1950s and 1960s recording techniques

Subject: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: cshurtz
Date: 22 May 07 - 07:22 PM

This is sort of a broad question, but folk-ish recordings back in the late 50s and early 60s sound so good. They are not as crisp and in "in your face" as new recordings. Take Dylan's first few albums for example. Does anyone know how many microphones they were using typically back then and how they were placed? Sometimes it sounds like just one mic, at other times I hear vocals on one side and guitars on the other. Does anyone have any tips for getting these kind of sounds with today's digital equipment?

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: Deskjet
Date: 22 May 07 - 07:31 PM

I have recently been listening to Brendan O'Dowda's recordings of him singing Percy French songs and was struck by the quality of the recording - Recorded originally in 1958 it is obviously an analogue recording; and obviously the analogue qualities still transfer to my digital copy. I think you may be heariing something similar to myself.

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 07 - 08:42 PM

Singers generally had a single mike for voice and on occasion two for the guitar. The voice mikes were often 'boom mikes'. Here is a pic of BD likely when he was recording his first album for Columbia (the hat). Picture.

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: treewind
Date: 23 May 07 - 05:00 AM

They didn't have many mics, and they certainly didn't have multi track recording. They either mixed live to stereo or for a lot of pop song recordings they recorded on three tracks, with the vocals on a track of its own and the rest of the band mixed live to stereo on the other two. Then a very rudimentary mixdown was possible, to get a final perfect balance of vocals against backing.

I don't think analogue vs. digital is much of an issue. Good analogue tape recording equipment existed in the 1950s but it was hugely expensive (same applies to mics). One consequence of that was that the few engineers who got to use that equipment tended to be highly qualified, very technically knowledgeable, not only about electronics but also about acoustics, and had very good ears. That's probably the main reason why they made good recordings.

Anahata

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: GUEST,Graham Bradshaw
Date: 23 May 07 - 06:33 AM

Well actually, often just one mike.
I made my first recording (as part of a folk trio) in 1967, and we all stood round one very expensive Neumann mike. The balance was done by positioning, and if one of us made a mistake, we stopped and started again. This was in R.G.Jones studio in Wimbledon - one of the premier studios at the time. The engineers knew what they were doing. An album done in 2 3 hour sessions. Studios were booked in multiples of 3 hours back then, as this was the standard Musicians Union session.
Most of the pop records were recorded in a similarly simple fashion, first on to 2 track tape, with lots of bouncing down. If the band couldn't cut it in the first few takes, they just got in pro session players who could!! Hence a lot of pop records didn't actually have all the band playing on them.
By 1967, several people were experimenting with real multitrack, with the first 4 and 8 track machines becoming available. The Beatles being one notable example. However, I'm pretty sure that their first records were recorded straight to 2 track tape. And they still sound brilliant today, with a freshness that jumps out at you. A lot of this was down to the simplicity of the arrangements. Just listen - there is no superfluous stuff going on. The engineers and producers were largely responsible for licking people into shape, and paring down the arrangements.

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:35 PM

Most artists did not carry/pay a recorder/mixer/sound/amp....

Much depended upon the venue....and CD's (tapes) of the night's mix were not "immediately available."

For the "big names" I saw in the 60's there were three microphones/ left / right / vocalist.

Commercial was only available through the studios.

Holy B-Ging-Mutha-Sheet - The "Dirt Band" was in town....and broke off into small house-holds - with hospital hosts - what a set of recordings we could have snaked that night....if the new tech was available.....

Instead, we ALL left with a night magical memories....that linger on both sides. Two chaps in "the village" had a slide guitar-technique that enthralled Jeff Hanna for over two hours.

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: mrmoe
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:49 AM

If there was a "trick" to getting these "in you face", high quality recordings, it was microphone quality!.....the problem with duplicating this early sound in digital recording mostly due to the fact that digital software is inexpensive and we all have it; extremely high quality condenser microphones are even more expensive than they ever were....you can do a decent job of recording with a good mic pre-amp (tube type, of course) and a decent condenser mic....you're not (however) going to get that $3000 mic sound without a $3000 mic!

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 24 May 07 - 11:24 AM

I recorded for a major folk label in the 60's. One vocal mike, one guitar mike. Analogue 4 track tape.
One thing about cd re-issues is that they use modern equipment to digitalise which allows them to mess about with the tonal values of the original recordings. Sometimes they come out quite tinny,and, as you say, in your face. Sometimes the modern obsession with bass tones takes over in the re-mixing. Young technicians have to fiddle with things to justify their existence.

Subject: RE: 1950s and 1960s recording techniques
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 07 - 04:42 PM

Some 50s and 60s recordings by pretty big names just sound shit.

Or is it the fact that it's traditional shit that justifies it?