|
|
Post by brucew268 on Sept 13, 2021 13:32:51 GMT
I used to listen to this a lot back then [Pat Matheny: As Falls Wichita...]. Then I noticed one of the downsides of these early DDD recordings -- flat and no dimensionality. Nit wanting to get into a debate on this on the music thread but there is absolutely no connection between digital recording and lack of soundstage. Whatever. I know that of several CD's I had at the time, this one was a bit flat with no depth, and that was before I was in "audiophile" circles. Since then, I've found it true when played on the multiple HiFi systems over the years. I also know that studio and mastering circles talk would about some of the issues that were in digital recording, mixing, and mastering in those early days. Separately but overlapping, Steve Hoffman would often talk about his goal in mastering to get "the breath of life" in his results. Whether he was doing work on digital masters is irrelevant. There is a lot one can do good or bad in the recording, mixing, and mastering process. In fact there is a German label featuring modern European jazz musicians with a lot of music I like. For one of those artists I like but find the production while detailed seems flat and with this same problem. Most of the other artists on that label do not have that problem in their recordings. Your unilateral declarations of what is and is not true are getting old. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Sept 13, 2021 13:44:02 GMT
Okay I deleted my previous bad tempered reply
Present some technical reasons why there should be a difference in soundstage between an analogue and a digital recording. Then I will pay attention. 'I heard it' and lame appeals to authority are not sufficient.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Sept 13, 2021 14:13:50 GMT
Gentlemen,
Let's not go down the road this sort of stuff can lead to.
|
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Sept 13, 2021 15:58:46 GMT
There shouldn't be any reasons. I'm guessing it comes down to the skill and experience of the mixing engineers, for both the analogue and digital equipment realms.
A case in point, I have 'Toy' by Yello on vinyl and digital format. Both sound superb, in fact you may find it difficult to tell them apart.
The production values of Yello are stunning, give the music a helping hand with a truly open system and your sorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Sept 13, 2021 18:21:42 GMT
I agree that there is nothing inherent in digital recordings that make them poor at soundstage (or anything else).
It's pretty much all down to the sound engineers and how well they do their work, be it analog or digital recording.
I've heard superb soundstaging in depth from both analog and digital recordings.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Sept 14, 2021 7:01:45 GMT
Aside from anything soundstage depth is created in the mix (and in some cases with mic placement) not the mastering process. This article is a straightforward read for the uninitiated: www.soundonsound.com/techniques/creating-sense-depth-your-mixIf the recording in question is perceived as having no depth of soundstage there are only several possibilities 1) playback system is not able to re-construct it (speakers are poor, room is poor, speakers or listener sub-optimally positioned) 2) There was no attempt made by the mixing engineer to create a sense of depth. 3) The engineer tried to create a sense of depth and failed (highly unlikely especially on the ECM label) Given the lower noise floor of digital recording you'd actually expect it to preserve rather than detract from the impression of soundstage. Especially with a complex multi-track recording such as the one in question, since with an analogue recording bouncing the tracks around will double the noise each time, one of the main reasons studios quickly switched to digital recording when it became available. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Sept 14, 2021 7:06:01 GMT
Also, and this may be incorrect, I think the recording in question is all-analogue in any case.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Sept 14, 2021 7:56:14 GMT
I'm away on holiday this week so not much time to be on here, but went back to look at discogs and it seems likely it was AAD not DDD, so my mistake on that recording. Perhaps, my 80's CD of this was a bad 'pressing'.
Please note that I was not taking a swipe at digital. This was not about "digital is bad or inferior." It was about the early history of digital use in the studio and referred to mistakes the studio and mastering technicians reported making and issues encountered in the early days. I don't have time right now to go back and dig out 30 years of reading to prove it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Sept 14, 2021 11:41:04 GMT
I know you are not taking a swipe at digital and even if you were that would not bother me at all. I'm just not keen on technical conclusions being drawn from simply listening. It's the curse of the wholly subjective approach and leads to many wrong conclusions. I would not dispute that the recording sounds 'flat' to you, you are just reporting your perception. It was the conclusion that this was due to it being an 'early' digital recording that I contested.
I have it on CD and vinyl and neither gives any indication as to the recording equipment used. However checking out Talent Studio Oslo it would seem (not certain) that it was still all-analogue in 1979. Also Lyle Mays stated in an interview that he practiced the overdubbing techniques they intended to use on the recording on a 4 track before going into the studio, which would imply that they recorded in analogue.
No need to find proof that some engineers had some issues with the digital recording process in the early days, I've had engineers who were there at the time tell me that. However none of those issues made it out into the real world on the final recordings people actually bought.
|
|
