Vintage Fisher Tube stuff . . . audiophile or not?
- Thread starter tubeboob
- Start date
Pio1980
AK Member
Another 1930s fidelity directed effort with an interesting article.
https://www.otrcat.com/grandpa-walt...collections-of-a-classic-1930s-radio-receiver
https://www.otrcat.com/grandpa-walt...collections-of-a-classic-1930s-radio-receiver
Pio1980
AK Member
That is too all-encompassing to be credible. While good recording practice is an attraction, jazz is too variegated to fit one size for all, Brubeck to be-bop. Jazz being ensemble improvisational, usually gets simple good recording technique, dynamic compression notwithstanding. I remember tiresome arguments about whether Jazz at the Pawnshop was really jazz regardless of the high standard of the recordings, which were quite enjoyable as was.
Nobody is advocating crap sound, I can tolerate less than good sound on AM radio I find interesting, but only tolerate it on recordings for something available no other way.
troll that 
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
When I say the way it was recorded, I meant the process in the lack of dubbing....
Ellington, Basie, Davis, Bruebeck.....they all used microphone mixers to record an accurate sound. The thing is, it's the way equipment is used accurately to recreate the exact same sound that these newbies don't understand. They have not gotten over being consumers.
robert_kc
Super Member
johnblue
Active Member
For what its worth "mic placement" is still very important and always a factor in every recording engineers setup process.
Things have changed... A lot since big band recording, but I think the more experienced an engineer is, the more comfortable they are with their gear, they tend to lean More heavily on the old standards.
Mixing is another monster.
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
There is a great review on stereophile.com about the Fisher 500c.
Fisher 500C vintage stereo receiver...
There are many great receivers to learn about before just settling for an inferior peice of junk. Many receivers can be found for incredible prices for incredible quality. The Realistic STA 225 is a perfect example of a RatShack receiver that sounded better than a Fisher. Not many receivers can do that....
Fisher 500C vintage stereo receiver...
There are many great receivers to learn about before just settling for an inferior peice of junk. Many receivers can be found for incredible prices for incredible quality. The Realistic STA 225 is a perfect example of a RatShack receiver that sounded better than a Fisher. Not many receivers can do that....
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
True....
But mircrophone mixers were used all the way through the seventies, by certain artists like Carlos Santana, Chicago, Sly Stone, James Taylor and many more. In the late seventies when heavy metal took off dub mixing got popular. There has always been artists going to Nashville to record in the old recording studios. Billy Joel's Glass House album was recorded there and pressed someplace else.
ab2forever
Active Member
My first and immediate reaction looking at any valve amplifier is to check the size of output transformers.
If it has anything big and beautiful like the who's who of quality transformer makers, UK Partridge,Woden, Parmeko, Gardener or USA UTC LS series, older Stancor, Thordarsen, or the large Bogens who wound their own, you have an amplifier which will have the older style much more progressive transformer saturation.
Well sorted with some redesign work and they can make modern "hi end" look stupid, because the last phase of development in the mid 60s was to squeeze more and more into less,- particularly with the higher gain, lower impedance trend pushed along by colour TV, frame grids and sweep tubes.
Scott have whopping transformers and they used that excellent 7591 to go with it.
Fisher stuck their necks out and went for the 2x 7591, double the gain, double the current 8417.
Lots of those amps don't have a bright top end, because in the 50s and 60s people didn't have anything that needed it, and the same generation IN their 60s and 70s now can't hear it anyhow.
This is a sound signature thing.
Modern amplifiers don't sound this way, they look flash, and shiny, and the chinese who make lots of them simply don't understand sound. I have witnessed it myself on my many tours around China.
No suprise, a modern KT66 amplifier sounds nothing remotely like a classic williamson with partridge, so let's make fakes of them all and try to kid everyone shall we?
You can kid some of them.
Younger people have ears conditioned by DSP, digital sound, compression, German Fraunhofer and computer algorithms.
Mix the 2 together, and there's an even bigger generational gap building up, because those people don't learn to play instruments either.
They are the new "deaf" generation, the ability to concentrate on any one task is short, but they are totally unaware of their shortcomings, and think virtual is real.
It's practically impossible to change this mindset.
