From: zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo)
Subject: Re: The failed promise of CD (part n of many)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:34:51 GMT
Organization: Inter/Access' Matrix BBS

In article <1992Sep25.194511.9832@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>The only thing that dissapoints me about CD is not due to CD technology
>itself.  In the pop/progressive/rock recording world, there are still very
>few DDD recordings -- what's with this?

There are 2 main reasons for this:

Up until about a year ago, digital multitrack recording was
incredibly expensive.  Only musical acts that could afford to spend
tens of thousands of dollars on the recording studio part of the 
job could go digital multitrack.  Digital mixdown (2 track master;
the middle letter in 'DDD') has been in the realm of reasonably
priced studios since the early 80's so that's why most CDs made
in the last 10 years are ADD.

Last year saw the introduction of 'PRO TOOLS', a Mac based hard
disk based digital editing/multitrack system.  It's about
one tenth the price of previous high end systems like it.  A couple
of months ago saw the introduction of the ALESIS multitrack
digital tape recorder.  Not nearly as flexible as a hard disk based
system, but about one twentieth the price of similar digital tape
recorders by SONY and MITSUBISHI (mind you the really expensive
systems ARE indeed built like tanks; the ALESIS is in the realm
of 'semi pro' gear, but it still *sounds* like amazing crystal
clear digital).

The second reason that there isn't as much digital multitrack (the
first letter in 'DDD') is because many producers/engineers like the
sound of analog better.  Analog tape saturation gives a very 
pleasing compression/warm distortion to sounds.  When I say pleasing
I mean that it softens the sounds; makes it less brittle.  Analog
tape can actually hide certain low level flaws in the recording as 
well.  As far as noise goes, high end analog multitrack has been
as quiet as digital for about a decade.  Very recently, new tape
formulas have produced results that are better than the best
digital multitracks.

When CDs first came out, many people complained about the harsh
brittle sound.  It wasn't the CD technology that was at fault.
When producers/engineers used to mix the records knowing that
they would end up on analog 2 track master and then on vinyl
(another 'softening of the sound' process) they would tend
to mix it a bit harsher than 'proper' because they knew it
would smooth itself out by the time it got to vinyl (or cassette
or 8-track).  Couple this with the fact a lot of musicians
and engineers are somewhat deaf (especially in the high 
frequencies) and you can see why many CDs sounded too brittle
to some people (with presumably good hearing).  The CD produced
exactly the same sound that the engineer heard in the control
room at the studio.  No vinyl pre-master. No vinyl.

As a side note:  Some companies sell (and are perfecting) a device
which digitally simulates that property of analog tape that so
many engineers like.


>Even CDs that sound no better then LPs (due to AAD or just bad recordings)
>are better then LPs because they are a million times more convenient and
>don't get worn out with repeated plays.

I agree.  I play way more CDs than I ever did LPs.  Sometimes I was
so lazy to play records because I had junk piled on top of my
record player.  Buying used CDs is a zillion times better than buying
used records.  The concept of 'double album' has been lost now.
a 40 minute CD is still perceived the same as a 75 minute CD almost.
And it costs the same.

ferenc