"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:BXxTb.205247$I06.2268485@attbi_s01...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:V7xTb.163973$5V2.843197@attbi_s53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Apropos the often cited "attention to mastering" cited hear as a reason
for
quality reproduction.

This afternoon I put on the Bonnie Raitt CD "Luck of the Draw", first to
listen to and later to compare the Redbook reproduction of my Sony
C222ES to
the Toshiba 4700. It slowly dawned on me that this was certainly a
superior
sounding CD compared to most. So when I had finished the comparison, I
opened the booklet to see what I could find about the recording, done in
1991.

There it was - AAD. The booklet made a thing out the fact that the
album
was recorded and mixed down on analog tape and was not transcribed to
digital until the final mastering.

Speaks for itself, I guess.

Yes, it speaks precisely "for itself" and nothing else.


Well, it speaks for the fact that in an era when most pop/rock/country CD's
were mastered all digital, this one sounds exceptional using tape and analog
mixing, as did most of the '70's rock that thas been transferred to
SACD...better than all but a very few DDD.

And, Harry, READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE:

"this one sounds exceptional, ... better than all but a very few
DDD"

In which you just demonstrate that it is NOT the fact that it is AAD,
because you also say that there exist DDD that work, too.

As a counter: the recordings done by Gabe Weiner, especially for the
"Buxtehude project" are some of the absolutely most natural and realistic
sounding recordings I ever heard. And they're DDD.

And that speaks for itself, also, eh?

Assuming I heard the CD (?) and agreed with you, yes it would. We might not
listen for the same things in judging what is "absolutely most natural and
realistic" (but then again we might).

I certainly agree that knowledgeable use of any recording technology can
turn out superb recordings. It's just that AAD was very much an exception
in 1991 and the results very much better than the average sound of the day.

Yup, according TO YOU, superb DDD recordings exist as do superb AAD
recordings. I have superb DDD recording, I have superb ADD recordings,
I have superb AAD recordings and I have superb AAA recordings.

I also have MANY MORE not-so-superb or even downright bad DDD, ADD,
AAD and AAA recordings. And, frankly, I think the ratios are about
the same.

One reason for the "nostalgia" of old AAA recordings, and a GOOD
reason, is that MANY recordings of the '60's and '70's did not
suffer from the preposterous over-production that is commonplace
today (over the last 20 years, really). But that there were bad
recording then is certainly true. I recall well, and, in fact,
just relistened to the COlumbia recordings of E. Power Biggs on
the Flentrop at the Busch-Resinegr Museum at Harvard. I am pretty
familiar with the instrument, having heard it live many, many times.
The recordings do NOT sound like the instrument and the hall. They
are nice recordings, they are NOT natural sounding.

And, yes, there are MNAY more bad recordings today, simply because
there are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more recordings available.

But it ain't digital: incompetent recording, mastering and production
has no need of digital as an excuse: it's just plain incompetence.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:_AATb.212334$na.345997@attbi_s04...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:BXxTb.205247$I06.2268485@attbi_s01...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:V7xTb.163973$5V2.843197@attbi_s53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Apropos the often cited "attention to mastering" cited hear as a
reason
for
quality reproduction.

This afternoon I put on the Bonnie Raitt CD "Luck of the Draw",
first to
listen to and later to compare the Redbook reproduction of my Sony
C222ES to
the Toshiba 4700. It slowly dawned on me that this was certainly a
superior
sounding CD compared to most. So when I had finished the
comparison, I
opened the booklet to see what I could find about the recording,
done in
1991.

There it was - AAD. The booklet made a thing out the fact that the
album
was recorded and mixed down on analog tape and was not transcribed
to
digital until the final mastering.

Speaks for itself, I guess.

Yes, it speaks precisely "for itself" and nothing else.


Well, it speaks for the fact that in an era when most pop/rock/country
CD's
were mastered all digital, this one sounds exceptional using tape and
analog
mixing, as did most of the '70's rock that thas been transferred to
SACD...better than all but a very few DDD.

And, Harry, READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE:

"this one sounds exceptional, ... better than all but a very few
DDD"

In which you just demonstrate that it is NOT the fact that it is AAD,
because you also say that there exist DDD that work, too.

As a counter: the recordings done by Gabe Weiner, especially for the
"Buxtehude project" are some of the absolutely most natural and
realistic
sounding recordings I ever heard. And they're DDD.

And that speaks for itself, also, eh?

Assuming I heard the CD (?) and agreed with you, yes it would. We might
not
listen for the same things in judging what is "absolutely most natural
and
realistic" (but then again we might).

I certainly agree that knowledgeable use of any recording technology can
turn out superb recordings. It's just that AAD was very much an
exception
in 1991 and the results very much better than the average sound of the
day.

Yup, according TO YOU, superb DDD recordings exist as do superb AAD
recordings. I have superb DDD recording, I have superb ADD recordings,
I have superb AAD recordings and I have superb AAA recordings.

