modern video technology reduced to an 8-track

[Cybrvanr]

Hey Kevin? Where are you getting regular 8 movie film? I've got several of the cam's but cannot find any media for them. We have a locally run camera shop here that sells Kodak Super 8 film. I've played around with that a few times. The newest Kodachrome 40 gives pretty good pictures!

You guys are right talking about the high quality of some older recordings. There were some pretty nice recordings out back then. I imagine getting a good sound however back then was pretty expensive, and start-up bands and other performers with limited resources just didn't have the money for really nice sounding recordings. I always thought the media back then was the limiting factor. Sure, you could master down a great sound, but once you transferred it to a consumer medium, you deteriorated the signal. Of course, record cutting technology improved along with recording technology, enabling good sound out of a medium that previously was relatively limited. Tape technology also improved, as the magnetic particles even to this day become more dense and fine, enabling higher bandwidth.

 

[jasonl]

Alot of the jazz, classical stuff sounded good back then on LPs (RCA Living Stereo, Columbia 360o sound, etc). Rock'n'roll sounded like trash, but only because it was EQ'ed and compressed for AM radio airplay so it pops out of the radio. It's said that alot of the early Motown records sounded great on a small transistor radio, but sound crackly and echoey over anything else. That's the reason. Even the Beatles, as awesome as they are, their recordings were never the best sounding stuff. Again, I guess reverb/compression/highs boosted for AM play.

Fortunately in this day of "Remastering", the old tapes and discs are processed and EQ'ed for todays CD Players. the newer Beatles material sounds EXCELLENT, early r'n'r BOOMS right out of the speakers with the force and intensity of a live show. Still rock'n'roll to me.

 

[kenwashesmonday]

Some of the Beatles CDs sound just as good as the LPs, some don't. None of them sound better than the LPs. The singles are interesting because the mixes and edits are different. Have you heard the mono mix of Revolution or Paperback Writer from the 45? They rock a lot harder than the polite stereo mixes. Some of the Stereo versions are too lightweight, and the wide stereo effect gimicky.

As for Motown, much of it was made for the radio from scratch. Even the bass player didn't play low notes because a small radio wouldn't reproduce them.

CD reissues of old material are only great when the guy doing the remastering knows what he's doing, and doesn't alter the artists intentions. Often a CD rom I make by ripping my record sounds better than the crap sold by the major labels.

Then there's Frank Zappa. He remastered his old albums, changed many of them (he was a harsh critic of his old material), and now many of the CD versions of the albums have missing instruments, replaced musicians, it's just not the way we remember it.

Ken D.

 

[tolivac]

Processed rock and roll-was a problem when I worked in a top forty AM-FM radio station.The recording producers didn't or didn't want to understand the radio station uses audio processing as well.When they are added together-it can be brutal for AM transmitters-esp modulator tubes-and caused modulation transformers to heat up!But it was sure LOUD!On either the AM or FM-when you looked at the moulation moniotrs-it was like you were feeding a tone into the transmitters.Program directors loved it though.Just so long there is enough peaks to light the mod monitor peak flashers!for Beatles recordings-I have and some radio stations used the Japanese Capitol pressings instead of the overprocessed ones released into the American market.Sadly these overprocessed ones end up at radio stations too-the same copy that is released to the consumers.I too have respect for recordists and producers that don't "alter" the orig master recording of a music peice-wether it be rock or classical.Its just as bad as painting a mustache on the "Mona Lisa"when I had to buy "rereleses" of music-looked on the label to see if it was "rechanned or altered for stereo"-didn't buy.If the orig was mono-please leave it that way.
As far as recording tape formulations go-each tape maker had his own formulas-and guarded them just like Coke does with theirs.Yes in making the recordings-the quality of the tape,the recorder-and most of all-the quality of the recordist using the machine.also the quality of the mix from the console engineer feeding the recordists recorder.If its a bad mix-then a bad recording.Sad-because this is what future generations will hear!-and it may be very difficult or impossible to "fix the mix" at that point.If I was a musciuan-I would want my work to be preserved in as high quality as possible.surprized more of the muscians didn't speak up during the recording process.Would make it easier for radio stations,and listners!And yes the treble is boosted in AM audio processers-sometimes by 10Db!This is to compensate for the pitiful hf rolloff in most AM radios made today.Some even roll-off at 2Khz-PITIFUL!So the broadcaster has to Scream the audio in his transmitter to compensate-I have had to do the repairs to transmitters from this-mostly worn out modulator tubes and blown modulator transformers.That HF boost takes its toll on transmitter parts.