Why is all classical recording digital?

[Mazo Audio]

Originally Posted by Plush

I still say that the *sound* of a good recording on tape is the best there is.

However only those listening in the control room will hear it in full fidelity off the tape.

Later, once digitized, the tape is heard at a lower fidelity for release. It still sounds really good though.

You have to spend money to have good analog sound. Those not willing to do it will never know the glory of listening to super high quality tape playback. Too bad !

The

Stellavox SM-8
Nagra T-Audio
Studer A807 1/2" four channel

are used here. All with RMGI SM900, Zonal 999 and GP9 tape. Sometimes with Dolby SR.

I'm with Plush on this one, I think digital is a sonic compromise, used for the convenience of editing and manipulation.

[piano]

Originally Posted by John Willett

I absolutely agree with you.

When I record I try and capture a performance - yes, maybe edit a few bad bits as a last resort, but do it as a finishing touch to a great performance.

I hate it where everything is stitched together note by note, bar by bar and the poor musician is bored out of his (her) tiny scull playing notes and not playing *music*!

Absolutely, many performers can't stand less than ideal work being released. Some performers I have hired for records REFUSED to have their real name used on the jacket cover.

I had both of my Juilliard pals over to record a record and one felt the other was not up to her level of playing (eh.... not really) and she did not want her playing to be confused with his.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by John Willett

I do a lot of piano recording and you just can't get a good piano sound with analogue - you will hear the wow and flutter of the tape recorder change the piano notes - with digital it's just as it should be.
There is a lot of distortion with analogue - not only wow and flutter, but modulation noise, tape hiss and all the other rubbish.

My entire education and early career was with digital. For the last few years, I've also been working with analog. The very highest-end analog does not have detectable wow and flutter, or modulation noise. Tape hiss is also negligible on a perfectly-aligned Studer or Aria-equipped Ampex. (I've never had the privelege of using a Stellavox on Nagra.) It may have other colorations which you find objectionable, but the best analog doesn't suffer from those particular issues - any more than the best digital suffers from aliasing or audible quantization noise. I also should mention that analog technology did not stop in 1982.

[mathieujm]

Originally Posted by matyas

I also should mention that analog technology did not stop in 1982.

Really ? Where are the new analog recorder ?

JMM

[matyas]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

Really ? Where are the new analog recorder ?

JMM

Besides ATR, some of the best analog machines were made in the '80s and '90s.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Plush

I still say that the *sound* of a good recording on tape is the best there is.

However only those listening in the control room will hear it in full fidelity off the tape.

Later, once digitized, the tape is heard at a lower fidelity for release. It still sounds really good though.

You have to spend money to have good analog sound. Those not willing to do it will never know the glory of listening to super high quality tape playback. Too bad !

The

Stellavox SM-8
Nagra T-Audio
Studer A807 1/2" four channel

are used here. All with RMGI SM900, Zonal 999 and GP9 tape. Sometimes with Dolby SR.

"Best," as in, you like it best -- or "best," as in, most accurate?

Because occasionally some members of this BB have the distressing habit of conflating their personal preferences with accuracy.

Optimal digital recording is measurably more accurate than optimal tape by all meaningful criteria.


While it's true that only those with access to such optimal tape recording and playback will only know how it sounds at its best on properly aligned and operating equipment (in a presumably tuned room, of course), it's also true that only those involved in tracking in such a situation will be able to hear and compare the live sound coming over the wire from the studio floor with what is then laid onto tape.

And before we start slinging around accusations that I'm some sort of newb or naif -- I've owned 10 reel tape machines, 5 of them multitracks. My first overdub recording was done in 1964. I spent much of the 1980s bent over analog tape decks in commercial studios.


If one prefers the sound of analog tape -- that is a perfectly valid preference -- and no one can reasonably argue with a preference. It is entirely subjective and personal.

However, when we are talking about accuracy, that is something which can be precisely measured. And by that measure, optimal digital beats optimal tape.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Vatraxos

I listen to boat loads of classical music. It's at least 50% of what I listen to when I'm at home. Just found about 1500 pieces of classical vinyl for a steal...about 1 euro a piece

Anyway, what struck me as really odd is that I read a few posters talking about the amount and the complexity of editing done in classical music. Can anyone please comment on what type of editing this is? I would really be shocked if it involved the performance.

The last classical recording I did had over 200 splices, some note by note. I was just the recording engineer, the record company did the editing. I cannot hear any of the edits but I have to say that the pieces sounded appreciably better and more musical when I recorded them. They now sound "sterilized" and not as musically coherent as the original takes but there are no "mistakes". I guess it is just the world we live in.

I know when I worked for the local college students would take CDs from the library and try and find all the mistakes and then write little notes on the CD jacket with times so others could hear the mistakes themselves. It is too bad that we have to have perfection at the cost of musicality but that seems to be what the CD buyers want. I have done over 3000 live classical recordings and some of those performances still send chills up and down my spine. Yes there sometimes were mistakes but the performance was so overwhelming it really did not matter.

