Are 60's tape recorders an important part of the "60's sound?

[gaydar1952]

Originally Posted by veffreak

Hello,

i'm wondering if there's a "favorite" vintage tape recorder that had set new quality standards in say end of 60's? I think i'd like to try one for recording vocals and maybe some guitar. I'm curious about the effects of a good vintage tape recorder on the tone. Which models would you suggest for this?

Thanks!

veffreak

Hi veffreak, To each his own. I fail to see why not a well maintainded high end Sony/Akai/Teac R2R recorder should be so much inferior as compared to the "holy grail" Revox 77 models. Shure Revox (aka Studer) did have tech. benefits in the late sixties. But its also a fake in a way - it's as "cheapo-plastic-fantastic" as most players from that era -as to knobs/controls- pertinax ciricuit-boards etc. Most of the Revox 77-s haven't held their age well and spending ridiciolus high prices for. Beware!

The only Revox i would recomend here is the G36. Built like a war tank and tube equipped for better matching the sound from tapes that were recorded in the 50-60's era. High end Grundigs from the early sixties (like TK42-46-) is also a good choice here- if you can find one.

It also helps understanding that reel recordings from way back may not benefit from being played on newer equipment. It just boosts the flaws with hum, hizz and lack of high end.
My brother in law - said one time to me. Lars - it did not sound better - at that time. Well worth remembering

[TIMTAPE]

Gaydar,

Generally, old recordings dont benefit from being played on old machines from the same era. So long as track width, speed, eq etc are the same, there should be no problem playing old tapes on newer machines of similar or better quality.

Actually older machines could have inferior replay fidelity (hum, hiss etc) even though their record fidelity might have been fine. Hiss and hum would generally be lower, not worse on newer transistorised models of similar quality, especially with slow speed, narrow track formats where the weak playback signal needs good low noise amplification.

A low noise replay chain is there to make sure it doesnt add any of its own garbage to the old recording, or filter out anything either. As a later step you might choose to filter out some of the original tape hiss but it's not the job of the playback machine to do that filtering for you whether you like it or not!

Tim

[Ted Kendall]

The reason the transistor Revoxes are a bit flimsy in the trim/finish area is that the money went into the bits that matter, with the result that a machine which cost a tenth of the price of a Studer gave very similar performance in terms of recording. No eighth-inch thick aluminium top panels, but diecast chassis! Admittedly, the B77 switches are a pain whne they snap off, and the knobs could be nicer, but they survive domestic use well.

[SteveCG]

In the debate about playing older tapes, don't forget that the replay equalizations have altered over the years. So the CCIR, NAB, DIN, IEC standards, as advertised for a particular machine, need a careful examination if one is attempting to accurately recreate 60s sounds from tapes recorded in the 60s.

[brenellic2000]

Hmmm! I wouldn't disagree with Ted about Revox about putting their money where it mattered and "disregarding" trim, but pressure die casting was never (nor is) a cheap option - the skeletal alloy frame would have required lots of capital investment in pressure injection machiney and moulds - likewise plastic deck mask. The great advantage of pressure die-casting is a huge reduction in labour costs and associated overheads but few British companies in the late 1950s and 1960s could afford to invest in new technology after rationing or 'export or die' dicta or fight Union resistance to job losses.

Pressure die-casting was very much a central European driven methodology - don't know why!

New technology is not always what it is cracked up to be (the pun is intentional!) for production engineers and designers were also taking a huge step into the unknown - witness age related 'ageing' - both metalurgy (Mazak degradation), drying of plasticisers (brittleness - and gooey synthetic rubber drive belts and idlers) and of ultra-violet light degredation. We all joke about cheapo plastic parts but at the end of the day 'penny pinching' (intentionally or not ) often led to a company's downfall because of dealer profit margins to give us 'a bargain'!

I totally agree with Steve's point re CCIR NAB etc.

