Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm starting to develop a collection of 60s albums (CDs not LPs), mainly from the period 1964 -68 (British R&B, freakbeat, folk rock, West Coast, psychedelic, etc). 

 

The problem with music from this era is that it is normally primitively recorded, true stereo if you're lucky, with light or non-existent bass.  IMO this detracts significantly from its enjoyment when played on modern equipment.  So, I'm thinking of assembling a cheap system to compensate for this.

 

I was thinking - dull-sounding speakers with exaggerated bass, valve/ early SS amp.

 

Any suggestions?  Should I go for 'period' equipment (eg: Quad 33/303) or look for something more modern?

Posted

The speakers would be my first focus. 

 

if DIY, you can tailored it as you wish. would you mind give me few reference tracks? so i can have a better idea :)

Posted

You're not going to be able to fully compensate for 'primitive' recording.

 

How about getting an amp with 'Loudness' or Bass tone control and a Mono button ?

Posted

Actually the early Beatles albums (up to Rubber Soul) are as good an example as any.  Or the first Grateful Dead album.  Jefferson Airplane Takes Off, Surrealistic Pillow, the list is endless really.

 

Doesn't sound like you're familiar with this era!

Posted

You're not going to be able to fully compensate for 'primitive' recording.

 

How about getting an amp with 'Loudness' or Bass tone control and a Mono button ?

 

The Quad 33/303 I mentioned above has all this except loudness I think.

Posted

Alan,

An interesting project.

Some of the vintage Cerwin Vega speakers suit that sort of music well and are very easy to drive.I had a pair in my workshop for a while and they can be a lot of fun on crusty old recordings.A long way from accurate but that is perhaps what you need.

  • Like 1
Posted

Alan,

An interesting project.

Some of the vintage Cerwin Vega speakers suit that sort of music well and are very easy to drive.I had a pair in my workshop for a while and they can be a lot of fun on crusty old recordings.A long way from accurate but that is perhaps what you need.

 

Quite so.  I'll keep an eye out for a pair locally.  Do you know if they made standmounts?

Posted

considering the equipments in those days wont produce low bass, i think its understandable.

 

yes, except for beatles, i dont have much grasps of the music era.

 

i tried the rubber soul album (2009 remastered) just now, its playing quite well, but could be different on older pressing or mastered.

Posted

You are in the Mono - Stereo crossover period there, (I'm sure you know that), so a lot of releases were in both.  If there was a dedicated Mono mix done first it can be better than the subsequent early attempt at stereo.   Surrealistic Pillow is an example.  Doors, Hendrix, and others were in Mono and Stereo.

Don't know how available they are on CD but there has been so many Deluxe and Archive releases you might be able to find them. 

Won't fix the inherent 'sound of the times' but just an idea in case it helps.

Posted

I'm starting to develop a collection of 60s albums (CDs not LPs), mainly from the period 1964 -68 (British R&B, freakbeat, folk rock, West Coast, psychedelic, etc). 

 

The problem with music from this era is that it is normally primitively recorded, true stereo if you're lucky, with light or non-existent bass.  IMO this detracts significantly from its enjoyment when played on modern equipment.  So, I'm thinking of assembling a cheap system to compensate for this.

 

I was thinking - dull-sounding speakers with exaggerated bass, valve/ early SS amp.

 

Any suggestions?  Should I go for 'period' equipment (eg: Quad 33/303) or look for something more modern?

I know you said CDs but the obvious comment is, try these artists on vinyl for the best vintage sound.

Posted

Maybe a Bose system!

The period to which you refer was my nappy and crawling period. Fortunately, like a lot of people with an enduring interest in music ( something that is not that common beyond nostalgia, not that there is anything wrong with nostalgia ) I have gone back to discover some of the roots of modern music for myself. For that reason I can appreciate what you are saying. The fact is that Robert Johnson recorded on an early portable recording device in the 1930s sounded god awful on my stereo only 5 or 6 years ago. An iPad is all you need to discover and enjoy a lot of this music. As you imply, an appropriately blunt object might be best.

The fact is, their isn't much wrong with the recordings at all, whether it be the Beatles mono box set, or Jefferson Airplane, or circa 1965 Stones or 50s Jazz or 30s and 20s Delta Blues. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OFo8MFNkE All of this stuff sounds great at home and I have invested heavily in a very transparent system.

If I was putting together a modest "hifi", and I don't mean cheap, I would source some Quad 57s or 63s, even one would do as the 57 s were often sold as a mono speaker. It would then be a matter of trial and error to get the right amp and source that's revealing yet not grainy, like a Rega CD player. The Apollo was a nicely balanced player. For amps the Quad is an obvious starting point, but you should try a few different amp s as you are looking for synergy rather than outright uber quality.

