In 1989 in my capacity at the National University of Singapore, I had the only opportunity I've ever had to mike a full symphone orchestra, the SSO at Victoria Hall.  Lousy acoustics and the orchestra was not all that hot...however, I felt it came off very well.  I flew two PZM's mounted on 1 meter square plex at an angle and altitude to place every instrument as close as possible to the same distance from the mikes. 

The presence was pretty cool.  I thought the performance sucked and did not keep a copy...wish I had. 

I do have one I did a few years ago with a mid sized string group, perhaps 30 in all (including winds, etc) where I used the same technique.  I'll see if I can locate it and how well it worked. 

I do not see why there should be a detail issue with strings, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether the recording is digital or not. 

Dave

PS - As Bruce mentioned about organ recordings, you lose detail (assuming your mikes and record chain are the right stuff working properly) mainly by the acoustics of the room and distance from the source.  If the acoustics suck, you eliminate them with naturally directional mikes like PZM's or ribbons placed as close to the source as possible.  Even with excellent acoustics, like a great cathedral, detail decreases with distance and loss of the sense of space comes with being too close, so finding the place your ears want to be comes into play.  The Toscanni recordings in the NBC studios are famous for their detail because they were made in darn near anechoic chambers with ribbon mikes of the DX variety.  What a surprise!  However, they are also devoid of any sense of space.

Mallette:

it certainly has nothing to do with whether the recording is digital or not

That has decidedly not been my experience, with commercially-issued recordings at any rate.  Certainly yours may be different.

Mallette:

and it certainly has nothing to do with whether the recording is digital or not. 

I have to agree with that 100%.

LarryC:

Mallette:

it certainly has nothing to do with whether the recording is digital or not

That has decidedly not been my experience, with commercially-issued recordings at any rate.  Certainly yours may be different.

If your only experience is with CD's or the rather limited supply of SACD or DVD-A, then you have inadequate experience with digital recording.  Part of the problem is that digital is SO precise that it is utterly unforgiving of the engineer, sort of like Heritage is!

Dave

Well, I have a few hundred CDs and a few SACDs but no SACD player.  SACDs on my redbook CD player sometimes have funny balances, as though only two out of 4 or 5 channels are playing, so I try to stay away from that for that reason.  Gary's SACD player will eliminate that problem, although I understand he rarely plays CDs/SACDs because he likes his LPs better.  Perhaps SACD technology has improved.

Is the sound from DVD-A the same as that from music DVDs?  The classical DVDs I've been listening to sound very good, although I haven't heard them through my tube/Klipsch 2-channel system.  Anyway, it took long searching and more coin to make my CD player sound as good as my LP player, and that was not a pleasant experience.

I also have never heard a digitally recorded or mastered LP that didn't have an irritating and non-musical sound compared with most of my LPs.  A couple of nights ago I played an LP someone had recently given me, and was puzzled at the hard, grainy, unlistenable sound until I spotted "digitally remastered" on the cover.  Those must be a worst-of-all-worlds medium.

Given the above, and since most recordings and many new ones are only available on CD, it's hard for me to have a high regard for digital compared with analog.

Larry

Larry:

> Perhaps SACD technology has improved.

I am going to take this one line and what I say applies to that, CD, and DVD-A as well.  NO.  The technology has NOT improved.  It does not need to.  It started capable of doing precisely what analog is capable of doing, except without compression or noise, and still does that.

ITS THE ENGINEERING, DANGIT! 

I started out with my own recording experiments to try to figure out why my LP's sounded better than CD's in spite of the CD's lack of need for dynamic compression and far lower noise floor and established the above to my satisfaction.  I've now added a hypothesis that suggests that another part of the issue may well be the very totally accurate and unforgiving nature of digital, especially very high res digital, that perhaps emphasizes engineering issues.

I do not have an emotional bias here.  I stacked my LP's for nearlly 10 years flush in the belief in the superiority of the new technology and was stunned when I finally hooked up a turntable and cranked up an LP after that time.  As I would at least like to THINK that I am an objective, empirical person, I set out to find out how this could in spite of the scientific evidence suggesting that digital should be equal to or better than.  It was and is.  However, better technology does not guarantee a more satisfying result.

I do not expect to lay this to rest hear, as it seems to come back to life in these pages every year or so.  That's fine...still worthy of discussion and I enjoy it.

However, analog recording is inferior to digital in three important areas: noise, wideband response, and dynamic range.  That is a scientific fact beyond dispute. 

Which sounds better in the final result is the responsibility of the engineer. 

Dave

PS - Finally, DVD-A has nearlly 8 times the resolving capability of DVD music videos and far greater high frequency potential than the LP.  In fact, it has far greater HF bandwidth than any microphone ever built.

LarryC:

Well, I have a few hundred CDs and a few SACDs but no SACD player.  SACDs on my redbook CD player sometimes have funny balances, as though only two out of 4 or 5 channels are playing, so I try to stay away from that for that reason.  Gary's SACD player will eliminate that problem, although I understand he rarely plays CDs/SACDs because he likes his LPs better.  Perhaps SACD technology has improved.