Barry

[dseymo1]

I have to agree with Gaydar about ReVox R2Rs - I've never liked them much
There seems little point in buying an A77 these days when there are plenty of 'proper' Studers available at much the same price. I suppose they're no so convenient to transport, though
Going back to 60s technology, I owned an EMI TR52 for several years, and the fidelity of its recordings (albeit full-track mono at 15 ips) was every bit as good as any consumer recorder, and many pro machines, of the 70s and 80s. It certainly had nothing I'd describe as a '60s sound', and was Engineered (with a capital E)!

[Ted Kendall]

Except for the flutter, of course...

[dseymo1]

The rubber capstan shaft coupler thing completely prevented any trace of flutter
Actually, it wasn't audible on most recordings - perhaps mine was better than some...

[Dave Anderson]

This is a fascinating thread. I wonder if veffreak has come to any conclusions as to the best reel to reel recorder to suit his needs? Strangely there seem to be some members who are very much 'anti Revox' in their comments. I have always found Revox machines excellent in terms of reliability, build and sound quality. One must remember, of course, most of these reel to reel machines (not just the Revox's) are 30 or 40 years old now.

I am interested to know a little more about the type of recording veffreak wants to do. From the outset I was a little unsure what kind of music we were recording. Veffreak mentioned vocals and guitar but it could have been classical, folk or jazz. Reading comments about Pink Floyd and bands from the 60's I assume the music to be recorded is pop or rock. Although I could be wrong.

Is it to be acoustic guitar or electric? Are the vocals male or female? What sort of recording environment will the recording be made in? Is it a purpose built studio with acoustic treatment? Is it in your home presumably with soft furnishings or do you intend to record on-location in an empty hall with lots of reverberation?

As I've said before the choice of microphones can have as much, if not more, influence on the overall sound than the tape recorder itself. So, what kind of microphones will be used? Whilst genuine vintage microphones can be VERY expensive there are some good alternatives. Someone mentioned the Coles 4038 earlier in the thread. These are still made but are highly priced. I agree they are a superb quality microphone but I'm not sure if they would suit this situation. They would have a lovely sound on speech recordings but could be too fragile for close-miked singing. You could use a pop-shield in front of the Coles but I would rather use a large diaphragm valve condenser mic on your singer.

Again I am not entirely sure about the recording techniques you employ. Are you simply using the reel to reel recorder to record one track that will later be mixed with other tracks on some other machine (or computer)? Or do you intend to make the entire recording on the reel to reel deck?

Is the recording to be as natural as possible i.e. using simple mic techniques such as stereo crossed pair or spaced omni's? Or will there be manipulation of the recorded sound using effects units, mixers etc?

There has been a lot of talk about a 60's 'tone' in this thread. I am a little unsure about this. Are we talking about the sound of 60's music or are we talking about the sounds of recordings made in the 60's? It's all a bit vague. There are good recordings made in the 60's and some not so good just as there are good modern recordings and some terrible digital efforts. I think modern recordings, at their best, can convey a level of detail, dynamic range and a depth of soundstage that 60's equipment struggles to capture. I am thinking here about 60's orchestral recordings vs good modern versions. However, recordings made on vintage equipment have a charm and warmth that can seduce the listener compared to some shrill, brittle-sounding digital recordings.

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts.

Dave

[SteveCG]

A few further thoughts:

1) As we are talking about what are old machines nowadays then it makes sense to get one which you have the best chance of getting spares.

2) As regards Revox and other (non professional) makes - having had a few I conclude the English saying 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' applies. Each has their strengths and weaknesses - no one is top in all criteria.

3) I feel that I instinctively know what is meant by a 60s pop sound:

a) Dynamically compressed sound, with a frequency response suitable for a Dansette record player to play without groove jumping, also suitable for mono Radio broadcast;
b) A particular style of singing;
c) A particular musical instrument line-up choice;
d) Of time duration to fit on one side of a 45 RPM 7 inch record;

4) Even classical recordings had to dynamically compress their recordings as many records were played on simple record-players.

Even so I would suggest that a good tape-recorder of that vintage would not be the cause of the 60s sound - rather it was how the recording studio was set-up.

