1. Home
  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
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.

 

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,979 posts
 

Cd318,

I absolutely agree with you about the timbre change from tubes to solid state.

richopp
760 posts
 

Tube recording gear, for one.

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,492 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.

alexberger
957 posts
 

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.

 

 

More to discover