I'm not clear on what you're referring to, mixing boards are still a central part of any recording setup/studio. Are you referring to two-track recording?
johnblue
Active Member
Mixing boards are in most major studios, but in all honesty, they are being used less and less, but they still have a function, the studios usually have all digital ins and outs routed through large format mixers and can (if they want) run a live mix on a track to print, but its not really the best way to do that anymore, its much more flexible to use digital automation of the faders in the software to do the final mix, simply because its non destructive and can be changed. Printing (recording) a live mix off the analog faders can't be properly changed and is for the most part pointless. The VRs aren't imparting any mojo themselves, but the desk itself does usually have a sound... Mic pres, EQ, summing buss, are the Mojo of any given desk, and studios still center their "vibe" around the desk for this reason.
Monitoring is controlled by the desk for the most part, its good to have the physical faders for monitoring, and designing a mix... its still easier and more very much more fun to control your way around a mix with the faders.
Having physical faders for recording and monitoring to the talent is a godsend. Having a large format desk for recording an entire band at once is almost essential, you can't record an entire band properly without a decent mixer, you need to send so many different aspects to so many different people... Essentially, you make a "aux mix" for each player.
There is less and less budget and also less and less talent that can facilitate a live recording of any sizable band. The worse the players are, the harder it us to record them, the more time and money but costs. Nowadays its much cheaper to get the rhythm section first and get a player at a time, mainly because the bands aren't tight.
Its a really magical time when you have a tight band all miked up and into a mixer, all going at once recording 20+tracks. It feels like a miracle is happening.
Monitoring is controlled by the desk for the most part, its good to have the physical faders for monitoring, and designing a mix... its still easier and more very much more fun to control your way around a mix with the faders.
Having physical faders for recording and monitoring to the talent is a godsend. Having a large format desk for recording an entire band at once is almost essential, you can't record an entire band properly without a decent mixer, you need to send so many different aspects to so many different people... Essentially, you make a "aux mix" for each player.
There is less and less budget and also less and less talent that can facilitate a live recording of any sizable band. The worse the players are, the harder it us to record them, the more time and money but costs. Nowadays its much cheaper to get the rhythm section first and get a player at a time, mainly because the bands aren't tight.
Its a really magical time when you have a tight band all miked up and into a mixer, all going at once recording 20+tracks. It feels like a miracle is happening.
ab2forever
Active Member
wazzzis all got to do with Fisher?
johnblue
Active Member
Lol I am literally ROFLorcopter.
I think the guy said it was the lack of mixing boards fault he didn't like The Fisher.
I think Jazz maybe got blamed too, or the lack of Jazz... I'm not sure.
Press for thread self destruct
(X)
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
I'm talking about microphone mixers that were used along with mixing boards. What was done before laying multiple tracks recorded one on top of another. Called dubbing....tracks ! Early recordings did not use mixing boards because they did not exist....and when mixing boards first came out, they were not used in the initial recording of a master tape like they are now. That's why not all vinyl pressings sound the same. Like the Stones London recordings, the reason why so many studio recordings sound differently.....
I think you mean live to 2-track, where initial recording medium captures two tracks (L-R) mixed from whatever mics are used, with no further level changes leaving only the mastering process before the final product. Multitrack recording has been used since Les Paul in the fifties but more widely since the 60s, and involves the additional step of mixing the tracks recorded into two tracks for the master. Whether that involves layering of tracks is a function of how many tracks are available on the recording medium and how many are recorded, it was more commonly done when most recorders were 4 or 8 tracks. When 16 and 24 track recorders became available the need for layering was reduced. Of course today with digital media there is no need for layering.
A "microphone mixer" and a mixing board basically do the same thing, they both amplify the mic signal through a mic preamp and set the output level for that channel, and then they may offer other features like EQ and effects. The former usually has eight channels or less, when the medium allowed for more tracks the mixing board setup was more practical for space reasons. Whether a recording is done live to 2-track or multitrack is not a function of the type of mixer used, either can be done though as you say 2-track is not common today. I'm not sure the Stones records were done live to 2-track.
From a sound quality perspective I do prefer 2-track.
ab2forever
Active Member
SO WHAT?
Go and discuss this stuff on your own thread on mixers.
I will help you.
Here's a start to studio mixer history, then go and have a chat with Rupert Neve thank you!
AndreDaGiant
New Member
Omigosh, this was so much fun to read.
