Why is all classical recording digital?

[eligit]

is it budget?

it it the lack of hiss on the really quiet sections (ie the gigantic dynamic range of classical music)?

is it the ease of editing takes together?

does the medium simply suit the material?

do classical engineers "care more about convenience/editing/cost than good sound"? as many analog purists might describe digital recordists.

anyone have any insider information?

just curious.

eli

[Ethan Winer]

Eli,

> the lack of hiss on the really quiet sections <

Sure, and also the overall better clarity, higher bandwidth, lower distortion, and generally much higher fidelity.

--Ethan

[Matti]

And their budgets tend to be smaller.... I quess.
Matti

[klaukholm]

I would like to go as far as to say most people involved in classical recording are purists.

Orchestral recordings have very large budgets. This is where you will routinely find 16 channels of DSD though EMM labs and massively expensive editors and recorders (sonoma anyone?)
You have 100+ musicians on stage getting paid $100 000 a year plus a recording fee.
Conductors and soloists that can cost $300 000 each for the week.

If a recording comes out sounding at all different than the way an orchestra sounds you are in trouble.

We use digital because it sounds more like the real thing, just as we use neutral mics and preamps.

Reasons include:
Better noisefloor
Greater dynamic range
Better accuracy/less colored
Simpler and more powerful edting

Kjetil

[themaidsroom]

analog classical recordings sound amazing............the upper harmonics of
the strings go down down smooth on tape, much more so than in digital
imho........
go to speakerscorner.de and order one of their classical titles on vinyl
before making your mind up..........
to my ear, the fidelty was much higher in the 58' - 65' period, even if
it came with a bit of noise.......it's got depth......


- jack

[RCM - Ronan]

Listening to a great classical recording straight off an analog master is an absolutely amazing experience, but I think most things are done digital for speed and ease of editing. Most modern classical recordings have an insane amount of editing.

Lots of people seem to forget that a well maintained analog machine running dolby SR has a dynamic range that far surpasses the dynamic range of a CD.

[eligit]

interesting opinions....keep em comin.

[MAProTulz]

Originally Posted by rcm

Lots of people seem to forget that a well maintained analog machine running dolby SR has a dynamic range that far surpasses the dynamic range of a CD.

I smell bullshit

[joeq]

In the Good Old Days of recording classical to analog, I remember sitting with a score and riding gain because the quiet parts were too damn quiet and the loud parts were too damn loud. This is a distortion of the performance which was often considered the lesser of two evils. But when the exciting crescendo came, it was not so exciting because the 'quiet' part was already up and the loud part was pulled down a bit.

Classical people were the first to get on board with digital. Most that I spoke with cited the dynamic range and the noise floor as the reason. I am speaking of musicians and fans, not engineer-types.

My classical clients love editing on the computer. Editing in classical can be very intensive, I used to get sore arms from rocking the reels on my 2 track. Every splice was an adventure, and not in a good way.

And speaking of reels, digital also wins for uninterrupted recording time. Reel changes can be critical at live shows. I used to ask conductors if they could stall a bit here, or scan the program for a spot when the chorus was going to shift or a soloist was coming out. Anyplace where I had some time.

I even practiced my flying edits, though I never actually used one at a job.

[klaukholm]

I agree that there are some great sounding recordings from the 60's
My personal favourites are Chicago Symphony with Fritz Reiner, particularly Also Sprach Zarathustra (strauss). These recordings were made with as few as 2 microphones. I believe the greatness of these recordings are due to the careful manifulation of the orchestra by the conductor, and the vast amount of time spent on finding Orchestra Hall's sweetspots. Unfortunately there is a lot of noise and coloring from the tape. I wish I could have heard those sessions on DSD.

The top classical producers, Tom Lazarus (classicsound), Epstein (Sony Studios), Polyhymnia etc all use Digital. I would love to know of any top producers still using analogue.


This reminds me of the Gut/metal string discussions. We love gut for what it does well, but the problems are far greater than the benefits. What is a great pizz sound worth if pitch suffers.

kjetil

[Pepe Ortega]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

we use neutral mics and preamps.

Reasons include:
Better noisefloor
Greater dynamic range
Simpler and more powerful edting

Kjetil

Same reasons for me.

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

I agree that there are some great sounding recordings from the 60's
Unfortunately there is a lot of noise and coloring from the tape. I wish I could have heard those sessions on DSD.

The top classical producers, Tom Lazarus (classicsound), Epstein (Sony Studios), Polyhymnia etc all use Digital. I would love to know of any top producers still using analogue.
kjetil

i don't know.......i suspect sony helped make analog dissappear......i've done
several quartets on to 2" 8 track with no nr and not even emm labs + dsd
can approach that sound and depth - 3 8 tracks locked up for a
classical session would be worth every penny imho...........
i would like to experiment more with dsd.......but the three 8 tracks are
cheaper........

also "top producer" is an apochryphal term in today's world
we live in a time where mediocrity is celebrated and wins grammys.......
the "top producer" in today's world is more likely to be corporate
friendly than an innovator......


be well


- jack

[picksail]

No tape noise.

