2. misc-audio
  3. 173107-89202

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
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5
1,992 posts
 

In the 70's & 80's I was highly involved with recording my albums on cassette. I did this mostly for my cars & trucks because I loved to listen while driving. I used good Teac 3 head machines and my tapes always sounded much better than any pre- recorded tape. Dolby B & C were always available for me to use. DBX also. but didn't like it either. But there was a distinct difference between w/Dolby & w/o Dolby, the later always being better

I've been around long enough to see all the processing that has been tried with recording music and have come to conclude that the less processing, be it analog or digital, the more natural music sounds. I've also played music (drums & vocals) and attended enough clubs & concerts to know what music should sound like. Now if only I could find  the good old R&B from Motown rt al that wasn't run through  Phil Spector's  "wall of Sound" processing I'd feel like I'd hit the jackpot. What a shame that its only fit to play on a boom box

sbank's avatar
sbank
3,379 posts
 

+1 @onhwy61 Great post! Cheers,

Spencer

northman
270 posts
 

SO interesting. I'm reminded of that fine Muscle Shoals documentary, though I think that Muscle Shoals was probably post-1965.

I'm not sure if it's realistic to try to recreate that early sound, pre-Dolby and pre-multitrack and pre SS, though I bet some artists have tried. I wonder what contemporary audiences would do with that sound.

cd318
2,636 posts
 

Difficult to say why, but I never liked Dolby (B or C) on any of the tape decks I used.

Even today's mastering software such as Nonoise seems to behind sonic fingerprint. And not a pleasant one at that.

The science of recording tells us that today's technology is far advanced compared to that of yesteryear, yet the recordings often tell us different.

sns
3,378 posts
 

I always assumed it was tubes in recording studio responsible for vast majority of difference, early SS not so good. I'd think you'd have to directly compare recordings both produced in tube based studio, one with dolby, other not. Dolby came in around same time most studios switching to SS, so is it the Dolby or SS? Without something in recording notes pertaining to Dolby, how are we to know?

 

And then the multi tracking creates synthetic sound stage. When I think of the 50's and 60's recording I love, I'm thinking about the virtual live in studio recordings. Natural ambience, timbre, can't beat these for performers in room sense on playback.

More to discover