[hinz[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
In article , hinz wrote:
I used to think that it was just that the gear used in the 60s/70s
didn't pick up above 14kHz say, but that seems to be untrue. Rather the
highs are cut in the mix as a choice.

Put a lot of top end, and an LP becomes very difficult to cut. So bright
music will be cut pretty quiet on LP. The system is slew-limited, because
you can only move the stylus so fast. Easy to get high frequencies with
small excursion, hard to get it with a lot of excursion.

Another example: Take the Dark Side of the Moon album recorded
masterfully by Alan Parsons, he was able to keep all the high
frequencies in 1973, whereas the follow ups 'Wish you were here' and
'Animals' are dull sounding in comparison, even though the recordings
were made later with newer technology.

Are you comparing the original LP versions, the different-sounding LP reissues,
the original (harsh) CD reissues, or later reissues? All are tonally different.

I must admit I haven't played the LPs in decades. Dark Side used to be
admired though for its fidelity and was a test LP for high-end systems.

In great part it is a matter of fashion. With classical music it's easy to
know if it's tonally correct, because the playback sounds like the sound in
the studio. With rock music there is no such reference point. With rock
music it's tonally correct if the producer says it is. Producers are different
and fashions change with time.
--scott

The producers went for a much duller sound for Wish you were here and
Animals; my suspicion is that this was because the source material
(especially drums) was not recorded as well as it was for Dark Side. The
next album (The Wall) again has exceptional tonal quality with all the
highs.