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

also "top producer" is an apochryphal term in today's world
we live in a time where mediocrity is celebrated and wins grammys.......
the "top producer" in today's world is more likely to be corporate
friendly than an innovator......

I know as I have played on some very mediocre cd's produced by grammy nominated producers...

But you must agree that epstein, lazarus and the men and women at polyhymnia do innovative and very classy work.

kjetil

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

i would like to experiment more with dsd.......but the three 8 tracks are
cheaper........

there goes the budget argument...

[themaidsroom]

look for one of those titles you mentioned from speakers corner vinyl.......
there is a german man named evert menting who works in hanover, germany.....
the vinyl he cuts right now from analog masters blows away ANYTHING - by
leaps and bounds........better than any SACD.....to my ear....i don't know what he's doing.....king kong like sounds coming from the turntable....really 3d.........all he would tell me is that
it's 100% analog........i'm hoping to work with him on some pop stuff this spring.....
as for the lable you mentioned, i don't don't them, so i must educate myself.....


p.s. my grandfather was conceived in stockholm........


be well


- jack

[Inner Light]

I also think that space requirements are a factor, you have to change tapes etc where as with hard drives you can do alot more recording without stopping.

I was so surprised this past summer when editing an album with a producer/conducter of a choir recording. For such purists they sure cut up the stuff like madmen. it's nuts.

[klaukholm]

Polyhymnia is not a label, they are a recording company.
check out their latest work Bartok Concerto for Orchestra with Philadelphia on the ONDINE label.

The editing in the classical business has gone way overboard. Mostly its a way for lesser orchestras to compete with the big boys.
Philadelphia has gone back to the Reiner days by releasing only live recordings.
They edit, but the edits are taken from the 3 concerts they do of a given program.
Its not unusual to do 100-300 takes for 60 minutes of music. Chambermusic has more.

Ultimately its our way of dealing with pitch and rhythm. We don't use pitch correction and rarely mess with rhythm, so we are stuck doing it until we get it right. Sometimes early retirement is the only fix....

kjetil

[joeq]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

...Ultimately its our way of dealing with pitch and rhythm. We don't use pitch correction and rarely mess with rhythm, so we are stuck doing it until we get it right...

kjetil

but the fact that these edits work is a tribute to the control and consistency of these musicians. And at least at some point they do get it right, which is more than you can say for some of their rock/pop counterparts.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by joeq

but the fact that these edits work is a tribute to the control and consistency of these musicians. And at least at some point they do get it right, which is more than you can say for some of their rock/pop counterparts.

Maybe, but just because someone is holding an oboe or a violin doesn't automatically make them 'supermusician'.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by max cooper

Maybe, but just because someone is holding an oboe or a violin doesn't automatically make them 'supermusician'.

Totally agree. I have been there, for sure.

[Plush]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcm

Lots of people seem to forget that a well maintained analog machine running dolby SR has a dynamic range that far surpasses the dynamic range of a CD.

I smell bullshit
__________________
Dan Roth
Otitis Media
otitis-media.net


Of course RCM's post is totally true. SR does have the capability to have more dynamic range than a CD.

Not all classical recording is done digital. There are excellent projects that are recorded on analog tape--especially string quartets, string orchestra, early music ensembles.

It used to be that the classical engineer who recorded analog was considered a troglodite or someone who wasn't "up to speed" with the latest techniques. Digital reigned!

Then critical listeners heard that cheap digital sounded extra bad.

Top converters and low jitter machines can yield a great sound.
Analog recording costs ten times as much as digital and that was before the shortage of analog tape. Now is costs 25 times as much.

Formats must match the project and sometimes analog is outstanding.

We are using Nagra T-Audio and Studer 1/2"

[joelpatterson]

If something has "more dynamic range than a CD" then what happens when you put it on a CD? Uhhhh....

[fifthcircle]

I find for lots of classical recording, I prefer digital. Makes life much easier- for long works (of which there are plenty), you don't need to worry about running out of tape in the middle of a movement. I also like the clarity and transient nature that digital recording gives me.

I use good converters whenever possible (some concert recording is strictly documentary and for those the Lavry's stay home), and I use great mics and preamps. Not all are completely transparent, so the transparency of a complete signal chain isn't a problem. I've also used some great analog gear where noise floor isn't an issue- heck the mics can have a higher noise floor than the tape (ie some old tube and ribbon mics).

When I mix, I can use delays on spot mics so that I can time align every mic- (something that you can't do easily in analog) and as somebody else mentioned, editing is a world easier (try doing a 3/4 second fade on 1/4" tape at 15 ips).

It is all about tools and what gives you the sound you're looking for. To me, the whole analog vs. digital argument is pretty lame.

--Ben

[tINY]

You may prefer the sound of the tapes and vinyl, But, resonably well done digital recording is much more accurate. That is what most traditional ensembles are after.

I bought a Brian Willson Christmas album this year. It was recorded digitally. I have to say that for the effects used to make his unique vocal technique sound good, the analog tape worked better than the digital recording on this album (at least they didn't use a bunch of punch-ins and autotune).

Sometimes, accurate isn't prefered, I guess.




-tINY

[the1Hub]

ultimatly its the performance that counts... even if theres a hundred edits. with the classical recordings we do our ultimate goal is to capture the sound of the performance the way in wich it was performed. and i feel that even with all of digitals faults, it ultimatly is less invasive on a performance then analog machines. as for the editing and other benifits i think they are merly a bonus. with that said i think there are several other things beyond the actual performance that can effect the sound. mic placement is a big one, probably more important then the medium to wich you track.

for what its worth we use emm lab adac8mkiv genex/pyramix to DSD.

aaron

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by tINY

Sometimes, accurate isn't prefered, I guess.

I think accuracy is a rather elusive goal in recording.... IMO, there is really no such thing as an accurate recording. Every recording is an approximation of an event that happened in real time. No microphone works the way our ears do so it is up to us as engineers to decide which approximation works best.

Many of the classical recordings that audiophiles and purists hold in high regard were made with decidedly un-transparent/un-accurate gear. (tube/ribbon mics and tube preamps) Today's classical stuff is usually done with very transparent gear... Why the change? What is accurate?

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but we need to remember what we're working with and what we're trying to accomplish...

--Ben

[u b k]

i have a reel of some classical piece i don't recognize, which i occasionally pop onto the studer for a listen. it is riveting to listen to, hiss and all. no classical cd does the same thing to me.

so if you ask me why so many classical recordings are ddd, i'd say, "they've forgotten."


gregoire
del ubik

[RecTeach]

Great topic !!! I am an orchestral percussionist so this is right up my alley.

First some thoughts:

- IMHO the most "pure/natural" sound you can get is from just two mics placed about 4-6 feet over and behind the conductors head.

- "Spot mic'ing" while sometimes a nec. evil often times ruins things for me. I can't stand hearing a triangle, that is marked "ppp", come roaring out of the mix because some jag off put a mic two inches from it. Besides, you don't even get 1/10 of the full overtone spectrum until you are at least 6-10 feet away.

- In a "perfect" world you would set the gain to accept the highest peak then leave everything alone. Personally this is the way I do it because quite simply it's just more natural. However there are those times when I have to bite my ass and do some leveling in the really soft areas.

- The old Cleveland, Philly and Chicago recording circa 1950-68' are among the best. However a lot of it had to do with the conductors and players.


Now a question/survey...

How many simultaneous recordings do you guys have going for security in case your "main" computer/drive dies on you?

[Gerax]

I agree with the above comments about noise floor, dynamic range and ease of editing. I come from a pop/rock background, but here in Italy I had to develop the skills to be able to work with classical/contemporary music, so I think I have kind of a mixed approach: I'm not an audiophile purist, I just want my recordings to sound the best they can, so I'll use whatever it takes to achieve that; if that means using 16 spot mics on a 40 piece orchestra I'll do it, or if the best solution is to use a simple ORTF stereo pair for the whole thing that's what I'll be doing.
I record to digital because of the above factors, and because I guess it would be impractical to lug a 2"/24trk machine around the venues I record in, which can range from the town concert hall to a small theater to a little church with breathtaking reverb...
Let alone editing: with some of younger the directors and producers I work with the piece is really done in post production, where we sit down with the score and choose and assemble the best parts from the multiple takes recorded of the performance. I also EQ and time align spot mics to match the sound coming from the main pair; that works for me; I may be considered an iconoclastic jerk, but my clients (which are among the best musicians and producers in the major Italian orchestras) are happy with the results and keep coming at me...maybe a good sign. I admit that I'm a bit conservative about doing too many edits or radical EQs (sometimes I've actually been asked to speed a piece up for some sections...so here we go with Time Stretching ), but that's the way this kind of music goes today...everybody knows that there's editing, that there's digital reverb and that even live records aren't live anymore (well...most of them are just studio records with applause at the end and some coughs here and there), but I think the majority of the producers have gone thru this "it's gotta be real" kind of approach and just go for the best sounding, most enjoyable but still realistic and true record they can make. That's my goal too.

As for how many mediums it's good to record with: never less than 2, even though it depends on the situation; when tracking for a record I run my HD recorder (multitrack) and a simple CDrW with a rough mix for reference at the end of the session; for live performances (where you cannot afford to loose anything) I run the HD recorder and a set of DA78 machines (tape...) at 24 bits as backup, plus the CDRw, unless something like an extintion level catastrophic event arises I'm pretty sure I'm bringing something home.

Cheers

L.G.