Historically, did excellence in reproduction preceed recording excellence?

[Daddy Dee]

O.K. Something I've been wondering about for some time... One of the things that amazes me is the fabulous sound of Klipsch Heritage and vintage tube amplifiers. They can reproduce effortlessly state of the art recordings. PWK was on to something profound right after the end of WWII.

I use a CD source and mostly recent recordings with I assume pretty good recording technology. At least something well ahead of that available during PWK's early engineering work.

Is that assumption correct, that the state of the art recording was behind state of the art reproduction?

Appreciate any take on this.

[3dzapper]

DD, You are right on! Imagine that the state of the art in 1947 was the 78RPM record all mid range, light on bass and treble and 6L6 amps with weak bass. What PWK invented was indeed at least ten years ahead of the curve. LP's were right around the corner as were high quailty amps and here was the Klipschorn ready and more than willing!

Rick

[tubeglow]

Well, not to start a flamer here, but I think the recording ability was way ahead of the reproducing ability for a number of years, especially in the big studios of the time (Capitol, Columbia, Decca, etc.) They had the money to buy the best equipment, the best engineers, the best sound technicians. I marvel at the extraordinary sound of some of the 30's, 40's and 50's recordings that have been remastered and put on CD.

I think PWK was a genius, well ahead of his time, and a pioneer in bringing quality sound reproduction into the home.

Hi-fi in the home didn't really take off until the mid 50's, when more people began wanting, demanding, (and being able to afford) something better than the old Philco console. This created the market in which pioneering geniuses like PWK, Ed Villechur, James B. Lansing, Ed Walker, et.al could refine their products to level that we enjoy today.

OK, I'm off the soapbox now, Mark.

[Colin]

no, I don't think the medium which distributes music is better than the recording or reproduction process - CDs are worse than the recordings or the stereo systems....

[Griffinator]

I submit that the recording technology is ultimately what drove the hifi technology. As analog tape machines were perfected, studio amplification and playback systems got more sophisticated, and mixing board quality (particularly equalization and pre-amplification) improved (Rupert Neve was instrumental in this) the hi-fi companies started borrowing technology from these new devices to push the level of quality in home reproduction farther.

[DRBILL]

RE Mark's observation: "Remastered" is the operative word. The stuff from the '30's and '40's was bloody awful. It is amazing what can be done by running that stuff through "toasters" and rebuilding it bit-by-bit.

It is funny, but I had this same conversation with Paul at my dinner table one night. In the early days of the Kipschorn he almost despaired over having no suitable program material available to display his equipment. The first big break was full-track 15ips tape. And he burned many feet of it on live locations in order to have something to show people who visited the lab. Then the LP came along furtively, improving by the day. Look on the top of old photos of the plant and you will see a primitive FM antenna which attempted to pull in live concert broadcasts from WRR in Dallas. Then there was stereo tape and LP's which helped the ledger sheet wonderfully by allowing him to sell TWO of everything (and sometimes THREE). He hated CD's when they first were introduced. And he was right. They were pretty harsh. Some still don't like them. I don't remember the year that he started adding tweeters. It was not until there was something available for them to "tweet".

So, the short answer is "Yes". Speaker technology was far advanced as compared to recording technology. I heard it from Mr. Paul's own lips.

FATHER BILL+

[analogman]

tubeglow,

No soap box here.WELL STATED!With effort,even 78s can be amazing.

Analogman

[analogman]

Not recording technology being outpaced so much as the software and delivery formats.

Analogman

[WMcD]

There is some discussion of this in the Klipsch papers. Unfortunately I don't have them here.

I'm not saying that PWK was not a genius. However, it seems that many people involved in audio were well aware that there is a long chain starting at the air hitting the microphone and then to the air being pushed by the speaker. Distortion and frequency response were well understood at least from the 1930s.

The early 1930s began the "talkie" movies. Big stuff. There was so much money to be made that the most brilliant Ph.D.'s were brought to the task.

