Classic rock CD musings...

[philthien]

The amazing thing about that RIAA curve is the wild cut and then boost at the lowest frequencies, same as for the highest frequencies. When you are playing with amplitudes like those, even the slightest miscalculation during cutting the masters is going to have real consequences.

[Sydney]

The amazing thing about that RIAA curve is the wild cut and then boost at the lowest frequencies, same as for the highest frequencies. When you are playing with amplitudes like those, even the slightest miscalculation during cutting the masters is going to have real consequences.

A problem with analog representation of amplitude, resolved by representation by a binary number.
Early* BBC test records ( for broadcast calibration ) had 40 cps and 50 cps as lowest frequency tracks.**
* back before Hz and T/S

** from an early BBC Recording Manual:
"It is generally accepted that, for perfect reproduction of orchestral music, a frequency range of 20-18,000 c/s is necessary, but the average listener is usually unable to detect any noticeable lack in fidelity if the range is restricted to 50-10,000 c/s, and this latter range is normally acceptable to a recording service."

[Brian Steele]

Not surprised, it's consistent with any I've looked at.
( Granted I've not been able to hear the 2" Master tapes to know what was captured )

Perhaps there is an untapped market out there for "content-aware" EQ, i.e. EQ that strives to adjust the source to meet a target spectra, and therefore adjusts itself based on the content, rather than the basic "system" EQs we typically use now, which acts the same way with all content. Of course pre-analysis of the content would be required, which suggests that implementation in a software player would be the easiest approach.

[Geoff Millar]

Perhaps there is an untapped market out there for "content-aware" EQ, i.e. EQ that strives to adjust the source to meet a target spectra, and therefore adjusts itself based on the content, rather than the basic "system" EQs we typically use now, which acts the same way with all content. Of course pre-analysis of the content would be required, which suggests that implementation in a software player would be the easiest approach.

Great idea: it might make my Hendrix bootleg collection (a bit) more listenable!

Geoff

[dwigle]

I would think that the majority of listeners in that era did not have the top of the line playback equipment like we do today and so music may have been mixed so it sounds as good as possible on a variety of the available equipment back then. ...

Pardon my rant, but I think the average listener back then had better playback equipment than the average listener today. Monkey coffins vs ear buds. Heck, I would bet that there was better equipment in my fraternity house than in all of the north side of my home town today. I curse the walkman!

[fpitas]

Pardon my rant, but I think the average listener back then had better playback equipment than the average listener today. Monkey coffins vs ear buds. Heck, I would bet that there was better equipment in my fraternity house than in all of the north side of my home town today. I curse the walkman!

Agreed. Having a big, expensive stereo was a prestige thing back then. That's only true for a few people these days, other than us die-hard audio sorts.

[Brian B]

Equipment has been available for more than 50 years to make very good recordings. Good speakers lagged good recording equipment a little. But much of the balance you hear in recordings made in the last 50 years was put there by those producing the recordings. And that still remains largely true of recorded music today.

To me the main differences today are accuracy below 35Hz and the much lower noise floor made possible by digital. But getting good digital took some time. Though very low in noise level, many of the early digital recordings also sounded like they were recorded in a stale hospital hallway.

[Sydney]

Agreed. Having a big, expensive stereo was a prestige thing back then. That's only true for a few people these days, other than us die-hard audio sorts.

From my experience, I sought out to get better sound and became friends with those who were REALLY "into" music and sound. That wasn't the majority. Turntables/Cartridges etc weren't exactly cheap.
Granted, like today: Some were/are indifferent to sound reproduction, and others devotes. Today however a CD player is relatively cheap compared to what I spent on Vinyl gear.
Far more options in the driver market,compared to the 60s and 70s as well.

[fpitas]

From my experience, I sought out to get better sound and became friends with those who were REALLY "into" music and sound. That wasn't the majority. Turntables/Cartridges etc weren't exactly cheap.
Granted, like today: Some were/are indifferent to sound reproduction, and others devotes. Today however a CD player is relatively cheap compared to what I spent on Vinyl gear.
Far more options in the driver market,compared to the 60s and 70s as well.

Sure, things are a lot better, for cheaper, relatively speaking. It just seems to me that having a good sound system isn't very important to most people anymore. Some earbuds and a few Bose cubes and you're good to go.

[Sydney]

Sure, things are a lot better, for cheaper, relatively speaking. It just seems to me that having a good sound system isn't very important to most people anymore. Some earbuds and a few Bose cubes and you're good to go.

Mores options in a diverse market; Perhaps it could be opined that cheap fast food exists for people who feel that good food isn't very important to people anymore.

[fpitas]

Mores options in a diverse market; Perhaps it could be opined that cheap fast food exists for people who feel that good food isn't very important to people anymore.

That does seem to be the main market for fast food. Unlike audio though, that kind of attitude tends to catch up to you as time goes on...

[Sydney]

This was similar to the 1st Stereo we had growing up
( Back when handheld portable transistor radio were the ancestors to earbuds, and portable phonographs roamed America )

[denton]

I' m certain this group realizes that early CD's were often made using second generation masters with "uncorrected" RIAA curves, resulting in very thin sound. This gave the record companies a reason to sell us the same tunes again... and again.

[Geoff Millar]

I' m certain this group realizes that early CD's were often made using second generation masters with "uncorrected" RIAA curves, resulting in very thin sound. This gave the record companies a reason to sell us the same tunes again... and again.

Good point, there are at least three different issues of most Stones CDs and as many as four for Hendrix CDs; some sound great, others yechh.  The first generation of Hednrix CDs were almost all awful, with low level mastering, thin sound, hiss and cheap cover art. 

Geoff
 

[Sydney]

...The first generation...

When I got my first Denon DCD CD player ( early 80s ) it came with a Denon produced CD. They managed the entire digital recording from start to end CD - ie no transcription from an Analog Tape archive. ( It's surprising how poorly kept and documented tape archives can be. )
Superb results on the Denon CD compared to the older titles quickly transcribed and rushed to market.