Is the sound from DVD-A the same as that from music DVDs?  The classical DVDs I've been listening to sound very good, although I haven't heard them through my tube/Klipsch 2-channel system.  Anyway, it took long searching and more coin to make my CD player sound as good as my LP player, and that was not a pleasant experience.

I also have never heard a digitally recorded or mastered LP that didn't have an irritating and non-musical sound compared with most of my LPs.  A couple of nights ago I played an LP someone had recently given me, and was puzzled at the hard, grainy, unlistenable sound until I spotted "digitally remastered" on the cover.  Those must be a worst-of-all-worlds medium.

Given the above, and since most recordings and many new ones are only available on CD, it's hard for me to have a high regard for digital compared with analog.

Larry

Larry,

What are you using for a CD player?  I don't doubt you but I am curious. 

I just bought all of Nora Jones's CD's.  I believe they are digitally recorded.  I use an upsampling Musical Fidelity CD player.  They simply sound fantastic to me, like most Jazz.  I am amazed when I hear a new CD recording that has not been compromised (that is why I bought every one of Diana Krall and Nora Jones's CDs).  I don't doubt that higher resolution can and will sound better, but I am not hearing the harshness with my particular equipment. 

Interestingly, I lent my SS Musical Fidelity preamp to a friend who has a VTL tube preamp and power amps.  The Musical Fidelity preamp sounded more "tubelike."  A softer top without the glare of the tube preamp.  He wasusing his Thiel speakers.  Go figure. 

 

Tigerwood, I think there are a couple of things to mention here.  My CD player is a two-box -- a Wadia 270se transport, modified by Great Northern Sound (the "se" has the newer, heavier, Teac disc drive used in Esoteric transports); and the Wadia 27i DAC, also mod'd by GNS.  Both Wadia items have been discontinued and are probably drifting behind the times, but they've done well in my 2-channel system.

The other thing to mention is that I frequently listen to large-scale orchestral and choral classical works.  Recording those apparently is very challenging, and I'm not sure if it's possible to record them with the same intimacy and detail as small groups and soloists.  That may be part of the debate you're seeing here.

And then there's the challenge presented by different kinds of sounds.  This thread started with problems presented by massed strings, and I still think digital has a much harder time with the subtleties of either solo or massed strings, than with harder, clearer, sounds of solo wind, brass or percussion, or pop voices.  Incidentally, it's not harshness I think I hear in strings and large-scale groups, but rather a dry grittiness that seems one step removed from the continuity of an analog signal in recording and reproduction.

That said, one CD I readily put on here for folks is The Carpenters -- amazingly clear, right there, and not degrading a thing.  I have never heard either an LP or CD recording of classical music that equals it.  I also doubt that I would have an issue with a digital Norah Jones recording, although I like my LP and have no desire to get the CD.  I probably would have the same reaction as you to the fidelity.

Preamps are very difficult for some reason.  I've had a long-standing preference for tubes, but only CATs and a Joule Electra have satisfied me.  I've not heard a Musical Fidelity or VTL in my system.

Larry

 >I still think digital has a much harder time with the subtleties of either solo or massed strings, than with harder, clearer, sounds of solo wind, brass or percussion, or pop voices. 

That simply defies science, IMHO.  If anything, the opposite would seem more likely if we were just dealing with intuitive hunches rather than science.  Having used magnetic colloidal suspension fluid many times to view the tracks on tape (mainly to judge alignment) and loupes to look at the optical tracks on film I can say they "look" more like what we expect from the smoothing of tubes compared to the absolutely accuracy of high res digital.  

I continue to maintain it's the engineering, not the medium.  One of the high res recordings I did (not posted) is of pianist Denise Lippman and the head of the New England Conservatory of Music (can't think of his name at the moment) on cello.  The detail of the bowing and fingering of the cello is the most up close and personal I've ever heard in a recording.  One of the pieces I did put up was of Paul Garner on clarinet with Michele McDonald on piano.  Turned up high I can ear his finger moving to half hole...that is detail I am not sure ANY analog tape could get as even with DBX and high speed large format tape it would be near the noise floor.

Again, please remember I have pretty neutral as to left/right brain.  90 percent of my collection of recordings are analog, and it was analog that led me to question digital and my favorite mike is 72 years old and I use ONLY vacuum tube mike preamps.  However, the evidence as revealed to me simply does not support analog being, by nature, superior to digital in any way.  

Dave 

Yessir.  IMHO everything you observe here is engineering.  Gimme the 77's and 24/176.4 or a vintage Ampex half-track and I'll deliver you a warm, detailed image of however many strings you want to mass.  However, I'll prefer the digital so I do not have to deal with noise, limited dynamic range, and some detail dithering due to nature of the magnetic process.  

Dave 

Don Richard:

I was researching bit width / sample rates and found the following:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

This article describes tests run by Brad Mayer and David Moran that were reported in the September AES Journal titled "Audibility of a CD Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted Into High Resolution Audio Playback".

Don't throw your CDs away yet. They are better than some think.

