|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.159.179.137
Burn them at the stake!
Vaporize them, vituperatively, in viscous vats of vintage vinyl.
Just kidding.
Follow Ups:
Forget the Old Believers and what about the Doukhobors?
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Seems a bit harsh.
.
.
(nt)
Vengful vexed vixen vinyl vendetta views vacated, verily!
Edits: 05/15/12
.
If so, the vintage vinyl circle-thing could remain unbroken.
CHECK OUT the AUDIO ASYLUM TRADER!
initially things looked promising for vinyl and digital. Telarc's first 4-5 digital recordings (released on vinyl) were unqualified successes according to almost everyone—even audiophiles. Admittedly, later digital-to-vinyl efforts from Telarc were not so successful. Yet Telarc’s early releases would seem to put the lie to the vinyl purists insistence that it’s not enough to listen to vinyl, but that the recording itself must be "pure analog."
I’ve compared Telarc’s rendering of Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite to Sheffield Labs' version on numerous occasions and always prefer the former.
But then, I am biased as I participated in a very minor way to that recording. It was just enjoyable to be there during the two days of taping. The air conditioning was off the entire time and Shaw could be seen with a towel around his neck. The usual acoustic shell panels were rolled back and out of the way.
I remember Shaw giving the clarinet player fits between takes of the solo in the Borodin piece. He eventually delivered a wonderful performance.
"Telarc's first 4-5 digital recordings (released on vinyl) were unqualified successes according to almost everyone—even audiophiles."
Not all the audiophiles.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
:-)
They never sounded right to me, and at some point, I learned why -- the converters used in the Soundstream recorder had missing codes. Ouch.
...but aren't they also two different conductors and orchestras?
Comparing apples and oranges.
I, too, prefer the ASO recording.
I recall some years ago debating analog vs digital on a different newsgroup and talking about the limitations of early digital recordings.
My newsgroup nemesis would always bring up Dire Straits, "Love over Gold" and excellent early CD.
He would claim it wasn't the fault of the digital recordings.
“...but aren't they also two different conductors and orchestras? Comparing apples and oranges.”
Obviously. But that’s usually the case when arriving at a *personal* preference. I prefer Randy Dunn’s big, tannic (when young) Howell Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon to Silver Oak’s softer style. Different winemakers and vineyards resulting in *my* preference for Dunn’s approach. It’s called discrimination and people do it all the time when making personal choices.
My point about the early Telarc recordings is that to my ears they captured the essence of the hall and revealed a three dimensional aspect that was missing from most labels. I suspect this had much to do with recording technique and little to do with conductor, interpretation or orchestra. Again, Telarc's early recordings conveyed a convincing realism that was not evident on other labels. So it’s not as though the digital format is lacking in that respect.
Perhaps TAS said it best: “Stravinsky, Firebird. Atlanta, Shaw. Telarc (CD and SACD) A durably exciting Firebird, captured in vivid, dynamic stereo. Way back in the late 1970’s, Telarc was getting digital right before everyone else started getting it wrong.”
http://www.avguide.com/article/best-audiophile-label-recordings-classical-tas-197?page=3
I’ve always been curious as to why *classical* digital recordings failed to improve given Telarc’s promising start some 30-35 years ago. I think I understand why pop and other genres have failed: loudness wars, mixing consoles, lack of dynamic range, etc. But why do you suppose “everyone else started getting it wrong” after Telarc’s auspicious start? Or do you think TAS’s assessment is too severe and some digital recordings have gotten it right during the intervening years?
I'd be curious to read your thoughts and the thoughts of others regarding this issue.
"I've always been curious as to why *classical* digital recordings failed to improve given Telarc's promising start some 30-35 years ago."
44.1 CD sampling rate is too low, and all the early 44/16 recorders did not use correct dither. Stockham used 50 kHz and correct (TPDF) dither which was a trade secret for some years. In addition I have heard it said that Soundstream converters were hand tweaked before each use.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, I've puzzled over this too. When Telarc did its first digital recordings, producer Robert Woods and sound engineer Jack Renner got most things right for classical recording. They copied the Mercury technique of minimalist 3-mike recording with wide open dynamics, no spot miking, and natural reverberation. They also chose the Soundstream digital recording process which was superior to the Sony system, which was adopted by most others. They also had a good understanding of the art of getting what they wanted to capture. In a sense it was the "perfect storm" with a positive outcome.
Telarc's first digital recording, The Cleveland Symphonic Winds, created a sensation. Yet I remember that Harry Pearson in TAS had reservations which he had difficulty articulating. Thus began the continuing discussion about the differences between digital and analog sound.
More than 30 years on engineers are still struggling to get it right. We now have much improved digital recording and playback with SACD and hi-rez downloading trying to fill the gap. At the same time there has been a mainstream trend to low-rez.
There are some good digital recordings out there, but certainly not in the numbers that I would have expected. I am frequently disappointed with new recordings. And when I listen to an old 2-track tape or one of the new Tape Project tapes, I shake my head and ask myself what happened.
Perfect storms don't come along very often.
As you say, the early Sony digital recorders were dreadful. So was the Soundstream, just less so.
But the main difference here I think is the relatively purist technique. Commercial recordings are destroyed with multimiking, close miking, EQ, and compression.
This is not, I think, a shortcoming of the recording engineers so much as something imposed from above.
all the fake reverb added to many recordings!
ARMOR-ALL!
...regards...tr
SAM. i thought it was.
...regards...tr
(nt)
"Old Believers" (Starovery) were, in Russian history, a group opposed to Peter the Great's Westernizing reforms, including but not limited to how many fingers to use while making the Sign of the Cross (two for OBs, three for Westernizers, if you were curious) and large beards on priests.
The Old Believers were suppressed mercilessly, often by locking them in their churches and burning the churches to the ground. Which they would, as most of them were wooden.
At some point (I am not an expert on this, just an educated layperson) Peter the Great relented to the point where he allowed priests who went along with the rest of the reforms to pay a tax for the privilege of having a large beard. The priests were given a token or medallion to show they had paid the tax, and some still exist today.
These things I learned from Boris Goldovsky, who was a huge influence on me.
JM
:D
;D
Barkeep!
A double round of Old Believers for my good friend Sam, here!
isn't vinyl new tech?
who's shilling for shellac?
Why get rid of anything where old enough to start hoarding just go with it...Lps, Cds, DVDs, DVDA, SACD, tapes, CED, Laser disc, VHS, Beta, Down loads. I say pile away.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: