|'); } // End -->|
I have quite a few and many sound very good. Chesky did some digital recordings for some of their audiophile LP's. No one has ever complained about their sonics (except for the dodgy vinyl quality).
Even better example:
The Bach cantatas by Harnoncourt, 35 volumes (70 LP's) on Telefunken
The first 20-something volumes were made the good old fashioned way. The sonics are uniformly excellent.
Somewhere around volume 30 they switched to direct metal mastering. Still an analog recording but one less step in the journey from master tape to LP. Sonics improved, particularly HF extension.
The last 3-4 volumes were digitally recorded and DMM mastered, providing a direct comparison with the immediately preceding volumes. Everything was recorded by the same forces in the same venues. The digital recordings eliminated tape hiss and tape machine noise without introducing any RBCD "nastiness" at all. They are easily the best sounding volumes of the series, unless of course you pine for tape hiss as I sometimes do!
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - JRRT
I will not listen to any records done in the digital process. I can hear less space and less warmth in every digital record I have heard.
... then you will not hear! Listen to those Harnoncourt recordings before you leap to judgement. They may surprise you.
I admit my heart sank when I first saw that the last few volumes were recorded digitally. But they have at least as much ambient information as the analog ones. Of course I don't say that all digital recordings do, but these do. The Harnoncourt cantatas were a continuous series of virtually identical performers, instruments and venues. If there was soundspace information missing from the digital ones I would surely have noticed, especially since I made a point of playing them with a suspiciously critical ear.
"Warmth", hmmm. Most of the warmth I've heard, in my system and others, was an artifical coloration imposed by the system. It has nothing to do with the sound of live music, which to me sounds "vibrant", not "warm". As my system moves upwards I have had successes by reducing or removing warmth. Perhaps we are using the term differently, but to my way of thinking and hearing a warm system is not a realistic one. My audio buddiew who prefer warmth are listening to the sound of components, not to the sound of live instruments and voices.
I believe "digitally recorded" means the source, like with a dat machine. It has to be converted to analog before being pressed to vinyl. I don't believe there's any such thing as a digital LP.
*most* often, but not every time, digital recordings on Lp are vastly superior to their CD counterpart in areas of depth, warmth, timbral differentiation. It's astounding to me. If I had to quibble, I would say that digital Lps lack the last ounce of enharmonic glow, but that's life. I'd rather listen to Ashkenazy's Rachmaninov with the Concertgebouw on digital than on horrible Melodia, even though the latter is analog. In some cases there is simply no choice, and we should be glad we can pick up a few digital titles on lp.
1. Pertaining to that genus, style, or scale of music current among the Greeks, in which an interval of two and a half tones was divided into two quarter tones and a major third.
2. Pertaining to, or concerned with, intervals smaller than a semitone; esp. with reference to the interval between those notes (belonging to different keys), which in instruments of equal temperament are rendered by the same tone: e.g. between G sharp and A flat.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: