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

[TIMTAPE]

I'd add that if it can be heard by one person then almost certainly it will be heard by others who possess similar hearing acuity and listening/ analyzing skills. The solitary Golden Ears person may alone be right but the odds are against it.

Tim

[neon indicator]

Agreed jamesperrett

Sometimes it's really not obvious, like Transient Response issues (step Impulse stability) will never show up measuring with static tones.

[brenellic2000]

errr... going back to "subjective listening tests" - these should of course be double blind to be of any real purpose.

But the only comparatively uniform subjective tests in the 1960s were those by Which? -but I'm not sure if the Consumer Association used blind tests - however, they relied heavily on bench testing (to a BS spec) and subjective listening tests.

They concluded in the 1960s that nearly all tape decks met their stated specifications so none were inherently "sub-standard", technically; the most reliable decks tended to be the cheap and cheerful BSR TD2 - badly let down by poor amplifier electronics by the 'cheap and cheerful' budget model producers - Fidelity, Alba, Bush etc.

The injured manufactures and trade retailers of course berated the Which? tests as rubbish! I wonder why?

Ferrographs and Brenells were rated highly in subjective testing - as one would expect -but rated badly in reliability and ease of use!

The first Which? test of professional machines was in the early 1970s - the Revox A77 was the supreme champion. Naturally.

So if you want the genuine 60s tape recorder sound get a BSR TD2 deck, Marriott heads and a decent 60s valve amp and mike!

Barry

[Welsh Anorak]

Hi
I think there needs to be a distinction here between a good and bad ingredient in this elusive sound.
Barry is right - the TD2 was simply a machine for moving tape at a constant speed with consistent pressure across heads, as indeed every other tape deck should have been, and, barring cheap toy models, usually was. Any mechanical problems introduced here I would class as 'bad' ingredients - wow, flutter, drop-outs etc.
Now we come to the electronics where there is much greater scope for interference with the sound, and I would argue this is where most if not all of this colouration comes from. Differing head construction, biasing and, most importantly, valves versus solid-state, bearing in mind the former was a much more mature technology, all helped modify and tailor the sound to some degree, as did the choice of tape.
As touched on earlier, I would argue there is no such animal as the definitive sixties sound - compare 'Go Now' by the Moody Blues with anything they did later on. Early in the decade the studio was simply a tool to get music onto a recording medium, quick as you like. Later on the studio was almost treated as an instument in itself, and certainly could have far more influence on the final sound than, say, the type of guitar amp used.
Probably the defining thing about the sixties was that the record tried to be as accurate a reflection of the live sound as possible - from the seventies till today the live performance tries to sound as similar to the studio recording as possible. There's the difference.
Glyn

[dave walsh]

A usefull summing up of the 60's technical/creative interface Glyn. The last two sentences make a particularly good point I think. Dave W

[TIMTAPE]

Quite, and with more and more recording tracks available (virtually unlimited today) every instrument and voice mic had its own isolated track. The drum kit alone was plastered with mics, each going to a separate track on the recorder.

That meant that the actual live performance was only the beginning of the production. Much time was spent in post production mixing in the studio so in many ways live recorded peformances in more recent times are studio productions.

All of this only possible because of multitrack recorders. BTW it's not that well known that 8 track Ampex recorders were made from the late 50's.

Tim

[EMI BTR 3]

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

I have a nephew who uses a modern Marshall guitar amp and it's a hybrid transistor/valve design called a "valvestat" or something like that. The front end has I assume a valve stage in it somewhere which can be overdriven, and the power circuitry downstream is solid state.
The advantage is you can get the overdriven sweet sound even at lower volumes, without having to raise the dead...

Tim

Not as much as all that, I'm afraid. I've a friend who runs a leading music shop in northeast Texas. One day, back when I lived there, he rang me up, saying he'd just got a call from someone we both knew who worked at another music shop, who'd just got one of the first Valvestate amps, and was having a bit of a problem with it: it 'didn't sound like a Marshall' was the explanation given.

This person brought his amp to my friend's shop, and we went round and round, trying this valve and that, with but slight influence on the same basic sound. The amp's owner was well disappointed, and it was I who had to explain to him that the sound he desired was only possible by overdriving not only several twin triodes but also a push-pull pair of pentodes feeding a transformer (also no doubt saturating) which coupled them to the speaker box or boxes. One lone ECC83 in a box otherwise full of silicon wasn't about to do it....

