Why recordings made before 1965 sound better.

Part of it was that stereo lps were relatively new and still a novelty and records were often marketed and sold based on sound quality.  It was the golden age of vinyl. Then the novelty wore off and results became a lot more mixed.

I always assumed it was tubes in recording studio responsible for vast majority of difference, early SS not so good. I'd think you'd have to directly compare recordings both produced in tube based studio, one with dolby, other not. Dolby came in around same time most studios switching to SS, so is it the Dolby or SS? Without something in recording notes pertaining to Dolby, how are we to know?

And then the multi tracking creates synthetic sound stage. When I think of the 50's and 60's recording I love, I'm thinking about the virtual live in studio recordings. Natural ambience, timbre, can't beat these for performers in room sense on playback.

Difficult to say why, but I never liked Dolby (B or C) on any of the tape decks I used.

Even today's mastering software such as Nonoise seems to behind sonic fingerprint. And not a pleasant one at that.

The science of recording tells us that today's technology is far advanced compared to that of yesteryear, yet the recordings often tell us different.

SO interesting. I'm reminded of that fine Muscle Shoals documentary, though I think that Muscle Shoals was probably post-1965.

I'm not sure if it's realistic to try to recreate that early sound, pre-Dolby and pre-multitrack and pre SS, though I bet some artists have tried. I wonder what contemporary audiences would do with that sound.

+1 @onhwy61 Great post! Cheers,

Spencer

In the 70's & 80's I was highly involved with recording my albums on cassette. I did this mostly for my cars & trucks because I loved to listen while driving. I used good Teac 3 head machines and my tapes always sounded much better than any pre- recorded tape. Dolby B & C were always available for me to use. DBX also. but didn't like it either. But there was a distinct difference between w/Dolby & w/o Dolby, the later always being better

I've been around long enough to see all the processing that has been tried with recording music and have come to conclude that the less processing, be it analog or digital, the more natural music sounds. I've also played music (drums & vocals) and attended enough clubs & concerts to know what music should sound like. Now if only I could find  the good old R&B from Motown rt al that wasn't run through  Phil Spector's  "wall of Sound" processing I'd feel like I'd hit the jackpot. What a shame that its only fit to play on a boom box

Now with the Internet the performers don't even have to be in the same room!

Totally in agreement with all of the above.

I just wanted to concentrate on the Dolby component however.

Much more than Dolby signal processing happened around 1965.  Mixing consoles got bigger and switched from tube to solid state.  Microphone went from tubes to transistors.  Tape decks also became solid state.  But the biggest change was the widespread use of multi-track recording techniques.  It effectively severed the recording process from the mixing stage.  No longer did artists have to live perform the recording.  A song could now be built up track by track with overdubbing and then using a console mixed into a coherent recording.  The L/R pan control was used to place the track with the stereo stage.  At first it was 8 tracks, then 16 and 24 tracks became the standard recorder.  Mixing console grew proportionately and 32+ tracks became the norm.  Multi-track gives the artists and engineer far more control, but it loses the organic simplicity of 2 or 3 track recordings.

That and the use of an all-tube recording chain!