I would NOT try and compensate for something that is not on the recording, instead seek to bring out the strengths of what is there. Your first post sounds like you are trying to do the former.

  • Like 1
Posted

One thing I definitely do know is to avoid the Quad 33/303 setup. More often than not I've read/heard reviews that they really only sounds good after mods have been done to the boards. So, IMO, why would you want something that is not remotely close to it's original specs?

It's a hard question you've given. It all really depends on how much $ you're willing to spend but more so how much time you have to dedicate to hunting down/auditioning/trialling at home. You will eventually get the right sound. It takes some of us a very long time to strike that balance and there is no quick answer unfortunately.

Posted

Maybe a Bose system!

The period to which you refer was my nappy and crawling period. Fortunately, like a lot of people with an enduring interest in music ( something that is not that common beyond nostalgia, not that there is anything wrong with nostalgia ) I have gone back to discover some of the roots of modern music for myself. For that reason I can appreciate what you are saying. The fact is that Robert Johnson recorded on an early portable recording device in the 1930s sounded god awful on my stereo only 5 or 6 years ago. An iPad is all you need to discover and enjoy a lot of this music. As you imply, an appropriately blunt object might be best.

The fact is, their isn't much wrong with the recordings at all, whether it be the Beatles mono box set, or Jefferson Airplane, or circa 1965 Stones or 50s Jazz or 30s and 20s Delta Blues. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OFo8MFNkE All of this stuff sounds great at home and I have invested heavily in a very transparent system.

If I was putting together a modest "hifi", and I don't mean cheap, I would source some Quad 57s or 63s, even one would do as the 57 s were often sold as a mono speaker. It would then be a matter of trial and error to get the right amp and source that's revealing yet not grainy, like a Rega CD player. The Apollo was a nicely balanced player. For amps the Quad is an obvious starting point, but you should try a few different amp s as you are looking for synergy rather than outright uber quality.

I would NOT try and compensate for something that is not on the recording, instead seek to bring out the strengths of what is there. Your first post sounds like you are trying to do the former.

 

the bose suggestion a very good one. classic vintage bose, with a budget integrated amp and budget vinyl spinner e.g. rega/project/thorens and the like will do fine :)

Posted

I have a luxman for which you can engage either loudness or bass/treble if required when the recording sounds thin

 

A sub maybe able to add some bottom end, but if there is nothing at the bottom to amplify   you still get  0 x 2 which is still zero bass.

Posted

In what experiences I have had thus far Cerwin Vega's as mentioned before are a great recommendation. Some other to consider would be the Celestion - Ditton 15, 25 etc. Pioneer CS-99, 88, 66 etc. JBL L26, 36, 40, 50. Polk's has some great speakers, as do B&W. I'm sure there are others but this is what comes off the top of my head. I'm sure others here have other recommendations for you also. 

Posted

Yes I agree

Cerwin Vaga also try the early models of Acoustic research

Now speaking from experience because I have lived through this period and the speakers I used were Sonab

Posted

How about a pair of Kef Concertos? Team them up with an early Rotel and your should get some authentic 60's/70's sound.

 

Cheers

 

M

Posted

First I heard - and admittedly it was a couple of years into the 70s - was:

Dual 1212 turntable

Sansui AU555

Wharfedale Dovedale speakers

... which was pretty serious gear for a 14-15 year old mate of mine to have acquired.

Can't tell you what there was round here when the Kinks & Small Faces were at their zenith - Quad? Rogers (pre-L3/5A), Leak and such like English gear would be my guess - all of which is likely to be vastly overpriced for its relative performance these days. Vaguely remember AR3a bookshelf speakers being advertised on the back of the hifi press.

My suspicion is that very few folk who bought WIld Thing listened to it on anything more advanced than a Pye console or HMV stereogram. Imagination filled in the details - as it still does.

Posted

Would the approach here be to try and emulate the sound that was in the studios?  For example this is what leads people to track down Tannoy studio monitors.

 

I've found Kit Lambert's production to be murky, and later, Lou Reed's.  They seemed to be aiming to have the sound listenable over a transistor radio.  But typically - say the Airplane or Phil Spector or the Beatles - attempted to have the sound respond to good gear.  Yes the remasters are nice and I'd rather travel that path than go for reproducing a murky piece of music that deserves - and responds to - decent remastering.

 

Stones Dylan beach Boys and Beatles - mono mixes are best.  Those are what they put the time into in the studio.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top