[TIMTAPE]

That's informative. I had no idea of the actual valve lineup and circuitry or how well it stood up against more tradtional full valve circuits. That's why I spoke in broad terms only.

Would it be possible though to include all of those valve circuitry elements but using much lower power components so that you still got the desired valve sound and then let the solid state output stage give the power?

This is yet another tack from Kat and others who only mentioned the need for special guitar amp speakers which distorted at high volumes. Do you agree with the need for these special distorting speakers on top of all this valve circuitry?

Tim

[neon indicator]

No.
Either have the whole valve amp, original speaker cab and speaker etc at original power or use a DSP chip to simulate.

[jamesperrett]

Originally Posted by EMI BTR 3

...who'd just got one of the first Valvestate amps, and was having a bit of a problem with it: it 'didn't sound like a Marshall' was the explanation given.

At the risk of going a little OT, Valvestate amps were the bane of my life when I was running a recording studio. As soon as I saw a guitarist bring one in I knew that I would be battling all day to get anything other than a weedy fizz out of it. The problem was that the guitarist was usually used to hearing it at a volume loud enough to make anything sound good and just couldn't understand why it sounded so horrible when they listened to the playback. Marshall did themselves no favours with those amps.

James.

[TIMTAPE]

It surprises me that a company with the pedigree of Marshall would put out such a poor sounding amp, especially when used in a recording studio where you'd expect its asset of good overdrive tone at lower volumes would come into its own.

Has the Valvestat series been universally condemned?

Tim

[veffreak]

"universally condemned" would be a too large generalization, but in guitarist circles they're reputation is pretty bad. It's just that by design they can't sound anything like a proper Marshall. And i think they are not meant to be much more than practice amps? They might be OK for some shredding though, as this is a place where preamp distortion is desired and usually the norm, afaik. (not my cup of tea at all)

veffreak

[Kat Manton]

Hi,

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

This is yet another tack from Kat and others who only mentioned the need for special guitar amp speakers which distorted at high volumes.

I only mentioned speakers as I was responding to a post specifically concerning speakers

The thing to remember is the instrument called "the electric guitar" is a system; it isn't just the bit of wood with strings on it. The amplifier and speaker are active parts of the instrument and contribute to its sound, rather than just accurately amplify/reproduce the input signal as is usually expected from amplifiers/speakers.

An electric guitar doesn't really do much until you plug it into something

What it boils down to is that if you specifically want the sound of overdriven triodes, pentodes, and transformer connected to non-linear loudspeakers in resonant cabinets turned up loud you need one or other of the following:

• Overdriven triodes, pentodes, and transformer connected to non-linear loudspeakers in resonant cabinets turned up loud.
• An accurate DSP model of overdriven triodes, pentodes, and transformer connected to non-linear loudspeakers in resonant cabinets turned up loud.

It's quite a complex system to model; trying to model it in the analogue domain (trying to make something which sounds like the above without being the above) is generally not successful.

Cheers, Kat

[TIMTAPE]

Kat I wasnt suggesting that you saw distorting speakers as the "only" form of distortion in the traditional guitar amp. We were all agreed on the contribution of a valve circuit to the overdriven sound. The Marshall Valvestate amps, I take it, have some valve circuitry in them. That was a given in the discussion.

It was me who hadnt appreciated the contribution of the speaker distortion to the guitar amp sound and I freely acknowledged that once informed.

Of course an electric guitar usually has other signal modifying elements after it. That wasnt at any point in question.

Of course the electric guitar "doesnt do much until you plug it into something." Neither was that ever in question. So why mention it?

The contribution of the guitar amp's speaker to distortion though, does underline an issue that comes up for me from time to time in PA situations. Sometimes guitarists use a traditional guitar amp to amplify their acoustic guitar which has a piezo/ceramic pickup fitted. The result is more of an "electric guitar" sound rather than the more naturally acoustic sound that the piezo pickup is designed to give.

Similarly some acoustic guitarists have coil wound inductive pickups fitted which of course give a basically "electric guitar" sound straight off the pickup, greatly changing the sound even before it's plugged into anything.

I doubt there is a conscious choice in either of the above cases, rather more a lack of understanding of the role and characteristics of the different elements in the signal chain, just as I didnt appreciate the significance of the guitar amp speaker's distorting influence, but thanks to you, do now.

Regards Tim

[neon indicator]

You absolutely need feedback/coupling between the strings and the "loud" loudspeaker. Otherwise the reverberation and sustain on an acoustic guitar is missing (on acoustic the soundbox doesn't just make it louder, the size, shape and construction greatly affect sound colour/sustain/reverb/harmonics etc) . The notes will end very sharply without that big loud speaker.

You need to stand close to the guitar speaker. It's quite easy to experiment prove this is so. This is why you won't persuade many budding rock guitarists to practice with headphones or at low volume. It won't sound "right".

[TIMTAPE]

Neon,

Agreed. The Hendrix style included feedback. Also, a part of the sustain of solid body electric guitars came from that solid body which damped the strings' oscillations less than would a hollow body guitar.

But in the examples I quoted I was clearly referring to acoustic guitarists who werent trying to use feedback/coupling. Not that style of music.

Interesting too, on a slightly different note, how the old practice of micing up an acoustic guitar on stage seems to have largely given way to pickups, except perhaps in the classical guitar field where faithfulness to the natural acoustic guitar sound is more highly valued.
I notice the great John Williams has no issues with amplifying his classical guitar, and indeed often finds it a necessity in larger venues, but of course he uses microphones, not pickups.

I'm not showing a preference for one or t'other, just noting the different methods appropriate to different styles of music, and also the limitations of microphones when used onstage.

Tim

[neon indicator]

A good acoustic guitar PA uses "clean" linear PA and acoustic pickup. The coil + magnet per string pickup will only work with steel strings and certain "authentic" folk/classical doesn't use all steel strings. A certain style of pop ballad/Jazz works better with steel strings and mag pickup, and again it depends on genre and artist's style if traditional electric guitar amp or "clean / linear" PA is used.

Some Folk/Classical/Spanish/Acoustic guitars are allegedly actually damaged by stringing them with steel for a magnetic pickup.

IMO a solid "pure" electric (as opposed to the rare slim sound box Jazz/Electric like a flattened violin sound box) has no inherent reverb or sustain at all, it 100% depends on acoustic coupling from the PA loudspeaker as there is no soundbox and it's totally rigid.

Agreed, Tim. It's down to what the artist wants. Though if the Artist has only done acoustic, maybe with a microphone (s)he may benefit from some advice regarding PAs and pickups.

Mike.

[Kat Manton]

Hi,

Originally Posted by neon indicator

IMO a solid "pure" electric [...] has no inherent reverb or sustain at all, it 100% depends on acoustic coupling from the PA loudspeaker as there is no soundbox and it's totally rigid.

Not correct; if that were the case then an unplugged solid electric would emit a dull, damped 'plunk'. Heavy solid-body guitars (such as one of mine, a Washburn with through-neck, brass nut and brass fixed bridge) have a very long natural sustain. The Gibson Les Paul is a well-known classic example.

(A digression, but also worth noting; if a solid-body electric produces a good, albeit quiet tone when unplugged, it'll sound good when amplified. I bought the Washburn on that basis without hearing it amplified.)

(Digressing even further; I'm building a guitar that's even heavier than the Washburn; featuring a solid mahogany body and Bigsby vibrato, it's intended to have a very good natural sustain. Returning to the topic, I'm building this as I particulary want to get a particular fifties/sixties style sound but can't afford a vintage Les Paul to attach a Bigsby to...)

Regards, Kat

Get me onto guitars/amps and I can ramble on almost indefinitely... sorry...

[neon indicator]

Obviously I have only encountered inferior electric guitars as all have sounded very dead compared to any acoustic stringed instrument.

I'd not rate "dead" or "lacking sustain" as the same as "Damped" in the sense of how piano sounds "damped".

A dull damped thunk isn't same to me as lacking life, reverb, sustain, but more negative.

I'd need to post a capture of waveform of noted played instead of all this imprecise english.

However would you not agree much "deader" than acoustic especially on the lower notes?

[TIMTAPE]

Mike,

Kat's quite right here. Yours might be an impression you'd get if listening to an electric guitar unplugged but what you are probably hearing is a very scratchy strumming sound, as much the sound of the plectrum as it hits the unamplified strings.

Plug the same guitar into any amplifier and hear the sustain that was there all the time but you couldnt hear it unamplified.

Les Paul understood this sustain principle well when he used a large, heavy piece of timber from which to make his early electric guitars.

All things being equal, a solid body guitar will always sustain better than a hollow body.

Tim