wjm@whuxj.UUCP (MITCHELL) (03/30/84)
[sacrifice to the first line eating beasties] I agree with both Craig Dory and Phil Rastocny about the REAL problem with CD's and most digital recordings - that many recording engineers don't know how to properly mike and EQ a digital recording. As I've said many times, I don't like multi-miking -- PERIOD!!! and all the recordings I've heard that sound to me like live performances are those that used a minimum number of mikes - whether they be some of the legendary Mercury LP's from the start of the stereo era or recent Telarc CD's. Let's not lose sight of the ultimate objective of high fidelity - to accuratelyy reproduce (as best as possible given technology, budget, and other factors) a live performance. Admittedly, I'm an engineer but I also enjoy music and view the high technology as a means to this end, not as the end in itself. Digital recording is not per se bad, but it has been frequently misused, and I hope the engineers for the major record companies soon learn how to take advantage of it. Bill Mitchell Bell Communications Research, Inc. Whippany, NJ (whuxj!wjm)
flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (03/30/84)
--- Bill Mitchell comments: "I agree with both Craig Dory and Phil Rastocny about the REAL problem with CD's and most digital recordings - that many recording engineers don't know how to properly mike and EQ a digital recording." In what way do these functions differ for analog and for digital recording?
procter@ucbvax.UUCP (Steve Procter) (04/01/84)
I disagree with Mr. Mitchell's analysis of the purpose of audio. I listen to many things which cannot be performed live, such as much of the work of Brian Eno. I think that this is an important question to consider. That is, what is the objective high fidelity. Is it really to try to accurately reproduce a live performance, or is it to be as good sounding as possible. I think that having recordings conform to the live 'sound' as much as possible is very limiting on what can be done. I think that a record should not have strange resonances and accoustics because it was recorded in a hall with such accoustics. I see no problem with cutting or boosting , etc., if it makes the record sound better in my house on my stereo. Steve Procter procter@ucbvax.ARPA ucbvax!procter
witters@fluke.UUCP (John Witters) (04/04/84)
Regarding CD's which were made from a master EQ'ed for vinyl. Has anyone tried comparing vinal against tapes from the same source? How about tapes v.s. CD? Does anyone make audiophile tapes anymore? (I mean analog tapes, not digital tapes). It seems to me that tape suffers from a different set of shortcomings than vinyl does. It might be useful to do ABC tests between vinyl, tapes, and CDs.