How come so many orchestral and chamber recordings I have with these "unappreciated" analog production chains from the 1950's - 1980's sometimes sound better to my ear than many current "purist" all digital offerings? Am I the only one who hears it this way?
Steve, the recordings you mention were mixed on site with analog mixers, and recorded directly to stereo analog tape, sometimes four tracks, then transferred to laquer disc. The good sounding ones among those old recordings, were all made by very professional engineers and producers, something you cannot always say for our time nowadays.
Probably the largest part of classical recordings still are made with analog mixers. The best results using an analog chain with recording classical music you achieve by mixing on site directly to two tracks stereo. Once a recording is digitalised, every extra DA->AD conversion, adds up more digital harshness. Mixing on site is nervracking, but it pays off though. Nowadays we are spoiled with cheap multitrack solutions, and it is very tempting to leave the mix for at home. Although I bought in 2000 two Genex 8500 8 track machines, I mixed everything on site until 2002 directly to stereo, and even today I mix during recording. I feel more comfortable mixing directly into two channels, because when your mix does not work, you change the microphone positioning, something you can not do at home while you are mixing. Since I started using digital mixing, I still made a direct mix to stereo, while recording parallel to multitrack, which is mixed digitally afterwards. Depending on the project, I still use to mix analog into stereo on location.
Maybe a bit of topic, I have found no technical benefit using digital multitrack and mix through an analog chain back home in the studio. I know some people will argue with me, but if you compare the on-site analog mixed version with the studio analog mixed DA->AD from the digital multitrack, even the strongest advocaters of analog mixing in the classical music field must agree that the on-site analog mixed recording, direct from the microphones, sounds the purest. Once I visited the Teldec crew when they recorded the Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam in the late 90s. They mixed with 2 Studer 962 mixers directly into a stereo SONY MOD, and for back-up a Sony multitrack was running parallel only in case of an emergency, and hopefully never needed.
It is the extra DA-> AD conversion which should be avoided in my opinion. Once digital, stay digital. If not, record in DSD multitrack, analog multitrack, half inch stereo, but no extra PCM-> analog -> PCM conversion. I also don't see that a bad recording can be enhanced by going through an analog chain, as if the sound of that chain solves acoustical and balancing problems.
Obviously ommv - but as a listener to a good deal of contemporary/"new" orchestral and chamber works - and as someone intimately familiar with how these things sound live in both rooms and concert halls - gotta say the "digital purist" mastering on many of these often is atrociously mediocre - including transients that are way un-naturally sharp, dynamics that are over exaggerated to the point of being unable to hear low level parts at all if fortissimo sections are to be played in anything less than a painful place without having to constantly manipulate the volume knob. i.e. a lot of times these "purist" representations do NOT sound the way things do live in the room!
Especially with contemporary music this is a problem, I totally agree with you. Also opera is rather difficult to record in terms of livingroom dynamics. I use from time to time very light compression with these above mentioned genres. You only have to be very careful not to use to much. Compression by using a piece of electronic gear is a total other thing than the natural compression of dynamics in the air. When I use those tools, I use them within the mix and I don't see it as a part of mastering, it is just a part of getting a well balanced and good sounding recording.
