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

Showing 3 responses by bdp24

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,460 posts
 

I always found the difference in sound character between Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966) dramatic---very, very different. I later read that Abbey Road switched from tubes to transistors between the recording of those two LP’s. Who knows if it’s true.

Revolver contains many more tracks than does Rubber Soul, accomplished by more "bouncing" of finished tracks onto one channel of a second 4-track recorder. That can definitely affect the sound quality of the 2-track mixdown tape and resulting LP’s and CD’s.

To further muddy the waters, The Beatles at the same time switched from Vox amps and Gretsch and Rickenbacker guitars to Fender amps and Epiphone Casino guitars. It is also rumoured that Ringo switched from calfskin to plastic heads at the same time, but I think that is probably myth. What I do know is that his drums on Rubber Soul sound much better than those on Revolver. IMO, anyway.

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!

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,460 posts
 

@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.

By the way, the RIAA recording and playback curve was invented and employed in much the same way, with the addition of a generous bass cut in LP mastering (to reduce bass-induced groove modulation size), a generous boost in LP playback via your phono stage’s RIAA compensation filter.

More to discover