I didn’t read every word above, but I don’t think anyone mentioned the proliferation of digital reverb. I worked in the recording industry and there used to be 1 reverb - a plate reverb kept in a separate room away from vibration. That was it. You either used it in various amounts or not. When the digital reverb era hit, we all went crazy, putting different reverbs on each instrument to get them to sound their best in isolation, not realizing that we were putting every instrument in a different acoustic space by using a different reverb. That sound became the norm throughout the 80’s and nobody ever seemed to realize the fact because the reverbs sounded so great. But we lost the humanity of the music that the older recordings made with the 1 reverb often had.
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.
- ...
- 61 posts total
Consideration was given to generational loss, but it was balanced against the extra freedom allowed to the artists/producers/engineers by the technology. Here's a link to how Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" was recorded. In practice this type of music can only be created one track at a time and then mixed into the final song. |
I absolutely agree. Dolby gets a bad rap because it was often so poorly implemented. Because of the way Dolby dynamically applies compression on a sliding band, the system requires tight calibration between the recorder and the exact tape formulation used. This includes the correct level of bias while recording to ensure a flat response. Further, the recorder and Dolby circuit must be aligned so that the tape sees the proper Dolby level. If any of these calibrations are off, the circuit can’t work properly. Many cheap consumer recorders were so poorly made that they could not reliably maintain alignment. And many users used various tape formulations without consideration of whether they were appropriate to their decks. So results were all over the place. I still have my Nak deck and outboard NR-200 Dolby B/C encoder/decoder. It’s amazing how good some of my old tapes can still sound. Of course it’s mostly just a novelty now.
Hmmm, yes and no. The RIAA curve is fixed. Dolby NR is a dynamic process. |
- 61 posts total