• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

We've lost the old school sound.

#142
40Hz said:
Unless you were actually there in those types of bands, using that type of equipment, playing that sort of style and therefore know exactly how it sounded live.

Maybe those born well after that era and its sound faded into music history only have some erroneous impression gleaned from the admitted limitations of the recording technology of that era. But not everybody. And those of us who did experience and still remember it aren't all completely senile just yet despite all the jokes about how "if you do remember - you weren't there."
Click to expand...
I was born in the 50's and grew up listening to and playing many of what we now call "the vintage/classic sounds". The gear, the technology, the whole package is what created those sounds IMO. What I find most amusing as we all look back is that, at that time, people were fascinated with moving beyond the sounds we now worship as the holy grail.

High fidelity, stereo, quadraphonic (a crude analog to today's surround sound), etc. were all the newer and better ideas that pushed us to where we are today. Whether it was live or recorded music, people (including musicians and sound engineers) were always looking for a bigger, better experience, both electronically and chemically. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: delta7fred and 40Hz
#143
brianrost said:
Drivers in the 1960s were low wattage...why do you suppose an SVT cabinet had 8 of them to handle 300 watts? 25 to 50 watts power handling per driver with a few "high end" speakers like JBLs and Altecs rated for around 100 watts. When ceramic magnets replaced alnico, we started seeing drivers like the EV SROs that could take 200 watts. By 1980 drivers handling 400 watts were commonplace.

Go to Eminence's website and you will find they make no bass drivers today that handle less than 100 watts and for a 15" nothing that handles less than 300 watts. It's actually hard to find low wattage bass drivers.

The high frequencies were reduced in a lot of older speakers. That's why bright switches are found in many old amps....guitar players couldn't get enough treble! Many bass drivers rolled off at 3-4 Khz. If you look at the (already 1980s era) EVM-15B and EVM-15L, the L model has an extra octave of response...up in the 6-7Khz range. You can easily hear the L is much brighter sounding than the B (I prefer the B myself).
Click to expand...

I do miss the SROs. Lousy specs by today's standards. But I still like how they sound. Too bad they could sometimes blow when you least expected them to. I had one go on me during a show one night. Fortunately my other JBL equipped cab kept on chugging on.

I don't know too many people who had an SRO provisioned cab that didn't have at least one SRO die on them at one time or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sartori
#145
Al Kraft said:
I was born in the 50's and grew up listening to and playing many of what we now call "the vintage/classic sounds". The gear, the technology, the whole package is what created those sounds IMO. What I find most amusing as we all look back is that, at that time, people were fascinated with moving beyond the sounds we now worship as the holy grail.

High fidelity, stereo, quadraphonic (a crude analog to today's surround sound), etc. were all the newer and better ideas that pushed us to where we are today. Whether it was live or recorded music, people (including musicians and sound engineers) were always looking for a bigger, better experience, both electronically and chemically. :D
Click to expand...

Too true. Murphy once again is vindicated: "If you labor to improve something long and hard enough, you'll eventually break it." ;)

Be careful what you wish for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al Kraft
#146
40Hz said:
I do miss the SROs. Lousy specs by today's standards. But I still like how they sound. Too bad they could sometimes blow when you least expected them to. I had one go on me during a show one night. Fortunately my other JBL equipped cab kept on chugging on.

I don't know too many people who had an SRO provisioned cab that didn't have at least one SRO die on them at one time or another.
Click to expand...
Were they like the EV 15Bs?
 
#147
Couldn't agree more. For me finding good old cabs and speakers made a big difference in getting there. EV-15b speakers with no tweeters (guild thunder bass 1x15 from early 70s) help get me pretty close. For me its the best 15", plenty of high end for what I need. Even throwing new heads into that cab get closer to an old school sound than say an Silverface bassman into a modern cabinet with a tweeter
 
#148
I didn't read this whole thread, but the OP sounds like he is missing the sound of tubes. While many are stating that JPJ was DI'd into the board, it is important to understand what that means. The console itself has tube preamps and he may have run through some tube compressors as well. Things like that make a direct sound much more rich and detailed.

There is a reason the older consoles are so highly valued by producers and engineers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rodl2005
#149
Korladis said:
Were they like the EV 15Bs?
Click to expand...

I couldn't say since I'm not all that familiar with the 15Bs.

But my impression of the SRO is that they're very smooth with an almost perfect balance between the lows and highs, but still without sounding hifi. The highs were exceptionally sweet. And you couldn't get a harsh sound out of them if you tried.

