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.

rvpiano
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.

 

 

russbutton's avatar
russbutton
455 posts
 

Here's a great recording from 1958 of Victor Feldman, Scott LaFaro and Stan Levy doing "Bebop".  Totally rips.

From "The Arrival of Victor Feldman."

onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,327 posts
 

Why the fixation on Dolby?  So many other factors contributed to the changes in sound quality that to single out Dolby is misguided.  Just my opinion.

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,782 posts
 

Because I believe the other factors (except for mini miking) don’t have as much to do with openness and sound staging.

A major component of sonic enjoyment.

cd318
2,636 posts
 

@rvpiano 

Openness was the major quality I looked for in a system up all the way up til my 30s.

One wonderful discovery was finding out that tape decks usually had an adjustable screw which enabled you to fine tune the azimuth.

In my experience most needed adjusting, and I used to wonder how many people were listening to cassette decks which had less than optimal tracking.

Somehow, I gradually discovered that Naim amps 1980s/1990s) weren't renowned for tone and timbre and these qualities became more important than even openness and brightness.

I can't prove it but I tend to feel that the change from the old tube mixing desks to transistor may have been a gain for resolution but it was also a loss for timbre.

I'm guessing also that most of the Beatles albums were mixed on tube powered desks and most if not all of their solo work on transistor ones.

Swings and roundabouts, as usual.

 

More to discover