• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

YOUTUBE PAGE WITH 50S AND 60S SONGS PROCESSED THROUGH WABC'S 1960S AUDIO CHAIN

R

RADIO TRUTH

http://www.youtube.com/wabc1960saudiochain

The difference is night and day hearing these songs with vintage reverb and vintage compression and limiting. Listen for yourself and notice the difference. Anybody who hears these songs for the first time today, hears them sounding flat and dead with current audio processing if the songs are played on the radio at all. Digital processing by radio groupies on internet radio stations doesn't do these songs justice either. I hope this youtube page adds many more songs. It's really cool to hear WABC's mid 60s A. M. audio chain but, with F. M. quality frequency response. The songs haven't sounded this good since they were originally released.
 
I dunno. I listed to a few favs from the list and none of them sounded "better" to me than what I remember from AM or FM radio or my own library (some of which are downloaded compressed and others ripped from CD's).

The overall freq response seemed limited and resulted in a "mushy" sound and the stereo recordings had too much emphasis on the "harmony" channel. I remember listening to WABC in the late 60's and their signal sounded much better than these.
 
I dunno. I listed to a few favs from the list and none of them sounded "better" to me than what I remember from AM or FM radio or my own library (some of which are downloaded compressed and others ripped from CD's).

The overall freq response seemed limited and resulted in a "mushy" sound and the stereo recordings had too much emphasis on the "harmony" channel. I remember listening to WABC in the late 60's and their signal sounded much better than these.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that youtube encoding messes with the video and the audio. If you think the frequency response was limited, remember A. M. radio allowed little over 5000 cycles. A. M. radio audio chains were set to work within those parameters. There is F. M. quality frequency response on all these songs but, the high end frequency response has to be compressed to get that warm, rich, dense, punchy 60s sound. If you want full fidelity without the warmth, density and punch, listen to your cds. These don't sound better but, as good as the original songs when played on WABC in the 60s. The stereo is what it is. The audio chain just reacts to each channel in its own way. You can't really compare the stereo to 60s A. M. radio because it was all in mono which makes a processing difference. Some of the songs on the page are in mono and you can compare them and they do sound great. I think the main purpose of the youtube page was to compare 60s vintage, warm, dense audio processing with current digital, thin sounding audio processing. Maybe if more people hearing this music for the first time, heard it with 60s vintage audio processing, they would be more excited by it.
 
Just listened to Strawberry Alarm Clock on the you tube page..and through my Ots Player I use on my show...Much better on OTS for me..you tube sounded just a tad over driven..yea..I guess it may have sounded AM-ish..but quality wise..didn't sound as good as what I use..I can take a song run it through an old Roxio 7 program and make it really pop with presence and reverb...re EQ it to sound much better..and have done that on many songs..but with over 6000 in the play list I let the Ots dynamic processor and AGC due the work most of the time..JMTCW
 
Just listened to Strawberry Alarm Clock on the you tube page..and through my Ots Player I use on my show...Much better on OTS for me..you tube sounded just a tad over driven..yea..I guess it may have sounded AM-ish..but quality wise..didn't sound as good as what I use..I can take a song run it through an old Roxio 7 program and make it really pop with presence and reverb...re EQ it to sound much better..and have done that on many songs..but with over 6000 in the play list I let the Ots dynamic processor and AGC due the work most of the time..JMTCW
Click to expand...

There is no way you can get the vintage warmth and density of the analog sound with digital equipment. When you process audio, you have to give something to get something. There's no doubt that digital processing is cleaner but, it's also thinner and more clinical sounding no matter how much reverb or equalization you put on it. Digital processing is not capable in any way of producing the warmth and density of the songs on that youtube page. If you are digitally processing these songs, they have to sound just as thin as they do on the few current radio stations that still play them as well as all internet (unprofitable with no listeners) radio stations. The 60s sound is all about density and warmth and digital processing can't achieve it for a number of technical reasons. Do you know what even harmonic distortion is?
 
