Beta SP was only used for editing or location video recording and D3 digital was just appearing.
And any studio recording (such as OGWT)would have been recorded to a VT cubicle onto 1" (or 2" until the mid 70s} until D3 became the broadcast standard.
Until the 90s bands played at relatively high volume, which means that in the studio bass levels would be high and there would have been lots of bleed-through into the sound control room. Engineers then would have been monitoring on remarkably Heath-Robinson speakers with KEF drivers, which wouldn't have had any response below 50Hz. So a combination of this, no requirement to record below 50Hz because it would never be transmitted, even as a simul-cast, and bass bleed-through from the studios making making bass appear much louder than it actually was on the recording meant that low frequency levels were low...
Even later when the BBC monitoring speaker of choice was the Rogers LS5/8 low frequency reproduction was suspect.
When I was working on drama, especially period ones, I'd take a copy of the mix home to ensure that there was no low-level traffic rumble which wouldn't have appeared on the main studio monitors.
As for 2" recorders and the difficulty of running them, I knew a chap in transmissions who had his own VR2000 at home. I remember him once ringing his 70 year old mother (unsurprisingly he still lived with his parents) and asking her to record EastEnders on the 2"! (this was 1991!)

[colgraff]

I'm a firm believer in modern equipment is superior aurally. To my mind the analogy of cars is apt. I love driving an old Jaguar: the feel, sound and acceleration is wonderful. However my three year old Lexus is comfier, more efficient, handles better and works in all weather conditions.

[obbm]

Very interesting LS. I started with the Beeb and then was with Thames for a while occasionally using VR1200 or VR2000 VTRs. Later I worked for Ampex when the AVR-2 was current and then joined a fledgling Sony Broadcast and was involved with C-Format, Betacam, Betacam SP, D1, Digital Betacam and Betacam SX.

Thinking back to early years with the BBC, almost 50 years ago now, there was a device in the radio programme path called an ASN, Aural Sensitivity Network, which rolled off the LF and boosted the mid-band in order to make speech more intelligible. I seem to remember that is was supposed to be removed during music but not sure that it ever was.

I still have a piar of LS3/5As, which I don't use any more, but they lacked a lot of LF as well.

As for the chap with his own VR2000,that doesn't surprise me at all knowing some of the guys who worked in VT.

Edited September 16, 2015 by obbm

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1442394820' post='2866558']
I'm a firm believer in modern equipment is superior aurally. To my mind the analogy of cars is apt. I love driving an old Jaguar: the feel, sound and acceleration is wonderful. However my three year old Lexus is comfier, more efficient, handles better and works in all weather conditions.
[/quote]
i like that analogy. I currently use a Berg CN212 cab driven by a cheap and cheerful Kustom KXB500 (the best class D amp I have come across) and I am really pleased with my tone. The set up is ultra portable and reliability is second to none.
However the guitarist in my band took out his les paul the other night and plugged it straight into an old 60's Vox ac30 and I was knocked out by the tone of that combo. He has a bunch of modern Mesa Boggie, Bogner and Marshall amps and he agreed that the Vox ac30, though not as flexible, kicks the rest into touch.

Likewise the technology around nowadays allows for really nice on board bass preamps. The preamp on my Sadowsky is a cracker and is really handy for nailing a variety of tones required for playing covers. Then again as good a bass as it is, I still got to take my hat off to my vintage 1964 Fender jazz. It has a tone all of its own and if I had to confine myself to one instrument, I would sacrifice the Sadowsky and keep the Jazz bass.

Edited September 16, 2015 by leroydiamond

[Count Bassy]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1442310020' post='2865870'] As extreme example, try listening to 78 rpm or shellac disks; the original sound was not like that. Was the gear better then..? No, but it was different. A good, old, amp from the '70s still sounds great, if playing in the '70s style. [/quote]

Reminds me of a radio program I heard years (at least 18) ago. It was about the development of sound reproduction, and 'they' were saying that when 78s first came out the masses genuinely thought that the repduction was absolutely life-like, and couldn't get any better.

[BassBod]

I've still got some 1961 LS3/1 speakers here at BassBod towers....these are the early outside broadcast big grey boxes, with 15" paper cone speakers in. I understand they were used all the way through to the 1980's. The bass response is very generous and seems to come from nowhere (although they don't do loud)....nothing like the Spendors/Rogers and other bookshelf sized BBC designs I've heard. If you were listening to these as reference speakers I could see how the bass would easily be left low in the overall mix. Add some low end bleed form a loud live band and it could be a problem.

[Leonard Smalls]

[quote name='BassBod' timestamp='1442407673' post='2866731']
I've still got some 1961 LS3/1 speakers here at BassBod towers....these are the early outside broadcast big grey boxes, with 15" paper cone speakers in. I understand they were used all the way through to the 1980's. The bass response is very generous and seems to come from nowhere (although they don't do loud)....nothing like the Spendors/Rogers and other bookshelf sized BBC designs I've heard. If you were listening to these as reference speakers I could see how the bass would easily be left low in the overall mix. Add some low end bleed form a loud live band and it could be a problem.
[/quote]

There were still some LS3/1s in East Tower Projection suite in the late 80s... I think "warm" best describes their sound - though the LS5/8 was not exactly clinical either! And despite the size of the bass units neither did much below 50Hz, just a nice big bloom at 50-70Hz.

[BigRedX]

But how much of what we consider "classic tones" is based on familiarity and comfort? We are used to hearing guitars and basses sound a particular way with the equipment of the 60s and 70s and so that's what we like. I wonder how different those tones would be if transited technology had been cheap and abundant in the early 50s?

