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
larsman's avatar
larsman
1,754 posts
 

They don't sound better to me, because I don't like most music recorded before 1965! 😁

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,657 posts
 
bdp24

@onhwy61 has it right. Done correctly, Dolby does NOT change the original tonal structure (timbre) of instruments or vocalists. It takes the original signal and boosts the high frequencies for recording, in playback reducing the high frequencies by the same amount, thereby restoring the original tonal structure. And the hiss encoded into the recording is simultaneously reduced by the same amount, the very rationale for the Dolby process.

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.

By the way, the RIAA recording and playback curve was invented and employed in much the same way ...

Hmmm, yes and no. The RIAA curve is fixed. Dolby NR is a dynamic process.

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,460 posts
 

Good point @cleeds. The dynamic element in Dolby makes it more difficult to pull of perfectly than does the static RIAA. I was speaking in terms of the boosting and cutting of frequency bands, used in both Dolby and RIAA filters.

When I bought my first Revox A77 in 1973 (a Mk.3), I bought an Advent 100A stand-alone Dolby unit, but found the Revox quiet enough (I had my dealer---Walter Davies, later known for his LAST record preservative---bias the deck with the reel of Maxell tape I provided him with) so as to make Dolby unnecessary.

I bought myself a pair of the small-capsule condenser mics J. Gordon Holt had very positively reviewed in Stereophile, along with the little Sony mixer he himself used for his live recordings (he was a good engineer), and made live recordings myself. It was shocking to hear how much better they sounded than did almost all my LP’s!

donnrut
5 posts
 

I just popped onto the ttbl the first ? James Taylor vinyl , The Original Flying Machine.  Circa 1967.  I think tubes, no dolby, no fancy mixing multi track consoles all are part of it.  This vinyl sounds like it was recorded in a real place, not a sound booth, and if I were a musician I could tell you if the geetars had gut or steel strings.  How big the kick drum is.  I have been digging thu hundreds of vinyls from around the world.  It is amazing what is on some of them before SS consoles.  Quality vinyl helps.  Not reground vinyl.  Mastering for AM radio certainly lowered the bar. Mastering for CD changed the bar, but did not really raise it back up too high.  Some CDs are great tho.  Any opera fans, I recommend any CD from Inessa Galante.  Chansons Yiddish Tendresses et Rage on Ocora / Harmonia Mundi CD or Harm Mund LP.  Back to LP, John Mayall live in a cafe famous The Turning Point 1a stamper is justifiably famous.  Probably w/o ss console.  Elektra LP there is a photo of the studio and mikes on the back of Theodore Bikel Sings Jewish Folk Songs.  I don't know the brand names but these are the great mikes that Elektra, Jac Holzman, Fred Hellerman, recorded with.  Have fun!

donnrut
5 posts
 

to cd3181  Old vinyl has a lot more detail that we can retrieve now that we couldn't  10 or 20 yrs ago unless maybe with $50K of equip. Today a ttbl for a few thou, arm the same, cartridge too, we or at least me can hear lots of music not heard before.  And yes good engineers using proper equip helps too.   If you read Pete Townsends autobiography "Who I Am" he goes thru a lot of equipment development that he did to record for The Who.   I read interview with Jim Messina who recorded and engineered some Buff Spring and POCO etc.  Poco 1st album. Picking Up the Pieces, sounds lousy. Tthe next one just title Poco sounds great.  He did it.  When vocalist is recorded separately in a sound booth, the ambience is all gone and you can tell he is not singing with the band. 

More to discover