I have a number of the same songs in my private library (all digital) and they sound essentially the same when played as they did back in the radio days. The ones that date back to AM radio sound much fuller and their backgrounds are stronger than back then. The ones played primarily on analog FM don't sound different. I suspect it is the YouTube player that is changing the sound (or the songs were encoded in less than optimum bit rate).
 
I have a number of the same songs in my private library (all digital) and they sound essentially the same when played as they did back in the radio days. The ones that date back to AM radio sound much fuller and their backgrounds are stronger than back then. The ones played primarily on analog FM don't sound different. I suspect it is the YouTube player that is changing the sound (or the songs were encoded in less than optimum bit rate).
Click to expand...

The ones that date back to the A. M. radio days sound much fuller because they were recorded and mixed with all tube equipment. When they were played on mid 60s A. M. radio, the A. M. radio station's audio chain was also all tube. Tube equipment sounds warmer than transistors which sound warmer than digital. The first transistor compressor/limiters for F. M. radio and the first transistor tape recorders didn't exist until about 1969. When recordings started to be made and processed with transistor equipment, the recordings began to sound thinner. In addition, early F. M. processors did little in the way of significant compression and limiting. The first F. M. compressors that really compressed didn't exist until the mid 70s. The songs all sounded denser and warmer on tube processed radio stations. In the early days of oldies radio stations in the early 70s, the songs sounded thinner because of early transistor processing and no tubes. Newer digital processing sounds much cleaner but, way way thinner. All 50s and 60s songs lose the excitement, warmth and punch with digital processing. With each new audio technology change, you give something to get something. I can tell the recordings on the youtube page were made with tube processing. You can hear the density and warmth that is lacking in all digital processing. As far as what uploading video and audio to youtube does to the quality, I know that youtube's encoding scheme degrades everything to a degree but, I can still hear that it is tube processed vintage audio with eq, plate reverb and tube compression and limiting.
 
Years ago I had both a Sansui tube amp right next to a Sony solid state amp and when the inputs were switched between the two people could not tell the difference. I used to make pocket money making bets that people could not tell the difference. I suspect any differences are due to adjustments on the individual devices and not the existence or absence of tubes.
 
Years ago I had both a Sansui tube amp right next to a Sony solid state amp and when the inputs were switched between the two people could not tell the difference. I used to make pocket money making bets that people could not tell the difference. I suspect any differences are due to adjustments on the individual devices and not the existence or absence of tubes.
Click to expand...

This is a much debated issue. Read about even harmonic distortion. Recording studio people can tell the difference. You can tell by the prices for vintage compressor/limiters. A tube Teletronix LA-2A goes for between $3750 and $5000 on the used equipment market today.. It was made from 1964-69. The Urei LA-3A was the next generation and it was all transistor and was made from 1969-78 and goes for between $1000 and $1500 on the used equipment market today. The Urei LA-3A was replaced with the Urei LA-4 in 1978. Urei LA-4s go for about $500 on the used equipment market today. Here's the reason for the huge price difference. Recording studio engineers like that dense tube sound of the LA-2A. The LA-3A was dense for the first solid state Urei compressor but, you see the difference in prices. The LA-4 is generally regarded as very thin sounding and a piece of crap which is why it sells for so much less.
 
http://18003.make-warm-sound.com-about.com/ I haven't tried any of these programs..just posting for those who might want to try them and see if they actually work...some of them on this page claim to duplicate the analog tube sound when applied to digital music...as an old rock jock who cut his teeth on a Gates tube board, Tube transmitter, and RCA 77 ribbon mic, I do appreciate the warmth of old tube sounding equipment..bit of a beast to maintain in today's world..only those with trained ears will notice the difference however...as 99.9% of young'uns with Ipods shoved in their ears are clueless..all they know is I have 100,000 tunes to listen to..
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom