Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 18:02 |
To your point, Classical labels, the MOST technically rigorous of all the music genre, adopted digital technology almost instantly through Soundstream. Why? Because of two reasons in my opinion.
First wow and flutter. Anyone who can't hear the wow and flutter in an analog recording of a piano sonata is not listening carefully enough in my opinion.
Second, your point harmonic distortion. When you record a symphony, the sound that came out of the console is the sound you want to come back from the tape machine, not a bunch of freelance compression, wow, flutter and especially DISTORTION.
|
The industry moved to 2" 24-track in the early 1970's and suddenly they had a hiss problem. Modern high-output tapes weren't introduced until several years after that. This is why classical recordists embraced digital.
The most natural recording of a cello I've ever heard, by far, is the Pablo Casals recording of the Bach cello suites done in the 1930's using a ribbon mic direct to shellac disk. Even today, many classical recordists prefer vintage tube microphones if they can get them.
I strongly prefer jazz and classical recordings made prior to the 1970's. Part of it could be the higher standards of musicianship that prevailed in the past, but the "flawed" recording medium in no way detracts from my enjoyment of the music.
I've recorded acoustic projects to Quantegy 499 at 15 ips on a stock MCI 1" 8-track. Technically it has noise and distortion and bla bla bla, but subjectively the sound is far less fatiguing than recording straight to digital.
I have no doubt that I could record classical music on the same MCI, disguise the hiss in the reverb tails, and no one would be able to identify the medium. The golden-eared audiophiles would say "that sounds great, what digital converter did you use?"
Flutter? So what? Air currents and the physical movements of the musicians produce similar timebase distortion. Flutter is OK in small amounts. Digital jitter isn't.
Quote: |
And two they are trying to recreate "rock" sounds in a purposely designed "sterile" digital medium.
|
Yes. I want control over the sound. I want a wide range of useful sounds, instead of ONE sound which I have to fix later with plug-ins.
This is why studios end up buying a dozen different kinds of mic preamps for different music styles, and can't understand how old-school engineers got by with only the board preamps.
I strenuously object to the idea that digital is "good enough" and bad results are the fault of the engineer. I believed this myth for many years and it cost me a lot of time, money, and frustration. In my experience, digital isn't even acceptable.
I'm looking into the possibility of creating an analog recording program at the university, so that students can experience working in a real analog studio. If it ever happens, watch out. They might start asking some inconvenient questions. Like why we ever gave up analog in the first place.