One historic event about the same time was the Bell Lab event which reproduced a sound pick up in one orchastra hall to another. It might have been Baltimore to Washington. Three channel (center) stereo.

There was a modulation system used over the wire which I took to be a type of single sideband, probably with the carrier. But that doesn't go to recording. My recall from reading is that the wire link was getting up to 15 kHz. Naturally, horns were used. PWK always credited Wente and Thuras (engineers involved) as being his heros.

In those days, it seems that recording on film was a very good media. Fantasia in about 1939 got the best minds and hardware involved. There are some articles around. This was surround sound well before its present embodiment. No disrespect, but I think PWK was only noodling with the K-Horn bass unit at the time. The K-5 would come later.

PWK had some favorite recordings. Some were shellac. IMHO that must have been stretching the limits of the media.

It seems to me that at least as far as treble for consumers, there was a hand in hand step up. Much like computers and HDTV today. No hardware without software, no software without hardware. The market gets developed from the edges.

There were no tweeters in speakers until the recording chain had the capacity to store it. That included microphones and the cutting heads.

I note that the K-5 midrange got supplemented by a University and then EV tweeter in the early 50s. So there was something to be listened to. Exactly what, I'm not sure. It is true that FM and TV (also FM) had response up to 15 kHz.

Very generally speaking, the '60s or so was when things got solidified. FM broadcasting was going strong. Microgroove vinyl and stereo came in. There were tape recorders going up to 15 kHz. Before that, the highest octave, 7 to 15 kHz may have been only explored by hi-fi nuts. I.e. people like us.

Unfortunately, there was no Pink Floyd DSotM. But some guys from Liverpool had something going at Abbey Road.

It is interesting to note that the then new technologies of 8-track and cassette in the early 70's were a bit inferior to good vinyl in noise and frequency response. However, freedom from groove noise (pops and crackles) plus that they could be played in a car was a big point.

The Sony Phillips CD was of course a watershed event. Great dynamic range, frequency response and freedom from noise. Ever manufacturer wanted to be "digital ready".

One fellow quipped that the only speaker which was really digital ready was the K-Horn. By then it was 30 years old. This may be the point which you make.

I now pause. Tom Brennan is going to come in and give the whole story. Tom. Tommy can you hear me. Smile.

Best,

Gil

[Cut-Throat]

"So, the short answer is "Yes". Speaker technology was far advanced as compared to recording technology. I heard it from Mr. Paul's own lips."

Absolutely! - I am still amazed at how poor recordings from the 60's and 70's sound compared to what is available today!

[garymd]

----------------

On 3/6/2004 9:51:55 PM Cut-Throat wrote:

Absolutely! - I am still amazed at how poor recordings from the 60's and 70's sound compared to what is available today!

----------------

I think some of the best recordings came out of the late 50s and early 60s, limited to certain labels. But yes, there was some real crap from the mid-late 60s to the early 80s compared to what's available today.

It must have been very frustrating for PWK in the early days to have such a great product, so far ahead of its time, and not have the technology to display its full potential.

[DRBILL]

I think it is so important to understand that Paul was an engineer, physicist, mathematician, perfectionist, and dreamer. He thought that "if he built it, they would come." And they did.

Father Bill+

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 3/6/2004 9:51:55 PM Cut-Throat wrote:

"So, the short answer is "Yes". Speaker technology was far advanced as compared to recording technology. I heard it from Mr. Paul's own lips."

Absolutely! - I am still amazed at how poor recordings from the 60's and 70's sound compared to what is available today!

----------------

Bro, you're listening to the wrong recordings. There were some absolutely incredible recordings made during the 60's and 70's, and, on the right equipment (read: original shellac on a good TT, not some "remaster" on CD) they will outshine any CD!

C'mon, folks. The microphone and preamp designs that were being invented back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's are still being copied, reproduced, and used extensively in studios today! Why? because they were great works of engineering!!!

The most sought-after guitars, amplifiers, basses... all made in the 60's and 70's - because modern reproductions (even by the same companies) have failed to match the fidelity!