Don

Honk if you love Horns

Don - I bet you know that this article you reference is really speaking the truth.  However, there are a lot of folks that don't want it to be right. Anyone that tells you that CDs are no good (without qualification of which recordings) have really destroyed their credibility.  CDs, as a format and a technology, were invented to replace records. The folks that invented CDs did a good job at doing that, regardless of the exhortations to the contrary that you might run into here.  What has happened, in my opinion, is that many people listen to poor CD recordings and mixes (not to mention poor music). But many don't want to hear that (and especially from someone that they haven't been sparring with here for a long time). 

I now just basically ignore arguments about recording formats and pay closer attention to recording engineers and the techniques they use. That is where I believe the differences are.  For instance, I might recommend Chesky Records, Reference Recordings, and DMP CDs.  They seem to employ really good recording engineers. That one CD exception to the rule that others may try to lay down here proves your point.

I'm afraid that much free advice on this subject offered here appears to feed egos, not the ears IMHO.  Many audiophiles aren't buying better sound - instead I think they're buying something else.  For instance, many people here think that electronics and turntables are the key to give you better sound.  I believe it is the complement of those, namely high quality speakers, good room acoustics, good recordings by good recording engineers, and good musicians.

Just because you may get drowned out here doesn't mean that your notions aren't correct.  I recommend talking to Roy Delgado (Klipsch lead design engineer) about his views on this subject.  I think that you'll find a kindred spirit there.

Regards,

Chris

Chris, you are a voice of wisdom!

There are certainly a number of things involved and that is why all sides of this issue end up being "correct". However there are the big issues and there are the small issues, and you have hit the nail on the head.

Good Luck,

-Tom

Incidentally, over the last several weeks I find that I just keep on playing Dave Mallette's recordings. They really do capture some difficult-to-capture details. That was a very generous of him to share those recordings (and much appreciated).

Chris, Tom, and all:

Almost all the posts in this thread have some good points, and certainly Chris's is one of those.  The question with Redbook is "Good enough for WHAT?"  The designers of Redbook must be applauded for reaching FAR ahead of their time.  In a time when a 20mb HDD was really big they pushed the envelope in every way to deliver a trully remarkable piece of technology that has stood the test of time.  To do so they had to make some hard decisions.  It's obvious they made the right ones within the context of the technology they had to work with.

That said, it is equally a fact that their are nuances 16/44.1 loses.  I have ABC'd the same recording of applause at 24/176.4, 24/88.2, and 16/44.1.  Even my 58 year old ears can easily detect the difference.  However, those ears are pretty well trained and I suspect that 90% of younger ears might not hear much, and if they did they wouldn't care. 

How many of the general population can tell the subtle but profound difference between a Stradivarious and an Amati?  Not many, but that does not make the difference any less important.  It is this level of difference we are discussing (or at least I am).  The die hard LP lovers in this group are not, at least for the most part, luddites holding to the horse and carriage.  What they hear is real and significant.  However, it is NOT analog that is making the difference.  It is resolution. 

My answer would be that CD is good enough for the vast majority of material, but not all and not for the die hard audiophile who loves acoustic instruments and grand acoustic spaces.  If the equipment were there, I'd record at 24/352.8.  Why?  Why not!! Is there such a thing as too much accuracy? 

And, of course, a poorly engineered recording sux at any resolution.

Dave

Dave, we are probably in agreement on these issues (we just don't realize it).

Unfortunately many of the arguments (LPs vs whatever, or 16 bit etc vs whatever) become reduced to a level where someone heard something on a LP (or a 16 bit whatever) and then listened to a 16bit (or a "special" high bit or sampling etc) and heard some difference.

What gets lost in all of this is that the mastering for the two may not have been the same, or even similar. This is when folks start "averaging". They tend to average their experience with LPs or 16 bit CDs or whatever and come up with an "average" experience with the format. Now, we really are talking about apples vs oranges.

The point Chris is making and that I agree with (I suspect you do also) is that there are all sorts of variations across these recordings (that went into our "average"). Some these variations are whether it is LP, CD or whatever. But there are other, and perhaps more important variations, that arise from the recording process itself (how it was done) and the mixing process (what "other stuff" was also done). I believe these variations are far more important.

Lets look at a simple one. Sheffield labs used to produce a "direct to disc" LP. No mixing, compression or other trickery was performed. These LPs could have a very strong sense of realism. Now compare to this to a conventionally recorded, and mixed, and compressed, etc, pop recording on a CD. The CD will not have that same sense of realism. This really is a case of apples vs oranges. Some would emphasize the medium (LP vs CD). While others, myself included, would point to all the other differences in how it was recorded. I suspect the real evils are compression and adding artificial reverberation etc.

I believe that CDs offer better resolution (even 16 bit ones) etc. But I also believe that many LPs can sound better. The difference is the engineering (now I am quoting you).

Personally, I have heard very few LPs that have had the same sense of realism, resolution, and detail that a well-recorded CD can have (not a typical CD). I would point to your recordings as being a nice example of such detail and resolution.

Good Luck,

-Tom