Classic Rock anyone?

[boombox4]

The fact you still use the term "fidelity" is a window into your perspective on what sounds good or not. Compared with just about any modern source of aural media, AM mono sounds like frequency-limited, distorted, trash. Let alone via skywave.
For those who grew up listening to that sound, I suppose it could be interpreted as somewhat nostalgic, but certainly not of comparable quality by modern standards.

They could, but the cost benefit would be extremely lopsided in the negative.

Being that a lot of people listen to MP3 level music via tinny earbuds (I have a pair of name-brand earbuds -- they sound tinnier than a 1960's transistor radio); small, monophonic speaker cubes; tinny laptop internal speakers; medium fidelity clock (and often monophonic) radios or a boomy, monophonic smart speaker (like Alexa), it's all relative.

People don't listen to high fidelity stereo systems anymore. Those went out in the mid 2000s.

The closest thing to high fidelity stereo for most people anymore is a car stereo.

And don't forget, a lot of those are outfitted with massive subwoofers that make the music sound like a jet airliner inside your vehicle, running at 60 hz.

Otherwise, yeah, your point is taken. I get it -- AM radio isn't comparable to FM stereo (when it isn't screwed up by terrain shadows), nor is it comparable to a clean stream through good headphones or really good computer speakers (there's a misnomer). And it's not as clean sounding as HD AM. When the local South Asian music station was running HD, I was pleasantly surprised.

RE: Streaming: They could still try it. I'm not sure if the US digital royalty rates are the same in Mexico as they are here. Maybe someone here knows and can enlighten us?

 

[Kelly A]

RE: Streaming: They could still try it. I'm not sure if the US digital royalty rates are the same in Mexico as they are here. Maybe someone here knows and can enlighten us?

If they stream into the US and Europe, then they pay royalties. Geofencing the stream within just Mexican borders, probably would be ineffective and still cost-prohibitive for different reasons.

 

[boombox4]

That's what a lot of Classic Rock sounds like even before it gets to the transmitter. When the Moody Blues' "Go Now" came out, it was so distorted that it made people think their radio was broken. And the Raspberries' "Go All the Way" sounds worse than they heavily compressed AM Top 40 radio of the '70s. Even in the '80s there were still some bad-sounding records, like Modern English's "I Melt With You".

The Moody Blues record was heavily compressed, and mono. The producer was trying to imitate the R&B records like the band copied (Go Now itself was a 1964 US R&B record). UK studios also were primitive compared to what was available in the US at the time. So some of the compressed distortion inherent in the recordings was intended (Shel Talmy was famous for producing such records with the Kinks) and some of it was just lack of Hollywood-level recording studios.

I don't know why Go All The Way was so blisteringly compressed and high-midrange. But it was a pop track, I don't think it ever got much play on classic rock radio. I've never heard anything by the Raspberries on classic rock radio, even stuff off of Side 3, their most classic rock album.

As for Classic Rock in general, listen to Led Zeppelin 4 or any other mainstream recording of that era, and they were well-recorded by guys that the modern studio engineers look up to (Eddie Kramer, Glyn Johns, Andy Johns). If you don't like distorted guitar.... Okay, not everybody's cup of tea. But it's only been a standard in guitar sound (and amplification) since Link Wray recorded The Rumble in the 1950s.

PS. Awesome clip of CHML, it sounds clean for AM. Not much different from the sound of a monophonic smart speaker (except it doesn't monitor your house. ).

 

[boombox4]

If they stream into the US and Europe, then they pay royalties. Geofencing the stream within just Mexican borders, probably would be ineffective and still cost-prohibitive for different reasons.

I was wondering about that. Makes sense. Thanks for that info.

 

[davideduardo]

RE: Streaming: They could still try it. I'm not sure if the US digital royalty rates are the same in Mexico as they are here. Maybe someone here knows and can enlighten us?

Nearly all of Latin America is way behind the US and Europe on technology-related legislation. The royalty system in Mexico is different, and is less restrictive of streaming. I have not been following this closely, though, so perhaps our resident Mexican media guru can add something.

