Stirling S Newberry wrote:
Well, Stirling, two for two as far as very insightful postings go. And of
course some comments.
>The first step to getting the public to buy it is to produce recordings
>which get the public to identify "good" with "96/24". Today's New York
>Times is the first salvo in this process:
>
>(The article refered to is at:
>http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/bmg-digital-cds.html and is
>entitled "New Music for Old Sound" the author is Lawerence B. Johnson).
You just described a large part of the process to get people to convert to
CD. And Johnson was in the forefront then, as well.
>He praises to the skies the details of a the Leinsdorf Concerto for
>Orchestra that has just been remastered. He assures people that 96/24
>is the reason for the details.
In fact, that LP had plenty of details.
>Don't believe it. The simple truth is that most CDs are poorly mastered.
>In most pop products, one will hardly notice the fuzziness, indeed a
>certain amount of schlocky production value is part of the aesthetic.
Agreed.
>What is being done differently is bringing out details in the mix, or
>effects processing to bring them out of a track. It is amazing what one
>can do with the judicious application of sweepable mid range and graphic
>equalisation. Want a high flute? Brighten the top. Want a rumble? Open
>up the bottom. Close them down again so that people don't hear tinnyness
>or muddiness when the effect passes. ...
In a way, we're talking about a synthesizer here.
One point. It is true that you can do plenty with equalization, but
there is still the problem of manufacturing something that isn't there.
You can make it seem like you're doing so, but to some extent you're doing
it with mirrors--not that these mirrors aren't very effective, as Stirling
suggests. Still, there is a limit to modern digital recording, especially
in the upper frequencies where digital doesn't sample so much. But I don't
want to exaggerate my disagreement. It's mainly a matter of degree. There
have been some terrific sounding CDs, e.g., the Vaughan-Williams 7 and 8th
on Naxos, proving we could do better with the present technology. But not
many. And I still have heard no CD that sounds as good as the best or even
the very good LPs.
>This is not to say that 96/24 does not offer incremental sound
>improvement. For some very high end systems there is noticeable
>improvement for the technology by itself. Not as much as one might think,
>because a great deal of the expense of audiophile equipment consists of
>making up for the limitations of source.
Absolutely true. Not all of that expense, though. Replay equipment does
play a big role.
>Where goes it from here? The obvious thing to do is test the waters -
>market pieces which will show the most improvement from careful remastering
>and careful attention to detail.
Just like audio dealers do when they sell equipment.
>The selection of the Boston Symphony Orchestra in its own hall from a time
>when its recording was under superb stewardship is a wonderful place to
>start.
Chicago/Reiner would be better. Those old RCA Boston recordings were very
nice, but RCA always had trouble with Symphony Hall. They did much better
in Chicago.
Ironically, RCA also did better with the Pops recordings in those days.
I always forget why, but I think it had something to do with what they
did with the setup. Put the orchestra on the floor? Something like that.
>... The new versions will be as good as the source and the time spent
>mixing and mastering. It might be a good idea for people interested to
>start learning the engineers by name...
In fact, LP collectors often do just that with the vintage vinyl they're
paying big bucks for. There are some very "magical" names around.
Roger Hecht
|
