On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Dave Lampson wrote:

>I've said before that as far as the market is concerned high bit rate
>audio formats are probably a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
>for 99%+ of CD buyers.  I completely agree with John Smyth that SACD is
>a far superior audio experience, even in stereo.  However, most people
>don't seem to care about the increased recording quality.  This couldn't
>be made more plain than in the ridiculous rush to low bit rate music
>downloads and the explosion of iPods, etc.

Which says a great deal to me about how we listen.

>In fact, better sound just makes deficiencies even easier to hear.
>What these technologies do provide however is a reduced risk that the
>sound of a good recording of a good performance will get corrupted on
>its way to the end listener.

For me, someone who often prefers performances given by musicians of the
past=more rubato, often great range in tempi, etc.  sound quality is a
relative concept. I do wonder, if some of the older performances had
been recorded in better sound, I might hear more ensemble problems!

In my preservation and restoration work, there is always the question
of what do we hear.  Many believe that we need to sample acoustic discs
at 24 bit resolution and 96,000 samples per second!  Well, that will
certainly capture the noise, which is often the point, as the better you
record the noise, the easier it is to identify and remove.

I often measure the range of my hearing.  At 56 I can still hear 12,500
cps.  For some reason I don't understand, when I cut off the signal at
12,500 cps, I can "hear" a difference.  Some say we can "hear" through
our bodies, not just our ears...and indeed we do...when I swim my laps
I have a snorkel that lets me "listen" through my jaw bone...quite
amazing.

When I record something at 96,000 samples per second, I can hear the
difference versus 44,100 sample per second.  It just isn't those isolated
high pitches, but there is an added clarity in the inner voices.  The
higher bit definition gives me more realistic dynamics.

I think we tend to overlook the importance of dynamics in recording.
Some years ago the BSO released a set of broadcast material.  Broadcast
recordings are already compressed.  I had an email exchange with the EMI
engineer who did the set.  He admitted to doing additional compression,
saying, most people prefer it that way!  I was so disappointed since to
my ears, I preferred my original tapes of the broadcasts.  Similarly,
when Jon Samuels was working on the Kapell set for BMG, he located a
Kapell broadcast of pictures.  Jon spent many hours listening and by
using the obvious changes in noise level, reconstructed the dynamics
from the broadcast tape.  Listening to the before and after was a
revelation, an excellent performance became a great performance.

I wonder, how many of us make the time to listen to a recording with as
much attention as we would bring to a concert performance.

Karl