Home Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

There are precious few products from the 50’s that I find superior to products today

I, too, am a fan of the RCA Living Stereo recordings…….but far more for the performances than how they sound. I like the sound, too, but only so far as I think they are the best sound of the era. Speaking only of recording realism/quality and not performance, I find that modern recordings far better replicate what I regularly experience in a good seat (not only primo seats) in any listening venue (church, synagogue, auditorium, concert hall, outdoors, etc.) with which I am familiar.

I find that RCA Living Stereo recordings do capture the detail and essence of individual instruments on a level that is tough to beat. However, I also find that modern recording techniques (engineers) not only *can* (not always) capture the individual instruments on a par, if not better, than the recordings of the 50s but in the process more faithfully capture the space in front, behind, in between, above, etc., of the musicians (and recording venue) as well.

In my experience a good modern recording is far more “transparent”, being less likely to expose itself to the system, especially the speakers. For example, in RCA Living Stereo Recordings, violins, especially, appear pinned to the left front speaker whereas in a modern recording there is the illusion that the violins come from the area in and around the speaker but not from the speaker. There is far less need to “close your eyes” to make the system “disappear”. There are far less “dots to connect”.

Other virtues of modern recordings, such as more faithful reproduction of dynamic range (a major part of that due to the demonstratively lower noise floor), frequency extremes, and far less audible distortion, especially at tutti, are undeniable and important bonuses. And of course, the availability of multi-channel is the biggest audible deal breaker since the 50s.

Coincidentally, the last couple of weeks, I have listened to some very good mono recordings. Some of these are both mono and stereo. I never paid much attention before but it surprised me how much more early stereo have in common with their mono predecessor than with a modern stereo recording. Some seem more like “mono” recordings but with two channels; that is, two mono recordings, left and right, with some center fill. The more I listen the more it seems (my guess) that much of the first generation stereo recording techniques from the 50s, including some of my favorite RCA Living Stereo recordings, use a mono recording technique template carried over from the decades of recording in mono. That is probably a “no brainer”, but to me, *many* (not all) of those old stereo recordings only partially took advantage of the new dimensions that stereo offered. By comparison to well done modern recordings stereo recordings from the late 50s, including some RCA Living Stereos sound “stereo monophonic”., a work in progress. Engineering techniques had to evolve for stereo much like they had to evolve for multi-channel. It takes a few years.

Let me put it another way. If a recording label such as Channel Classics or Pentatone were to make a corporate decision to return to the 50s way of recording/engineering I would no longer support those labels. There are precious few products that I find better from the 50’s than I do today. That is especially true for music recordings.

Of course, “performances” are another issue altogether.


Robert C. Lang


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Herbie's Audio Lab  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.