 

[davideduardo]

UK studios also were primitive compared to what was available in the US at the time. So some of the compressed distortion inherent in the recordings was intended (Shel Talmy was famous for producing such records with the Kinks) and some of it was just lack of Hollywood-level recording studios.

The UK pretty much followed the US and much of Western Europe in studio technology. Multi-track developed simultaneously in both areas, with both multi-channel tape recorders and mixing consoles looking about the same, but with different brands, on both sides of the Atlantic.

The criteria of both mixers and producers may have been different, partially (at least) influenced by the lack of commercial radio and the later development of FM in the UK and surrounding areas.

 

[TomásEstefan]

The UK pretty much followed the US and much of Western Europe in studio technology. Multi-track developed simultaneously in both areas, with both multi-channel tape recorders and mixing consoles looking about the same, but with different brands, on both sides of the Atlantic.

The criteria of both mixers and producers may have been different, partially (at least) influenced by the lack of commercial radio and the later development of FM in the UK and surrounding areas.

Columbia Records (now CBS/Sony) claims they were the first US record company to begin recording on tape back in 1946. The story goes that a couple of Columbia Records engineers that were in the US Army at the end of the War, during the capture of Berlin, were allowed to confiscate a number of German designed and manufactured Magnetiphones that were then installed in Columbia's Studios. They claimed it gave them a multi-year jump over their arch competitor RCA Victor, who during this period was still recording on 78 RPM shellac. Thus when Columbia rolled out 33 1/3 rpm Vinyl in 1948, they had by then aquired a large library of pre-recorded studio sessions on tape in Hi-Fi ready to dub to vinyl. During this same period when RCA rolled out the 7" 45 rpm and later their own 33 1/3 Vinyls they had no choice but to dub them from Lo-Fi 78 rpm shellac, and consequently have to offer a technical disclaimer on the record jackets.

 

[kevtronics]

Neither LPs nor 45s were hi-fi until the advent of the RIAA curve in 1955. I have some early Columbia 10" LPs and they don't sound any better than 78s of the era.

RCA Victor had been pressing some 78s on vinyl instead of shellac since the early 1930s. They called it "Victrolac". They also invented the first long-playing 33⅓ RPM record format in 1931, but it was a commercial failure due to the Great Depression. They were quite upset when Columbia took their idea and resurrected it.

 

[TomásEstefan]

Neither LPs nor 45s were hi-fi until the advent of the RIAA curve in 1955. I have some early Columbia 10" LPs and they don't sound any better than 78s of the era.

RCA Victor had been pressing some 78s on vinyl instead of shellac since the early 1930s. They called it "Victrolac". They also invented the first long-playing 33⅓ RPM record format in 1931, but it was a commercial failure due to the Great Depression. They were quite upset when Columbia took their idea and resurrected it.

i think you're referring to the RCA 12" microgroove disc from 1931. It used the same 1mil groove-width as a modern LP, but it ran at 78 rpm allowing a little over 10 minutes a side. The problem was that consumer gear at the time was designed to play only 3 mil grooves. After two or three plays the records were virtually destroyed. RCA neglected to develop or offer appropriate "needles" or styli/cartridges to play these discs. Consequently, the product was a failure.

On the plus side for RCA, they were looking for a better sounding replacement for the 10" shellac 78. So they developed the 7" 45 rpm vinyl which they released in 1950. RCA's David Sarnoff was less than thrilled with Columbia's product, because he thought that the public really wanted a direct replacement for the 10" 78 rpm single. Needless to say, RCA gave in and released their own 12' LPs in 1950.

As for Columbia using other company's ideas, the stereo system used by Columbia and all others, after they rolled out the first commercial stereo LPs in 1958 had been developed by Westrex in the early 1930s.

 

[kevtronics]

The 1930s RCA Program Transcription LPs used standard groove, not microgroove. It was their Victrolac vinyl formulation, used on the 12" discs, that allegedly wore out quickly. The 10" Program Transcription discs were made of shellac and did not suffer this problem.

The system could've been improved over time as better vinyl formulations and lighter-weight pickups became available, but the combination of the Great Depression, the high cost of the equipment, record sales being at an all-time low, and radio being the hot new thing at the time doomed it from the start.