Crazy world.

[mohthom]

I once recorded a session with a nameless string player who hadn't learned the piece of (difficult, contemporary, polytemporal) music before arriving.

Note by note.

Six minutes

Two thousand edits

At least the pianist was spot on!

MohThoM

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by mohthom

I once recorded a session with a nameless string player who hadn't learned the piece of (difficult, contemporary, polytemporal) music before arriving.

Note by note.

Six minutes

Two thousand edits

At least the pianist was spot on!

MohThoM

They probably should have played a scale and let the editor (you??) do there "thing".

I can see the credits now. Original note sounds by <insert name> Manipulation and Musicality by <insert name>

Oh well!

[Dale]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

It is too bad that we have to have perfection at the cost of musicality but that seems to be what the CD buyers want.

I feel that the perfection quest is from the musicians as this becomes a permanent example of their performance and they do not want flaws. This is exemplified by the your example of the conservatory students looking for the mistakes.

[mohthom]

Just as an aside;

For the audio editing module I did during my undergrad, I was required to record a solo piece and edit it until it was 'right.'

My fellow students thus set about getting repeatable settings for overdubs, setting clicktracks, recording many hours of sounds and so on . . .

I chose someone who could play!

One take

No edits

Full marks

!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by mohthom

Just as an aside;

For the audio editing module I did during my undergrad, I was required to record a solo piece and edit it until it was 'right.'

My fellow students thus set about getting repeatable settings for overdubs, setting clicktracks, recording many hours of sounds and so on . . .

I chose someone who could play!

One take

No edits

Full marks

!

Wonderful - and the best way.

I remember the Satie CD I recorded with John Lenehan a few years back (Classic FM - Full Works series). There were not a lot of edits in the CD as he was playing very well and had learned it properly.

There was one particular track that was particularly magical and I remember listening and walking up and down very nervously saying to myself over and over again "this is magic - please don't make a mistake" - and it *was* magic and there is not a single edit in that track on the CD at all

I wish all my recordings were like this.

[boojum]

Department of FWIW -

After Pavarotti died there were a lot of interviews of him on TV. In one the interviewer asked, "Maestro, of all your recordings, which is your favorite?" Pavarotti replied, "None. I never listen to any of them. All I hear is mistakes."

So, musicians are driven to try to be perfect, too. It is not just the guys in marketing, engineering or so on. And I, too, prefer the live and mostly unaltered performance warts and all, if it is a great performance. There will always be a glitch, hopefully small. Life itself is imperfect.

[Chaellus]

to me digital and orchestra recordings = tutt
i much prefer analog for orchestral recordings if not anything else.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Chaellus

to me digital and orchestra recordings = tutt
i much prefer analog for orchestral recordings if not anything else.

For me digital and orchestral recordings =

Analogue is far too coloured and distorted for me.

[Ozpeter]

Concerning editing - in my experience, the 'bad' players need the editing to come up with a technically acceptable recording. The good players need the editing because their standards are so high, and they know what can be done (and how to record to retain musicality while providing editing material).

But let's be a bit careful about knocking the 'bad' musicians. These days in classical music there is a desperate scrabble to find works to record which have not been recorded to death already. Musicians are then hired to play them for CD and there's a good chance that they will never play the works again. So they've learned them well enough to get through the sessions with the knowledge that what would be unacceptable in live performance can be fixed in a recording. They have constantly to extend their repertoire beyond what is reasonable, and to tackle works which perhaps are not the most playable. (Sometimes works are not apparently that hard but being less then the best may not 'fall under the fingers' very well - other well written works may sound very hard but the musicians will say that there are well known tricks for performing them accurately, because the composers understand the problems of performance).

All in all, even when I'm banging 600 precision edits into a single CD (typical average in my experience) I'd still rather be doing that than trying to play the notes!

[fifthcircle]

Oh boy... Not the analog/digital debate.

I think many of the folks that dislike digital are not used to listening to quality digital. Good converters cost just as much as good analog. The sound of bad digital is just as bad as bad analog IMO- they have different problems, but both have their issues.

Good sound is good sound regardless of the technology used to capture it.

--Ben

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Having been in professional audio for 40 + years and having done a lot of classical recorToday it is nothing for a performer to have 300 to 800 splices on one CD.

That´s quite a perfect way to destroy the music. Is digital recording wih all the editing power the reason for a lot of bad recordings today?
Ok, that´s a little off topic. But 800 splices kills the emotion - and the desire to buy music.

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by Adebar

That´s quite a perfect way to destroy the music. Is digital recording wih all the editing power the reason for a lot of bad recordings today?
Ok, that´s a little off topic. But 800 splices kills the emotion - and the desire to buy music.

IMO, this is only true when you can hear the edits.
There are folks that edit with the musical performance in mind.
I feel that "bad" editors kill the emotion not the editing itself.

If you cannot hear the edits and it sounds completely plausible musically what harm is there in using the equipment we spent so much money on?

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

IMO, this is only true when you can hear the edits.
There are folks that edit with the musical performance in mind.
I feel that "bad" editors kill the emotion not the editing itself.

If you cannot hear the edits and it sounds completely plausible musically what harm is there in using the equipment we spent so much money on?

I think every experienced engineer can do edits you won´t hear. But still it is possible without hearing any edit to cut out emotion.

If you do the edits with musical performance in mind then I think it is not possible to realize that with 800 splices on CD - not with the musical performance in mind.

[fifthcircle]

I think the issue of hyper-editing is how the edits are done. When you are piecing a performance together by note, then the phrasing has a tendency to lack. There are subtleties that performers have that can be left on the cutting room floor to allow for the "note perfect" performance.

To try to get around this, I usually will stick with large chuncks of music as the basis takes. With this, there will be a level of musical continuity that can be lost with too many edits from differing takes. Then, I go and hit the problem spots. It may include some heavy edited sections, but as long as you are able to maintain a certain level of continuity of the master takes, the musicality remains.

Of course, this gets down to the way that sessions are produced. Every producer has their own way to work, but I like to start with one or two full takes whenever possible. Then I go to hit the patches. Once again, the reason is for musical continuity- if the performer feels it in longer takes, than the recording and later the post production reflects that. If the performer never gets "into the mood" because they can't play more than a couple bars without getting stopped, then the final recording will never reflect musicality.

--Ben

[Plush]

Originally Posted by theblue1

"Best," as in, you like it best -- or "best," as in, most accurate?

Because occasionally some members of this BB have the distressing habit of conflating their personal preferences with accuracy.

Optimal digital recording is measurably more accurate than optimal tape by all meaningful criteria.


While it's true that only those with access to such optimal tape recording and playback will only know how it sounds at its best on properly aligned and operating equipment (in a presumably tuned room, of course), it's also true that only those involved in tracking in such a situation will be able to hear and compare the live sound coming over the wire from the studio floor with what is then laid onto tape.

And before we start slinging around accusations that I'm some sort of newb or naif -- I've owned 10 reel tape machines, 5 of them multitracks. My first overdub recording was done in 1964. I spent much of the 1980s bent over analog tape decks in commercial studios.


If one prefers the sound of analog tape -- that is a perfectly valid preference -- and no one can reasonably argue with a preference. It is entirely subjective and personal.

However, when we are talking about accuracy, that is something which can be precisely measured. And by that measure, optimal digital beats optimal tape.

All good points indeed. In my post I was saying that the most pleasant sound was obtained from the tape playback. I say this in the case of also monitoring the tape in repro and switching back and forth in the monitor from program to tape.

I still do actually believe that the tape playback, once converted to digital, is heard at a lower fidelity than listening directly to the tape in the studio.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

I think the issue of hyper-editing is how the edits are done. When you are piecing a performance together by note, then the phrasing has a tendency to lack. There are subtleties that performers have that can be left on the cutting room floor to allow for the "note perfect" performance.

To try to get around this, I usually will stick with large chuncks of music as the basis takes. With this, there will be a level of musical continuity that can be lost with too many edits from differing takes. Then, I go and hit the problem spots. It may include some heavy edited sections, but as long as you are able to maintain a certain level of continuity of the master takes, the musicality remains.

Of course, this gets down to the way that sessions are produced. Every producer has their own way to work, but I like to start with one or two full takes whenever possible. Then I go to hit the patches. Once again, the reason is for musical continuity- if the performer feels it in longer takes, than the recording and later the post production reflects that. If the performer never gets "into the mood" because they can't play more than a couple bars without getting stopped, then the final recording will never reflect musicality.

--Ben

This is exactly the same way that I approach it.

Get a couple of good full takes under your belt and patch if absolutely necessary.

Most important is to try and capture a "performance of music" and not have to listen to a "collection of notes".

[Ozpeter]

While hundreds of edits in a CD is not uncommon, in my experience compiling very short takes into a complete performance is very rarely necessary. I can only think right now of one instance that I've been involved in, and the emotional force of the movement concerned still pins me to the wall when I hear that highly-edited construction. The emotion doesn't have to be left on the cutting room floor if the producer is up to the job.

The lowest number of edits I've been involved in was on a CD recorded in about 1989 where the performer was funding the editing himself, and his budget was, er, nominal. So we constructed the CD by deft use of the pause control in copying between two DAT machines (so the edits could only happen between movements or in substantial pauses), and did I think two precision edits at HHB. I remain pleased with the result!