[Dave Anderson]

To 'instinctively know what is meant by a 60's pop sound' interests me. We seem to be talking about the sound of the music of that short era but are we also talking about the technological limitations of the equipment used to record those sounds? Should we perhaps talk about early analogue and late analogue recordings?

The problems of describing a 'sound' of a 'particular era' are complicated by the fact that I hear things differently to you. My ears are not the same. Nor is my brain, my personality, my emotions etc.

Then, it is highly unlikely we will have the same components in our hi-fi systems. Our listening rooms are different. Our systems/rooms are interacting differently.

On top of all this we were never present at the actual recording session so have no real idea what sort of sound we are trying to reproduce in our living rooms. We might move a speaker this way or that, thinking we've made an improvement but what is our reference point?

Dave

[Roger13]

For over 40 years I took part in and/or directed many musical performances, and when you are that closely involved in music making you eventually realise that this is one area of life where 'the end' really does 'justify the means'. If it pleases the listeners then who cares whether it's a clean signal, or packed full of distortion?

Dave Anderson is absolutely right in that we all perceive sounds differently. How can you tell that the person seated next to you is hearing what you're hearing? You can't. If it were otherwise we'd all own the same sound system.

Basically, if it sounds good to you then it IS good. Simple as that!

Now, what was the original question again?

Cheers,
Roger.

[brenellic2000]

Interesting thoughts David!

I know what to me is "60s sound", but the "60's sound" most people in their 40s today will know is that from often well worn 7" 45s, or 12" 33-1/3rpm LPs. Those of us in our late 50s/60s sprinkle it with some magic nostalgia-dust, listening out for what we want to remember most.

Very few of use will still have pristine original live tape recordings made on contemporary tape decks by which we can compare. We are talking of some 40years ago, so only those pro-engineers now in their 70s/80s are likely to have kept these for comparison or, if we are lucky, we may find attic hoards which, if we are lucky, are still in good conditon. Some of those 60s tapes I have collected are of very good quality - which reflects the high quality of 60s tape deck design and technology - but I suspect the vast majority of these tapes were recorded off the then high quality FM radio, or the gramophone - and not live recordings by microphone or radio, in ideal environments.

New records/CDs of the 60s music are of course "remastered" and 'tuned' to satisfy 21st century ears and today's perception of musical tones and volumes. So, only EMI's sound archives are likely to have a source for true comparison - if they still have the tape masters! - but I suspect they are more likely only to have record matrices as many tape masters were destroyed (some were rescued by employees to save them from the bin).

We must also consider that 60s "World Record Club" tape-records were (supposedly) taken from EMI master-tapes, but many of these sound truly awful!

So, 60s sound is surely then one of live recording of a full orchestra/band in a acoustically good hall/studio in one full session using microphone alone - and not the manufactured sound of the 70s using multi-channel, mixers, electronics etc to give the effects the musicians want the audience to hear?

Barry

[veffreak]

Thank you very much for all the inspirational thoughts - there's a lot of stuff to consider and think through here.
I'm sorry - i should have been more specific. The music style is blues rock. Some Hendrix covers, some Cream covers, a few others and the original tracks are influenced by the likes of the aforementioned bands + many other blues-rock greats of the era. Vocals will be male, electric guitar, electric bass guitar, drums. Can't tell for sure about the recording environment - some tests will be at my home - carpet floors, no special room treatment, but i suppose it will end up in a small studio with sonic treatment relatively small recording room, i suppose. The mastering, post processing is intended to be done on a DAW, but the tape recorder would have been something that should give a certain coloration to the tone (which is something i'm not sure anymore). Mics are for now some modern dynamic and ribbon mics. The mics have to endure a lot as there will be a 100w Marshall in the room and i'd need one or two mics to close-mike the amp cab itself.

While my original question was about "THE" tape recorder to own for a recording quality that would be typical for the "State of the art" machines used back then, as i assumed naively that the recorder itself had a lot to do with the way the recordings sound - one of the most obvious differences to most 70's recordings seemed to me the high end roll off (which, of course may have many reasons somewhere in the chain).

