[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

I was reading the monthly column in a well-known audio magazine by an equal=
ly well known audio journalist today and realized that this journalist simp=
ly hasn't a clue about digital sound and how it works. He was discussing a =
new box-set of stereo LPs of all of the Beatles albums. It seems that Apple=
records mastered these LPs from the 16-bit/44.1 KHz ADC conversions of the=
original analog master tapes, rather than going back to the original maste=
rs themselves. The excuse given by an Apple Records spokesperson for why th=
ey took this route rather than doing a proper re-mastering from the edited =
analog session masters was that Apple didn't want to risk damage to the ori=
ginals. This journalist wondered why keep master tapes at all if not to use=
them for re-issues. While I agree with him that LP reissues should be made=
from the original analog source material, It is his following conclusion t=
hat I find rather clueless. This journalist went on to say that an analog m=
aster has an infinite amount of information on it (!) and as digital gets b=
etter, one can always go back and "mine" those masters for more and more de=
tail. He went on to say that the moment one digitizes an analog source, som=
ething is lost that can never be retrieved from that digitized result. To m=
e this shows a basic lack of understanding on this journalist's part about =
the basic nature of both an analog recording and a digital copy of same.=20

The first thing that this writer gets wrong is the notion that an analog ma=
ster tape has an infinite amount of information on it. Anyone who has any t=
echnical experience with professional audio recording will tell you that pr=
o analog tape recorders, whether two track stereo or 48 track machines runn=
ing two-inch wide tape at 15 ups, they are (were?) generally only maintaine=
d to 15KHz. Head alignment, EQ, bias, etc. was all set so that a clean 15 K=
Hz can be laid-down and retrieved reliably. Frequencies above that are simp=
ly not practical and things like over biasing to maintain low distortion an=
d self erasure due to the signal's own high-frequency content pretty much l=
imited the top end response on even the finest studio recorders. Add to tha=
t the frequency response characteristics of most microphones used by studio=
s (especially when the Beatles were recording) and you will find that most =
of them had a rather large frequency response peak at roughly 16 KHz (cause=
d by the resonance of the microphone's diaphragm) above which, the output =
of said capsules dropped off like a falling stone. Add to that the fact tha=
t even with the addition of Dolby A noise reduction, somewhere in the regio=
n of about 76 dB ( half track/15 ips) is about the limit on dynamic range, =
then one can start to see that the notion that an analog master tape has "i=
nfinite information" on it is simply ludicrous. 16-bit/
44.1 KHz digital is better in every way: Lower distortion, wider, flatter f=
requency response, more dynamic range, etc. From his wording, one gathers t=
hat this audio journalist still believes that because digital quantization =
"samples" an analog signal, that music "between the samples" is forever and=
irrecoverably lost.=20

Now, I don't give a hoot or a holler in Hell about the Beatles on LP or any=
other media, but I do agree with this article's author that if someone is =
plunking down a big hunk of change for a big boxed set of=20
LPs, that he ought to be getting a pure analog experience (after all, if th=
e LPs are just copies of Red Book digital masters, then one might as well j=
ust buy the CDs), but his notion that the analog masters simply have more i=
nformation on them than a digital copy of those masters is simply and unaba=
shedly misleading and wrong.

Comments? Other points of view?

Audio_Empire