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
cycles2
208 posts
 

@rvpiano Great post. I was listening to Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out' vinyl album (Columbia CS8192) which I believe is from 1961 and likely cost a couple dollars back then.  The 1st cut on side 1 (Blue Rondo a La Turk) is so lifelike you swear the musicians are in the room performing for you. I've never heard instruments sound so real such as the bell of the cymbal used extensively on this song. That's a sound not captured correctly on most current recordings.

Everyone's comments about the process and equipment to record back in the 50's & 60's being so different than today's recordings is likely why no current recordings I'm aware of have the same lifelike sound qualities.

runwell
281 posts
 

This topic is very good and it clearly demonstrate that the tube is better choice  in transmit the sounds.

mesch
3,527 posts
 

Great thread. Seems to boil down to simple vs. overdone recording/processing and tube vs. SS equipment.  The switch to SS probably mandated by the recording/processing complexity. 

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,688 posts
 

I see that some in this thread are doubtful of the effect Dolby had on the sound post 1965.  If you listen to acoustic instruments, such as in classical chamber music and orchestral music the difference can clearly be discerned.

 Manipulation of the natural order of overtones, no matter how skillfulI, had an effect on the final product.

 

earthtones
111 posts
 

I don’t think I have any modern digital recording, whether it’s DSD, hi rez PCM, or an LP from a hi rez digital source, that are as involving as my better analog based LPs. A few examples I don’t like:

1) Saint Saens Symphony 3, Reference Recordings LP, 2015. I don’t understand all the accolades. This is one of the most lifeless, airless recordings I’ve heard.
2) Mahler 2nd, Benjamin Zander, digital, played through my PS Audio Directstream DAC. Sounds lifeless and unsatisfactory.

Some excellent examples

1) Colin Davis Sibelius cycle LPs on Philips, 1979. Absolutely thrilling and engaging sound and performances.

2) Grieg Peer Gynt suite, Philips LP 1968. At the very top of sound quality. Competes with anything I’ve heard.

Notice that these two are not heavy weight vinyl, plus they’re QUIET.

3) NHK, Transcription.  I got lucky enough to pick up #124 recently. These were made from live performances for Japanese broadcast. I don’t know the year, probably mid ‘70s. Technically superior to anything I’ve heard. This was a holy s__ moment when I first heard it.

 

4) Reiner Sound, Chesky Reissue. Excellent air, very fine detail, very enjoyable with source tape overloading on peaks notwithstanding.

There are many more excellent older recordings in my collection. Some of it is the recording chain: RCO in Amsterdam under Bernard Haitink, all analog is exemplary. Fritz Reiner with Chicago Symphony is also great.

 

 

More to discover