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
sns
3,419 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.

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,475 posts
 

Part of it was that stereo lps were relatively new and still a novelty and records were often marketed and sold based on sound quality.  It was the golden age of vinyl. Then the novelty wore off and results became a lot more mixed.

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,704 posts
 

Sns,

You raise a fair point. My feeling, though, is that the tubes produced a warmer sound than solid state, whereas the spatial element in recordings was compromised by Dolby interfering with the natural overtones of the music. By compressing and replacing the high frequencies the result is an artificial recreation of the natural sound.The openness of pre Dolby recordings is witness to that. It’s simply more real.

jpwarren58
687 posts
 

When did the vinyl become thinner? Hard to believe that didn't impact the sound. 

Neither Amos nor Andy.

emrofsemanon's avatar
emrofsemanon
292 posts
 

it is a common misperception that digital noise reduction [sonic solutions NONOISE, CEDAR et al] per se,  "harms the music" - it ONLY does so when it is misapplied by a cloth-eared ham-handed audio restoration technician. having used these tools for 3+ decades now i can tell you that they are godsends for musical enjoyment of crackly hissy rumbly old phonograph recordings esp. those on 78. this rant out of the way, i can say that it is the ART of recording and not just the TOOLS of recording that matters more in terms of sound quality. i've heard well-done dolby A recordings that had just as much "air" as ones made a few years before dolby A came on the scene.  ya just gotta do the job right in the first place. 

More to discover