Why recordings made before 1965 sound better.


 

I’ve brought ht up this topic before, and I believe my point was misunderstood. so, I’m trying again.

Many A’goners have commented that recordings originating in the late 50’s and early 60’s which have been transferred to CDs sound particularly open with better soundstaging than those produced later.
Ray Dolby invented his noise reduction system in 1965 to eliminate what was considered annoying tape hiss transferred to records of the time. The principle was to manipulate the tonal structure so as to reduce this external noise:

“The Dolby B consumer noise-reduction system works by compressing and increasing the volume of low-level high-frequency sounds during recording and correspondingly reversing the process during playback. This high-frequency round turn reduces the audible level of tape hiss.”

‘Dolby A and C work similarly.

I maintain that recordings made prior to 1965 without Dolby sound freer and more open because the original tonal structure has not been altered and manipulated.

128x128rvpiano

Much more than Dolby signal processing happened around 1965.  Mixing consoles got bigger and switched from tube to solid state.  Microphone went from tubes to transistors.  Tape decks also became solid state.  But the biggest change was the widespread use of multi-track recording techniques.  It effectively severed the recording process from the mixing stage.  No longer did artists have to live perform the recording.  A song could now be built up track by track with overdubbing and then using a console mixed into a coherent recording.  The L/R pan control was used to place the track with the stereo stage.  At first it was 8 tracks, then 16 and 24 tracks became the standard recorder.  Mixing console grew proportionately and 32+ tracks became the norm.  Multi-track gives the artists and engineer far more control, but it loses the organic simplicity of 2 or 3 track recordings.

Totally in agreement with all of the above.

I just wanted to concentrate on the Dolby component however.