Besides great suggestions on what tape recorders could be considered as these "holy grail" machines of that time, i gather from this thread that there are two fundamental views. First (and this was a bit of a surprise to me as i thought otherwise) there are many knowledgeable people here who pointed out that the "state-of-the-art" machines of that time could in fact provide really transparent recordings. Until now i was sure this was achieved only in 70's - going by the impression i had of recordings of these two decades.
The other view is the one i had before this discussion - most of the 60's machines colored the tone in a specific and noticeable way.
It seems like most folks here agree with the first view - that the specific quality to the recordings of 60's that could be described as "the 60's sound" must come from a different point in the chain, not the tape recorder.
So this makes me still think and also do some more thorough reading on the net. There are things i hear at least in many blues-rock recordings of the era that sound to my ear as (for the lack of better adjectives) "lo-fi-ness" (less clarity, not a precise or broad sound stage), some high end roll off, a base response that is somewhat unfocused (less "precision" and punch and sometimes also simply less bass) at times and probably more compression than with later recordings. This is, as most will agree, a very subjective thing - how each of us perceives the same sounds and then, the biggest problem, in my view, how we put this in words.

From all these posts actually have concluded for now that i have to take a more in depth look into the whole chain and rethink the whole thing - try to figure out which points in the chain might contribute to what i hear on the 60's recordings.

I wonder now if some of you guys maybe know what tape recorders were used by the big "Gods" of 60's blues rock, especially Hendrix and Clapton. Are these machines that have astronomical prices and are unavailable to mortals? Or was something of the likes of a Studer used also in recordings of the super-stars of the era? Afaik mid 60's was still 2-track, right? I know Hendrix had some IIRC 12-track monster (for that era) for the electric ladyland recording, but i never found what that machine was called (and i suppose it wouldn't be anything i could dream of purchasing ) But i hope maybe the earlier machines are more accessible.

I'm a noob when it comes to tape - so i appreciate all the excellent details and explanations you have for some phenomena, but i cant really participate in the discussion about these details themselves - i'm learning a lot though and have learned from this thread a lot more than from months of surfing (probably the wrong! ) online sources.

I hope i cleared up some of the ambiguities that plague(d) my thread.

Thanks to all of you again for the overwhelming response and all the fantastic info and thoughts you share with me and others!

All the best,

veffreak

[veffreak]

Oh, and, no i haven't decided for or against a certain tape recorder, as it's now not really clear to me if it would fulfill the purpose i had imagined. I think, if it would be something that is more or less available, a good bet would be to go with what Hendrix used for say Are you Experienced and Axis albums - these are also some of the examples where i hear the qualities i was talking about.

Regards,

veffreak

[veffreak]

I also forgot to mention that this thread has obviously went somewhat "off-topic", but it's turned out to be an even much more interesting discussion than what i anticipated, so i hope it's alright with the forum moderators. Maybe, if necessary, one of the friendly moderators here could change the title of the thread to something along the lines "Are 60's tape recorders an important part of the "60's sound"", or something more appropriate (afaik, i can't change the title myself). Just so it wouldn't be a misleading title.

Regards,

veffreak

[neon indicator]

As I said earlier
Cream, Hendrix was nothing to do with Recording, but style of playing, overdriven guitar amps etc.

There are many other quite different "sounds of sixties"

You need to NOT use direct to mixer instruments and even decent 50s microphones. But setup all as per a live performance with overdriven amps and use £2 "karoke" moving coil microphones for all including the sound from speakers of overdriven valve g'amps with open back speaker units.

Then you can feed state of the art cheap 12 firewire mixer desk. You will then have that particular style.

It's nothing to do with the mixing or the recording.

[veffreak]

thanks, neon indicator. I suppose these are good suggestions. But afaik, at least if Hendrix is concerned, he used 4x12 cabs (and of course many others too, but mainly 4x12) and they were closed back. By 2gbp karoke mics you mean cheap dynamic mics?

[neon indicator]

Ok. on the cabs. Open or Closed according to style. I think you get my point.

