jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham) (07/22/85)
> >... My own guess is that because popular music is so much less > >demanding (few quiet passages, less dynamic range), record companies > >have simply not felt the improvement in sound quality for pop would > >justify the cost of the scarce digital equipment. > > What you say is true, however I don't think it is the primary reason > that classical artists have been the first to record digitally. I > believe it is primarily due to the way the two styles of music are > recorded. In a classical recording session, the microphones are set > up, the recorder is turned on, then the work is performed. There is > minimal editing, and the work can be recorded in two track stereo. > On a pop album, first a rhythm track is laid down. Then other > instruments are added. The performer might then decide to sing > harmonies with himself. By the time the recording is finished, there > are some 24 tracks to be mixed down to the two track stereo needed to > cut the master. Time on a digital console capable of doing the > mixdown is very expensive, and engineers used to analog are reluctant > to relearn their craft to suit the new technology. > > Ben Broder Expensive & different yes, but from what I hear, the things you can do with a digital editing machine are just amazing and a whole lot easier. I haven't actually seen one of these machines, but I sure would like to. -- Jon M. Allingham (201)386-3466 AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH "Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"