To put it another way there's a lot of now "classic" Japanese synths that date from the early 80s and were all over the recordings of the time. However speak to anyone using those instruments back then and the only reason they had them was because they were affordable and the synths they really wanted were not. So they made do, and it's only familiarity of the sounds that were nothing like the musicians really wanted, that now makes them classic.

[mcnach]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1442562802' post='2867731']
But how much of what we consider "classic tones" is based on familiarity and comfort? We are used to hearing guitars and basses sound a particular way with the equipment of the 60s and 70s and so that's what we like. I wonder how different those tones would be if transited technology had been cheap and abundant in the early 50s?

To put it another way there's a lot of now "classic" Japanese synths that date from the early 80s and were all over the recordings of the time. However speak to anyone using those instruments back then and the only reason they had them was because they were affordable and the synths they really wanted were not. So they made do, and it's only familiarity of the sounds that were nothing like the musicians really wanted, that now makes them classic.
[/quote]


This.

I think you are totally right.

It's like when you listen to a song enough times over the years, only to find later that it's actually a version and then you listen to the original: the original is never better. I put it down simply to familiarity.

[Dad3353]

It's similar speculation as to what Mozart or Beethoven would have done with modern keys and/or software at their disposal. Maybe it's just 'comfort' which allows us to appreciate the works of the previous generations..? Surely not..! I'm not yet convinced that there is any worth is using terms such as 'better' in these contexts. 'Different', but I don't see (or hear...) much which allows a real classification in quality, any more than in painting or sculpture. It's not a subject fit for competitive comparisons, I find, but maybe I'm alone in this.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1442564262' post='2867747']
It's similar speculation as to what Mozart or Beethoven would have done with modern keys and/or software at their disposal. Maybe it's just 'comfort' which allows us to appreciate the works of the previous generations..? Surely not..! I'm not yet convinced that there is any worth is using terms such as 'better' in these contexts. 'Different', but I don't see (or hear...) much which allows a real classification in quality, any more than in painting or sculpture. It's not a subject fit for competitive comparisons, I find, but maybe I'm alone in this.
[/quote]
We need to acknowledge that the "classic tones" are simply what were are most comfortable with and there is not anything intrinsically "better" about them.

It's like the myth of the P-Bass automatically fitting into any mix. Listen to rockabilly bands of the 50s when the electric bass was just getting a foothold in the music and it becomes obvious that it hasn't at all slotted in seamlessly. The whole sound of the bands change to accommodate the new-fangled Fender bass replacing the "traditional" upright. 60+ years later our ears have had plenty of time to be accustomed to the electric bass and how it fits into the mix of blues-based rock, but back in the day the whole band had to rethink their sounds to make it work.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1442565101' post='2867756']
We need to acknowledge that the "classic tones" are simply what were are most comfortable with and there is not anything intrinsically "better" about them.

It's like the myth of the P-Bass automatically fitting into any mix. Listen to rockabilly bands of the 50s when the electric bass was just getting a foothold in the music and it becomes obvious that it hasn't at all slotted in seamlessly. The whole sound of the bands change to accommodate the new-fangled Fender bass replacing the "traditional" upright. 60+ years later our ears have had plenty of time to be accustomed to the electric bass and how it fits into the mix of blues-based rock, but back in the day the whole band had to rethink their sounds to make it work.
[/quote]

... In which case, one could wonder how much 'value' there is in the ever-changing 'evolution' in modern music. Maybe our ears need a few decades in order to assimilate the modern tones, such as disto, synth bass and all the other treatments now used..? Not only used, but apparently changing, not from year to year, nor concert to concert, but from song to song; sometimes even switched during the song..? How much time is there, then, to take in these subtleties and nuances..? Very little, yet it's become almost the 'norme' to renounce the 'comfort' tones we've absorbed over the decades. Are any of these innovative tones worth keeping..? Why the (apparently...) frantic search for novelty, freshness, originality, if it's to be so fleeting..? Surely a 'modern' tone should appear and establish some dominance and lasting role in modern music..? Or maybe it doesn't work that way, and each audition has to be taken simply on its own terms and merits..?
For my part, when I first heard electric bass, it wasn't in a context where I would compare to an upright, it was in the context of the music of the '60s and '70s already, and I enjoyed it as what I heard. The compositions and arrangements were hardly 'classical', either. I've never had much referencing to do back to skiffle or such, which was already considered 'old hat' at the time. Tommy Steele..? Lonnie Donegan..? Nah..! None of that 'old' music. Jefferson Airplane; now there's a band worth listening to..!

[ivansc]

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1442342585' post='2866263']
The first Orange heads were built by Matt Mathias at Matamp and badged Orange. Orange was just a music store in London at the time selling mainly second hand gear. Matt was a purist and perfectionist who was not at all keen on hi-gain. It was one of the reasons Matt and Cliff Cooper fell out, as Cliff was pushing for more dirt.

So vintage Orange will be cleaner. Plus all the older Orange stuff is 100% hand-wired and very reliable, unlike the new Chinese built printed circuit board stuff. I don't think you could even compare them, two totally different things.
[/quote] And of course the chassis were both chromed and built like the proverbial brick shithouse. Oh and the internal chrome roll bars meant you could slap the head down on a bench to work on the underside with no risk of clobbering the valves/tubes.
But the Orange Graphic heads did have a nasty habit of going into some sort of parasitic oscillation if you wound the treble up a bit too far.