2. analog
  3. 165263-89202

Dolby vs. pre-Dolby

This is a topic I’ve brought up a few times before but with little response. Hopefully this time someone will be interested. Many Agoners have made reference to the fact that records from the ‘50’s sound the best.
My contention is that with the advent of Dolby (created for the purpose of reducing tape hiss) in the early ‘60’s, a very audible degradation of sound ensued. This can be heard not only on LP’s but also on CDs created from analog tapes. There is an openness and seemingly unlimited space on the pre-Dolby discs that I feel is lacking on Dolbyized discs. It can be heard most markedly on orchestral recordings. Without Dolby, the full orchestra surrounds you and still there Is a great sense of detail. With Dolby a lot of the wonderful ambience is lost.
Dolby’s cutting off of the highest frequencies, although allegedly electronically replaced, eviscerates the sound and deprives us of the full picture.
Has anyone else heard this phenomenon?
128x128rvpiano
rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,654 posts
 
Cleeds,

Yes indeed, multi miking and tracking played a role in affecting the sound, many think, negatively, You could also cite the switch from tubes to transistors as having a negative affect.
But one thing is clear and indisputable, there were no Dolby recordings made prior to 1965, the year of its invention. That’s not so hard to understand.
Although, you’re right, I have no way of knowing which recordings used Dolby after that date, I sure as hell know there were no Dolby recordings made pre 1965.
And that’s my point!
I believe, in general, records made before 1965 sound better than those produced later.


rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,654 posts
 
However, you’re right, I don’t know the technical details as to how Dolby works. .But one thing is sure, the final sonic signature is not the same as it started out.
russ69's avatar
russ69
3,497 posts
 
It was compression, then expansion to reduce noise. There was a device that controlled both ends of the process. No frequencies were eliminated and the process was used to expand dynamic range. Lessor one sided Dolby systems were not as good but master tape with Dolby pro encoding were known as the best possible tape playback (10 inch reel to reel, not cassette). 
erik_squires
16,039 posts
 
Dolby pro encoding


Not to be confused with Dolby ProLogic!

kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,428 posts
 
I remember that Dolby C on my cassette deck worked much better than Dolby B. The biggest difference, extension wise, was HX-Pro (servo on the bias). There was also less effective Phillips thing called Dynamic Noise Limiter (DNL), frequency/level playback only noise filter, but never got popular in spite of free license. CD players also have ability to reduce noise by emphasis/de-emphasis (similar to Dolby), but it reduces CDP noise only. Each CD has bit/flag that turns de-emphasis on. It doesn’t make sense now for digital recordings, but might be still in use (emphasis applied during analog recording).
More to discover