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.
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 responses Add your response
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.
|
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. |
Hi @bdp24 , The record engineer of Rubber Soul was Norman Smith and Revolver was Geoff Emerick. Norman did all The Beatles albums from beginning up to Rubber Soul. And Geoff did Revolver, Sargent Pepper, partially White Album and Abbey Road. Geoff did a lot of experiments with recording and changed rock music recording technology dramatically. But all these new technologies included more sound processing. In 2006, Emerick released his memoir, Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles, co-authored by music journalist Howard Massey. You can read this book. It is very interesting reading. Regards, Alex.
|
"EMI’s Abbey Road Studio equipped itself with a TG12345 Mk I transistor recording console. The Beatles had recorded all their earlier albums on thermionic valve-based REDD desks. At first, Engineer Geoff Emerick didn’t like the solid-state transistor sound, according to Womack’s book. He thought it tamed aspects of the sound, like low-end distortion, which came through stronger with tube equipment. Emmerick came around, concluding the transistor softened the overall sound but brought out definition, clarity, and a deeper low-end."
Let’s not also forget that most of the Beatles output (and most everyone else’s during that era) was created via 4 track tape decks. This usually meant an increasing amount of ’bounce down’ record additional instruments and create a sonic effect Spector style. Brian Wilson was a big fan of this (anti audiophile) technique too. It was the only way to create musical collages back then and some bands took it too far, eg The Mamas and Papas. On many of their records the background instrumentation is a mush that no system could untangle.
Perhaps another turning point was the switch to stereo. Most recordings up til 1965 would be primarily mono recordings. The Beatles themselves focussed on mono primarily up til The White album in 1968. It wasn’t just Phil Spector who preferred mono, John and George seemed to be fans too. Until recently I usually preferred stereo recordings but I now have to admit that mono recordings can sometimes display a greater perceived sense of tonal density.
So the 3 major suspects when it comes to changes in sound quality might be the change from mono to stereo, the switch from tubes to transistors, and the increasing use of ’bouncing down’ tracks from tape to tape where each successive generation would mean a loss in fidelity.
Then we might also consider whether the change to 16/24 track machines was a plus or a minus. The musicians seemed to love the increase in versatility and more tracks equalled less bounce down, but they also equalled less tape width per track. The introduction of digital recording in the late 1970s must be another factor. We could argue forever whether these changes were a good thing or not, but surely we can agree that they all made a sonic difference. There’s also little doubt that some of these simple recordings made pre-1965 can easily stand the test of time some 55 years later. Depending upon your outlook that might be a slightly depressing thought or perhaps even an uplifting one.
|
I am with you @cycles2, Time out is stunning and does sound like they are there with you. Recorded in 1958 from memory but not sure when it was released., and no dolby (plus no hiss). It is superb. Merry Christmas to one and all from New Zealand and hopefully we all have a better year in 2022. Cheers. |
Yes, it’s kind of anachronistic that a pair of jazz albums both recorded and released within weeks of each other in 1959 still continue to set the benchmark of audiophile standards some 60 years later. Both Kind of Blue and Time Out are fine examples of what could be done by with what would now be viewed as primitive technology.
|