Yes. The cheap dynamic mics I have tested are similar quality to 60s & 70s Pop performance (not studio or BBC or folk or Orchestral recording) and much much better than the small cheap dynamic mics with tapes etc in 1970s and 80s in domestic. Many even have XLR (but unbalanced) cable to 1/4" jack and metal body with decent shield (2 Euro in Retail shops here).

I think for 60s pop vocals and recording Drums and Marshal or other valve Guitar amps etc they are a good choice.

Back in 1991 a friend an I tested a 1957 electric guitar direct with no amp, with Marshal amp* at "normal domestic volume" and at typical performance volume (last two dynamic mic and electret mic).

The 1st was totally flat and lifeless. Very sharp decay of notes.
the 2nd was thin on electret or dynamic**

The 3rd was the only recording sounding like pop/rock. The Dynamic mic** was slightly better.

For Acoustic instruments, Irish Trad and Folk a pair of crossed Cardiod Electret was best. Replay was like live.

For Rock/Pop Guitar the only "proper" sound we could get was dynamic mic near speaker (the electret would overload!) on Valve amp at "loud" volume.

All recording via 8 channel analogue desk to a SoundBlaster card on PC at 44.1KHz sampling 16 bit stereo and then "burning" redbook CD Audio disk.

Playback on Solid State Sony HiFi and Philips PhotoCD player.

(* I think a Marshal? 2x big speakers open back and valve amp at top. Optional Springline reverb unit was not used.

** Not a cheap Dynamic, but a Shure, the Current Cheap "karoke" mics are similar but lack balance or matching transformer, capsule wired direct to XLR on end or cable)

[Kat Manton]

Hi,

Now you've mentioned the musical style and "sound" you're after, I think the answer is fairly simple.

What you're after is the result of recording a band, playing together, in the same room.

As has been mentioned earlier, set everything up as if playing live; turn amplifier volume levels up to live performance levels, mike everything up and play. Use a vocal PA so the band members can hear the singer (but split the mic feed to this and record off the vocal mic.)

(An appropriate drum sound can be obtained with simple techniques, I've used a single dynamic mic placed between kick and snare drum, positioned to get the right balance; plus a pair of condensers suspended overhead.)

What I suspect you're describing as "lo-fi-ness" is most likely (IMO) the result of bleed/spillover. The drum mics will pick up some bass and guitar, the guitar mic will pick up some drums and vocals; everything will pick up something of everything.

The sounds are being picked up by multiple microphones at different distances from the source. Sound from a guitar cab will arrive at the drum mics later than at the one right in front of the cab. This causes all manner of phase cancellation effects at different frequencies and a smearing/blurring... probably the "less focussed bass" you perceive is simply because the bass ends up everywhere, recorded by several mics at different distances from the bass amp.

The techniques which evolved heading into the seventies were intended to address this, as having a bit of everything on every track makes post-processing and mixing somewhat more tricky. Multitrack machines with ever greater numbers of tracks meant each performer could record their part in isolation. No bleed/spillover between mics, a more "precise" recording, less troublesome to mix/equalise and mistakes are easier to correct. So it was regarded as an "advance" and defines the character of recordings made once multitrack machines had firmly taken hold.

If you record the entire band, playing together in the same room, at "live" volume level; whether you mix it down and record straight to a two-track open-reel machine or run all the mics into preamplifiers then a multichannel converter and record to hard drive, I suspect you'll get close to what you're after. The digital setup offers a bit more flexibility regarding post-processing, though the bleed/spillover makes that rather more challenging...

I've done exactly this with an alternative rock band I was in ages ago. We recorded in a fantastic oval room with a domed ceiling, above a pub. We used the same gear we used for playing live, at "live" volume level (100W guitar amps, 4 x 12" cabs, etc.) I used my own Shure 'Unidyne' mics on the lead/rhythm guitar cabs and random borrowed (cheap) mics on everything else. What we used for recording was, IMO, irrelevant. But the results had a definite "sixties vibe" to them (and were a total PITA to mix down due to the bleed...)

Regards, Kat