Fact is, you all sing the praises of SACD releases of old jazzmen like Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong and rock acts like Pink Floyd - if the recording technology sucked that bad, why would you think it sounded so good? C'mon, folks. DSOTM was recorded in '73. Brilliant sonics on that album - whether SACD or vinyl.

Don't tell me the recordings were to blame. It was the playback equipment. Not the speakers, mind you, but the rest of the playback rig.

[3dzapper]

Griffinator,

The recording methods used when PWK invented the Khorn were very primitive. Coming out of WWII the only magnetic medium availiable was the magnectic wire(like the stuff in airplane "black Boxes). It was fire proof but the bandwidth and longevity of the recorded information was limited. Most recording then was done with a lathe amp direct to a soft metal or shellac master disc, from which pressing discs were molded. The 78RPM format was very shy on bass and treble. Whoever said that movies were the best medium ot the era was right on! Those little light bars were something else for their era!

Modern technology has allowed the bass and some of the HF info on those 78RPM discs to be restored and remastered.

Amps of that era were of good design but the quality of caps, resistors and the like did not compare with those of today ( except for maybe the Western Unions but those were probitively expensive).

In the fifties magnetic tape became popular but was plauged by dropouts and flaking during storage.

By the sixties multichannel tape recorders and higher quality magnetic tape became availiable and the modern era of recording began.

I agree with those who say that the sixties and seventies were the epitomy of High Fidelity recording.Unless the recording engineer ADDED distortion! The Who's Next album is a bad example of added distortion. Listen to Magic Bus then Next and compare the quality. Only now with SACD and DVDa are the record companies re-aproaching that quality.

Rick

[garymd]

There were certainly many amazing recordings in the 70s. Listen to Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Grateful Dead, etc., etc., etc. I just listened to an early 70s Stephen Stills lp and it was incredibly crisp and detailed. Better than the majority of the CDs I own. There were also many very poor recordings that were made in that time period that were remastered for the better on CD. I could give you many examples.

Nothing seems to compare to those late 50s/early 60s Blue Note recordings.

[HDBRbuilder]

PSST!...hey, Garymd...Hendrix DIED in 1969...the stuff of his that came out after that was not what he WANTED to come out...he was VERY particular in the studio when alive...one of the reasons the Experience broke-up before he died...Mitch and Noel couldn't take his perfectionist tirades anymore!

BTW, I absolutely LOVE Stephen Stills' Manassas album...one of the better early 70's lps to show-off Klipsch Heritage with!

[analogman]

Pssst,HDBRbuilder,

James Marshall Hendrix

Born:11/27/1942

Died:09/18/1970

and Garymd is RIGHT,can you all say "Living Stereo" "Living Presence" "Blue Note" "Riverside" "Columbia six eye" "Capitol" "Blue Backs" "English Decca" etc. etc. etc.........

Analogman

[analogman]

Can you say RCA two and three track .The microgroove disc was born in 1948!It took consumers and consumer hardware makers 20 odd years to catch up.And they never really did,that pesky old center channel that was part of Bell Lab's AND P.W.K.'s original concept.

All the basics were in place while F.D.R. was still in office,that damn Second World War slowed things down(except the magnetic tape,the Germans were already working on that one,used it to assist the invasion of Poland).

Analogman

[analogman]

There may be LOUDER,MORE CHANNELS,MORE CRAP,new COMPRESSION SCHEMES available today,but show me something more natural and believable than say "Young Man With a HORN" on Bluenote circa:1952 and then tell me about "progress"

Yours Truely,

Analogman

Hint:The problem's been with the consumer playback dictating to the SOFTWARE! Remember BETA vs. VHS??!!??

[tubeglow]

Look at the unit Piranha bought for 20 bucks. That was State of The Art for at least a decade. From 55-65 a big *** console was the way to go. Very few people bought Klipsch until the Fair Trade Laws were lifted in the mid-70's.