I dislike using the expression mojo most times. But I'll make an exception for the SROs because there was some weird sonic voodoo going down someplace in there with them. So yeah. Definitely some major mojo happening with those puppies.

Note: they did two different versions. The earlier ones used an Alnico magnet. A huge Alnico magnet. They later switched to ceramic. All my experience is with the Alnico version - although I've been told the ceramic magnet version sounded equally good by those who played through both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al Kraft
#151
JRA said:
the bass gear was the least important!

^

^

^

true enough

^

true enough

100%

wolfkeller , after reading the thread: seems like you want an amp/speaker setup to do something an amp/speaker setup never did in the first place = you'd like companies to make gear to recreate the sound you hear when you listen to analog recordings. i'm with the posters who are suggesting you go back to your own gear and figure out how to get what you are hearing in your head out of your setup.

to the extent that you consider the sounds of those recordings 'superior', good luck with your quest! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I'm really not on an quest, I dig the sound I have for the most part really am I'm cool with that. It would be cool to get some of those sounds but I'm not dying here lol. I really had to idea as to the significance of all the other factors mentioned here. Alot of guys have contributed some great insite into how things really are different.

I haven't spent a ton of time in the studio. The times I did, it was simply put my live rig in an ISO room, a few different mikes and a DI and off I went. Came out sounding very much as my live sound did at the time.
 
#152
I agree with the original poster that the "old school" sound has been lost. As many have already commented, much has changed - equipment, technology, tastes, etc, so an "old school tone" has to be a goal you set, not just the result of using the equipment that is available at the time (such as back in 1965 when it was largely a Fender Bass and a low-watt Fender or Ampeg tube amp).

This past weekend I caught part of a broadcast of the Rolling Stones' concert in Cuba. The moment I landed on the channel I noticed the classic guitar tones from Keith Richards and Ron Woods over the very modern tone from bassist Darrly Jones. I disliked the sound enough switch the channel, thinking the band would have been served better by a vintage bass sound. It wasn't a bad bass tone, but I didn't think it fit a 50-year old 'Stones song.

I walk-the-walk in this area, regularly gigging with an early 1970s B-15N and a Fender bass with flatwounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidEdenAria and Rocker47
#154
It's funny, it all started because Zeppelins heartbreaker came on and I thought, "I'd really like to be able to get, not always use that tone.". I thought, I don't hear anyone with that kind of sound. I haven't come across any "modern" pedals, ect that could deliver a sound like that.
 
#155
The artists from the '60's and '70's who made those records wished at the time that they had access to the powerful, clean amps we have today. Read some articles from back then. Amps constantly blowing speakers or frying themselves. The bass sounds you hear on the albums were recorded on analog equipment with cranked, underpowered amps trying to keep up with Marshall stacks and loud drummers. ( Imagine a 50 watt combo running full blast for 6 hours.) The best solution is to get a tube preamp and a loud SS amp. Crank the preamp and let the clean amp do the heavy lifting. This is where judicious use of a compressor and a BBE or Aphex Aural Exciter is crucial. Not perfect, but close, especially in a live setting. Hope this helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taylor16
#156
wolfkeller said:
It's funny, it all started because Zeppelins heartbreaker came on and I thought, "I'd really like to be able to get, not always use that tone.". I thought, I don't hear anyone with that kind of sound. I haven't come across any "modern" pedals, ect that could deliver a sound like that.
Click to expand...
The bass tone in Heartbreaker is through a rotary speaker, IIRC.
 
#158
wolfkeller said:
Who would know? Still, could be something to get that, or other sounds more accurately IMO.
Click to expand...
Used to be a posted clip of the isolated bass track. I looked for it, but it's since been taken down for copyright infringement. It definitely sounded like one of those rotating speakers, though.

As for old school sounds... lots of bands pursue a retro sound these days. I even own records by some of them.
 
#160
LiquidMidnight said:
Quoted for truth.

I love the Stones; I heard Sympathy for the Devil on the radio a few days ago. I never realized it, but Keith's tone during the guitar solo is frankly...well, I'll say it...God awful. It's shrill in the worst possibly way and completely thin.
I think that's a bit of an unfair example, especially if you compare it to his other leads. Never talked to the man, but I am willing to bet Keith selected that shrill tone specifically to suit the subject matter of the song. The percussion isn't typical Charlie Watt either but it makes the song. :cool:
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back