Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

This reminds me of the Stereo Review vs. Audiophile debates when CDs first came out.

There were all sorts of weird theories put forth as to why vinyl sounded better than digital. The debate still rages, in fact, tho less hotly. I remember that somebody actually sold green magic markers in the back page ads for $20.00, because somebody claimed to have discovered that CDs' sound was "better focused" if you painted the edges green with a magic marker. Probably the advertiser's cousin.

I am certainly wiling to admit that physical and chemical differences, maybe even well down on the molecular level, impart their own sound colorations in time, and 40 years is a pretty nice timespan for aging a manufactured item.

We all know that an original Guarnieri violin will sound immeasurably sweeter than an exact replica built in the identical way of theoretically identical (but new) wood.

Any instrument built of natural materials will change in flavor as the structure of those materials changes with time. It's one of those things that make old stuff so charming and new stuff so exciting.

While the digital vs. analog debate indeed still does rage on in some quarters, the theories as to why vinyl sounded "better" that digital were not, as put, weird theories.

The very manner in which the signal is assembled digitally is often what is at question when people complain/whine about a brittle sound, one akin to "listening to a piece of audio through a screen window".

The analog sound wave comes at you as one complete entity, which many claim is its advantage over digital.

This may very well be such a subjective perspective, that to rant on about it is pointless. Nevertheless, having slaved away in the radio/audio industry for the past decade, such debates do still linger, with considerable merit on both ends.

Neil Young, if you may recall, in the late 80's sold most of his analog recording equipment and embraced the digital age, only to turn his back on it all in disgust...though some of that may have had to do with his rather spotty song output, come to think of it.

I, if asked, prefer the, yes, "warmth" of the analog sound, but is that because I can actually hear/feel this, or does it transport me back-in-time to some warm, fuzzy memory and all that comfort ****?

Though it really depends on what you want to hear. Do you really need to hear the Spector Wall-Of-Sound in stereo or the early Stones? The overall wash of sound and feeling mattered, not the precise separation of the instruments...which may explain why some songs just sound better pouring out of an old AM transistor radio.

Rickenbacker.

There, thought I should throw that in just in case there was a quota requirement for each post.

I also remember that some amps (Mcintosh?) were available with an unpainted chassis - for those who swore they could hear the difference.

BTW, I often listen to oldies on AM - just because.

Mick, I concur with your observations 100%. I don't think I concluded that any theories about why analog sounded better were "weird". What was "weird" were the adaptations or fixes that some folks tried to put onto the digital stuff, that H.L. Mencken would have snorted at in derision, being an old analogue softy himself.

Adam, I had a pair of old McIntosh tubies--mono they were--back in '77. They had chromed chassis. But I remember some with hammertone paint on 'em, and there was some truth in how the thick coating of hammertone enamel could change the resonance point of the tube filaments, affecting performance and such characteristics as decay and "bloom". It took A/B testing with really good speakers or headphones to bring it out, though.

I'll never forget the first vinyl album I listened to on that setup (ARx turntable, a Mac preamp (also tube), the Macs, and a pair of AR3a speakers--those were the days!). It was "Chester and Lester", and I was transfixed! Still one of my faves, and the reason I bought my '70 Les Paul Personal--the one with the mike connector on the upper bout. But nowadays it seems to sound just as good on my car stereo in CD form.

I guess that "seems" remains the operative word here.

Oops, I forgot. Rickenbacker.

Damn, look waht you guys have done now. Gone and ruined a good thread.

Brian is the only vintage owner who's actually has done a comparison with his Rics?

You know, Murali, whenever I pop apart an old piece of electronic equipment or electric musical instrument (read: guitar or amp), that terrific (is this guy nuts) smell of heated dust, capacitor or potting wax, hot insulation, old wire varnish, etc., stays in my head and really contributes to a vintage "glow" or "vibe" in my playing and thinking.

This is a very subjective area...Somebody Google "synesthesia".

Lots of you guys and women have this synesthetic quality in spades!

Rickenbacker; (just to keep the thread going).
I think you're dead on, Murali about vintage instruments having an organic mystique to them. You can almost sense all the chords and songs that have been played on them. I think old guitars sound different due to the aged magnets on the PUs and aged wood that has not only dried out but vibrated more from the sound waves. A lot of vintage guitars weren't made better, they have just been played more. Having said that, I think Ricks made today are superior to anything made in the 60's. In 40 years they'll sound like a 40 year old guitar.

For my 2 cents..........I remember seeing Roger McGuinn at Dingwalls (London) a few years back now. His 8 Miles High solo was better than the recorded version in my opinion. A real crackle to the sound, compression, sustain, notes just ringing. Totally awesome. Vintage Rickenbacker or new Rickenbacker? Toasters or Hi gains, wrapped to 7.4 or 12? Sorry to disappoint everyone - but it was a Guild 12 string. But it still sounded more like McGuinn than I do with a 60's Rick. Which in a round about way, is my point. I can make an old Rick sound bad and a new Rick sound great and visa versa. I prefer older Ricks for many reasons - thinner necks, more shapely headstocks, but in this modern world of amps and processing you can make anything sound how you want. Now as to whether individual instruments sound better when compared to each other, that's a different question. There are some that just do that extra something. You plug them in and go WOW! They may be old, they may be new.

Brian:

Organic mystique, yes! Aged wood, yep. Add: varnish, plastic, wiring insulation. Aged MAGNETS? Hmmm. Only if they lose some flux in 40 years...

Great story, Graham!

Aged magnets? I've heard that but I really don't know.
Graham, you're exactly right. Lots of different guitars sound great. I remember the hotly debated topic as to which guitar was used for recording Day Tripper. I achieved the exact tone with a Jazzmaster through a Gibson amp.

"...recording Day Tripper. I achieved the exact tone with a Jazzmaster through a Gibson amp.'
And i thought Brian was sane.

Graham,
Perhaps now that Roger is older he likes a wider neck? Your story is great and doesn't surprise me. 95% of that Divine Beauty is in the fingers. I'll bet he could play any 12-string and it would sing.

All I can say is that i have a bunch of new (2000 - 2004) guitars and a bunch of old (1949 - 1970) guitars. They're all good guitars. But the ones that really make me go "YES!" are all in the old category.

Murali, if you're interested in buying an old Rick email me at: [email protected]
I have a 1960 450 I may sell.
Brian

The new toasters sound remakable like the old ones ... I have several new toasters and an old 1968 toaster ... the main difference is the '68 was a little softer sounding ... the newer ones were a little brighter and louder ...