Modern Recorded Sound

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Maybe, however, younger listeners than me are seeking a different sound from their listening.

Could you elaborate a little on this? I know equipment has changed, with jewel speakers and subwoofers being used by many in preference to larger speakers, but ultimately a recording of a live performance should aim to replicate the original.

[cloughie]

Could you elaborate a little on this? I know equipment has changed, with jewel speakers and subwoofers being used by many in preference to larger speakers, but ultimately a recording of a live performance should aim to replicate the original.

I'm not sure I can elaborate on it - ask younger listeners, is the bass I like from larger speakers now deemed to be less natural sound. Having progressed from LP to CD I have no desire to go back to vinyl, but on the other hand I have no real interest in going to downloads and all the faff of analogue convertors although I don't think that all CDs from analogue tape sources capture all that was on the original, particularly at the bass end, however there are many which do improve, particularly where the original had an over-bright top end - I am thinking here of some American recordings on CBS.

[Serial_Apologist]

Could you elaborate a little on this? I know equipment has changed, with jewel speakers and subwoofers being used by many in preference to larger speakers, but ultimately a recording of a live performance should aim to replicate the original.

Personally I would be satisfied with a happy medium, say, somewhere mid-way between the standard fm broadcast compression that keeps any broadcast music's volume at somewhere between mezzopiano and mezzoforte, and a digital CD recording that reduces quiet passages to near-inaudibility while threatening elsewhere to blow my more-than-adequate speakers!

[MrGongGong]

Could you elaborate a little on this? I know equipment has changed, with jewel speakers and subwoofers being used by many in preference to larger speakers, but ultimately a recording of a live performance should aim to replicate the original.

AAAARGH

DON'T GO THERE

[Richard Barrett]

I know this to be otherwise
Sound quality today can be (and I stress CAN) awesome and far superior to anything from the 1950's if it's clarity, separation, lack of distortion / artefacts and so on that you seek

(a) Digital recording isn't affected by tape hiss: a silence is really a silence.
(b) Digital recording has a massively greater dynamic range than analogue recording which especially makes a difference in orchestral music, although some prefer for home listening the smaller dynamic range produced by the compression used in all analogue recordings.
(c) The "warmth" some ascribe to analogue recordings is actually distortion, let's call it what it is!
(d) Editing is much easier with digital recordings, so that postproduction can be much more precise (if there's time).
As I say, some prefer the sound of analogue recordings - but in many ways digital recording is an enormous improvement.

[PJPJ]

(a) Digital recording isn't affected by tape hiss: a silence is really a silence.
(b) Digital recording has a massively greater dynamic range than analogue recording which especially makes a difference in orchestral music, although some prefer for home listening the smaller dynamic range produced by the compression used in all analogue recordings.
(c) The "warmth" some ascribe to analogue recordings is actually distortion, let's call it what it is!
(d) Editing is much easier with digital recordings, so that postproduction can be much more precise (if there's time).
As I say, some prefer the sound of analogue recordings - but in many ways digital recording is an enormous improvement.

I agree completely.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

(a) Digital recording isn't affected by tape hiss: a silence is really a silence.

But real silence does not exist. A digital silence can often sound unnatural

(b) Digital recording has a massively greater dynamic range than analogue recording which especially makes a difference in orchestral music, although some prefer for home listening the smaller dynamic range produced by the compression used in all analogue recordings.

True. Also, because of this, some analogue recordings can be restored to sound better than they did on LP.

(c) The "warmth" some ascribe to analogue recordings is actually distortion, let's call it what it is!

Also true

(d) Editing is much easier with digital recordings, so that postproduction can be much more precise (if there's
time).

Yes

As I say, some prefer the sound of analogue recordings - but in many ways digital recording is an enormous improvement.

Now this is where we differ. The improvement between a good analogue recording and a good digital one is quite marginal, particularly when compared with the improvements I listed re the earlier developments in audio history. Indeed, many digital recordings are worse - compare DG recordings made in the 1970s with those they made in the 80s.

[Richard Barrett]

But real silence does not exist. A digital silence can often sound unnatural

Indeed, and that's why there won't be any within a given recording. But you won't hear any sound that wasn't made in the room where the recording took place, except maybe a tiny amount from the microphones.

Now this is where we differ. The improvement between a good analogue recording and a good digital one is quite marginal, particularly when compared with the improvements I listed re the earlier developments in audio history. Indeed, many digital recordings are worse - compare DG recordings made in the 1970s with those they made in the 80s.

Digital recording indeed requires the development of different skills, which in many cases weren't in place when the first digital recordings were released. I do agree that, in terms of sound, digital recording may not be as much of an advance as stereo from mono, or LPs from 78s (for example I'm really not interested in listening to recordings made before the stereo LP era), but I wouldn't say that makes the advance "marginal".

Something that shouldn't be forgotten, though, is that in the pre-digital days making a releaseworthy recording was an expensive process requiring numerous specialised skills, while nowadays this is not the case to the same degree, which means almost anyone with a minimum of gear can produce (and mix/edit) listenable recordings. That I think is an enormous technical step forward.

[rauschwerk]

My point is that sound has improved very little since the late 1950s.

To my ears, the recording of certain instruments (piano, harpsichord) has indeed improved enormously in that time.

[MrGongGong]

To my ears, the recording of certain instruments (piano, harpsichord) has indeed improved enormously in that time.

Don't you mean

To my ears, the recording of certain instruments (piano, harpsichord) has indeed improved enormously in that time.

[richardfinegold]

Really ?

I know this to be otherwise
Sound quality today can be (and I stress CAN) awesome and far superior to anything from the 1950's if it's clarity, separation, lack of distortion / artefacts and so on that you seek

[richardfinegold]

(a) Digital recording isn't affected by tape hiss: a silence is really a silence.
(b) Digital recording has a massively greater dynamic range than analogue recording which especially makes a difference in orchestral music, although some prefer for home listening the smaller dynamic range produced by the compression used in all analogue recordings.
(c) The "warmth" some ascribe to analogue recordings is actually distortion, let's call it what it is!
(d) Editing is much easier with digital recordings, so that postproduction can be much more precise (if there's time).
As I say, some prefer the sound of analogue recordings - but in many ways digital recording is an enormous improvement.

I was going to make a reply to Alpie, but another Richard has pre empted me. I don't wish to be Richard The Second--he met a rather bad end, as I recall

[richardfinegold]

Now this is where we differ. The improvement between a good analogue recording and a good digital one is quite marginal, particularly when compared with the improvements I listed re the earlier developments in audio history. Indeed, many digital recordings are worse - compare DG recordings made in the 1970s with those they made in the 80s.[/QUOTE]
Early digital recordings could be awful. That was 30 years ago. The technology has been mastered by recording engineers by now.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I was going to make a reply to Alpie, but another Richard has pre empted me. I don't wish to be Richard The Second--he met a rather bad end, as I recall

Well, I shouldn't laugh. The situation you mention was far from funny.

[Bryn]

But real silence does not exist. A digital silence can often sound unnatural.

Notwithstanding RB's response re. current digital recordings, in the early days it was sometimes the case that 'digital silence' reigned between movements of some CD issues. Some of the worst offenders were Olympia CDs of Melodiya recordings. I have gone as far as to search out brief periods of ambience within movements and copying and multiply pasting such in place of the digital silences.