Rotten recording quality is not a recent phenomenon!

[tube fanatic]

Read what JGH had to say about recording quality in 1964/65:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/observations-and-prognostications-1965#92YjMzP3fp1pZMPB.

 

 

Maynard

[2Bmusic]

yep it is painful ( to the ears)

[babadono]

Ann Arbor? "Hi I'm Bob Seger and I'm from Ann Arbor"

[Mallette]

I have records poorly engineered back to the early 20th century.  It's the rule rather than the exception.

 

Dave

[oldtimer]

Recording has always been a problem.  They are always by definition mere facsimiles of the event. 

[Mallette]

Recording has always been a problem.  They are always by definition mere facsimiles of the event. 

"mere?"  Only when successful.

 

Facsimile 1. an exact copy, especially of written or printed material.

 

Dave

[WMcD]

My read of what he is talking about is not recording quality. I will say the essay wanders without clearly delineated topics.

Overall I don't see him saying that recordings are a poorly done or going downhill. I'll bet that if we look at Stereophile magazine from that year we'll see favorable reviews reflecting at least some publishers making recording of increasing quality.

He surely missed the implications of what was at the show. Music for the unwashed masses.

Technically, playback machinery seems to be one of his subjects. There have been small evolutionary improvement in cartridges for LPs. But no breakthrough devices. He is disappointed. Though big speakers are good.

Tape? He mentions 7.5 ips four track unfavorably, and the expected degeneration to half that speed. Okay he has a point on the latter.

He is seeing that there is a trickle down from High Fidelity (and the Golden Age of High Fidelity} to HiFi, the latter being not quite so good quality but at a lower price for the unwashed masses. This is true. But it means that folks of modest means are getting better performing equipment even if it is not high end. High end that is his living as it is for most mags today.

Gordon didn't describe what happened in the immediate future -- it was not in his crystal ball. The baby boomers came to adulthood. They had money for midrange systems and music was part of the counter culture. I want the Beatles, or war protest songs, youth folk songs. This drove buying more that technical quality.

Eight track was pretty poor but worked in the car. Cassette at even another halving of tape speed was theoretically worse but then came Dolby with metal tape. Gordon must have loved 15 ips and these fell well short of that.

Someplace in here, it looks like Gordon was an apostle of the high end and saw items demonstrated at the show as a corruption of technical virtue. What actually transpired was that mid-level systems increased in quality and ownership. Had he foreseen that, he might have been pleased back then.

WMcD

Edited May 12, 2016 by WMcD

[Mallette]

Eight track was pretty poor but worked in the car.

 

No, it didn't.  Wasn't remotely as clean as a 45 rpm changer.  Sounded uniformly awful, required constant head adjustment, and the tapes made me good money repairing them at a dollar a fix.

 

Dave

[Bubo]

Something changed in the 1960s and the recording quality improved noticeably.

 

Then there is the issue of whether the recording was good and if it survived the Mastering and Engineering process.

 

I can go through 100 LPs or CDs to find one with a full accurate sound, then the question of "is the band any good".

 

Every once in a while an entire album is magic, sometimes only one or two songs.

 

Cash's gift to the world at the end, the Republic Recordings.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8i5NLyXZdc

Edited May 12, 2016 by Bubo