RCA Victor records' quality


I just bought three old records, I guess all the way from the mid and late 1950s. They each sound very harsh and "shrieky". I wonder if it's the way they were meant to sound? The records themselves are in great shape.

 

Should I rely on tone controls or is it how music was produced and published back then? Namely Elvis' first few albums?

grislybutter

Showing 2 responses by mijostyn

@drbond 1+

Early rock and blues where not taken seriously and given short shrift in the quality department. Kids bought mostly 45s. Classical and some jazz were given much more attention in terms of quality. The early stereo mixes of rock recordings could be comical if it was not so sad. Stuff like all the instruments on the right and vocals on the left were not uncommon. The production of rock and blues records was not taken as seriously either. My Dad's classical RCA Red Labels were pristine but The early Jefferson Airplane RCAs were terrible in all regards. In time recording of modern music improved but the quality of popular music pressings did not. They were never as good as the European classical records or older RCAs. In the mean while American Classical deteriorated. London pressings were never as good as Decca, same company. 

@lewm 

That might be newer DGG, but the older stuff is fine to incredible although not quite up there with EMI. I do not have any experience with Roulette. I'm not that old:-)

1+ @bigtwin 

My experience buying used records was awful. I have not purchased a used record for over 20 years and won't even look at them any more. Either I was extremely unlucky or my definition of a satisfactory record is different than others.