I also have MANY MORE not-so-superb or even downright bad DDD, ADD,
AAD and AAA recordings. And, frankly, I think the ratios are about
the same.

One reason for the "nostalgia" of old AAA recordings, and a GOOD
reason, is that MANY recordings of the '60's and '70's did not
suffer from the preposterous over-production that is commonplace
today (over the last 20 years, really). But that there were bad
recording then is certainly true. I recall well, and, in fact,
just relistened to the COlumbia recordings of E. Power Biggs on
the Flentrop at the Busch-Resinegr Museum at Harvard. I am pretty
familiar with the instrument, having heard it live many, many times.
The recordings do NOT sound like the instrument and the hall. They
are nice recordings, they are NOT natural sounding.

And, yes, there are MNAY more bad recordings today, simply because
there are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more recordings available.

But it ain't digital: incompetent recording, mastering and production
has no need of digital as an excuse: it's just plain incompetence.


I actually agree with you more than not. However I would point out a few
"modifiers":

a) in the late '60's and '70's, all studio tape equipment was professional
quality, and there was an apprentice system to learning how to maintain and
use it well.

b) in the late '80's and '90's a lot of "studios" had less-than-terrific
digital equipment mixed in and every musician recording thought he could be
a recording engineer as well. It is very easy to get crappy digital
recording under these conditions.

So by the late '80's a lot of musicians and producers who cared about sound
quality were specifying recording and mixing to tape, because that way they
got better sounding results. Presumably this was a function of equipment
and the skill to use it properly among those who continued to appreciate
this technology. But from the musicians point of view, it was that they
"preferred" their sound on tape, and felt it sounded better.

This trend continues to this day for some musicians who care about sound
quality. *They* think it sounds better and want their music on tape, not
digital. Whether better or not, it usually sounds superb.

And there is no question that the '70's "sound" for pop/rock has not been
surpassed, digital or no.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:V7xTb.163973$5V2.843197@attbi_s53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Apropos the often cited "attention to mastering" cited hear as a reason
for
quality reproduction.

This afternoon I put on the Bonnie Raitt CD "Luck of the Draw", first to
listen to and later to compare the Redbook reproduction of my Sony
C222ES to
the Toshiba 4700. It slowly dawned on me that this was certainly a
superior
sounding CD compared to most. So when I had finished the comparison, I
opened the booklet to see what I could find about the recording, done in
1991.

There it was - AAD. The booklet made a thing out the fact that the
album
was recorded and mixed down on analog tape and was not transcribed to
digital until the final mastering.

Speaks for itself, I guess.

Yes, it speaks precisely "for itself" and nothing else.


Well, it speaks for the fact that in an era when most pop/rock/country CD's
were mastered all digital, this one sounds exceptional using tape and analog
mixing, as did most of the '70's rock that thas been transferred to
SACD...better than all but a very few DDD.

The existence of even *one* of those very few DDD, invalidates any
idea that DDD is necessarily deterimental.


I certainly agree that knowledgeable use of any recording technology can
turn out superb recordings. It's just that AAD was very much an exception
in 1991 and the results very much better than the average sound of the day.


How can you claim that, Harry, unless you have enough AAD recordings
to form an idea of the 'average' in that class too?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Harry Lavo" wrote:



"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:V7xTb.163973$5V2.843197@attbi_s53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Apropos the often cited "attention to mastering" cited hear as a reason
for
quality reproduction.

This afternoon I put on the Bonnie Raitt CD "Luck of the Draw", first to
listen to and later to compare the Redbook reproduction of my Sony
C222ES to
the Toshiba 4700. It slowly dawned on me that this was certainly a
superior
sounding CD compared to most. So when I had finished the comparison, I
opened the booklet to see what I could find about the recording, done in
1991.

There it was - AAD. The booklet made a thing out the fact that the
album
was recorded and mixed down on analog tape and was not transcribed to
digital until the final mastering.

Speaks for itself, I guess.

Yes, it speaks precisely "for itself" and nothing else.


Well, it speaks for the fact that in an era when most pop/rock/country CD's
were mastered all digital, this one sounds exceptional using tape and analog
mixing, as did most of the '70's rock that thas been transferred to
SACD...better than all but a very few DDD.

As a counter: the recordings done by Gabe Weiner, especially for the
"Buxtehude project" are some of the absolutely most natural and realistic
sounding recordings I ever heard. And they're DDD.

And that speaks for itself, also, eh?


Assuming I heard the CD (?) and agreed with you, yes it would. We might not
listen for the same things in judging what is "absolutely most natural and
realistic" (but then again we might).

I certainly agree that knowledgeable use of any recording technology can
turn out superb recordings. It's just that AAD was very much an exception
in 1991 and the results very much better than the average sound of the day.


My recollection was that AAD was quite common in 1991; and even if it weren't
the recording may have been made in 1990 or ever 1989. But thank you for
reminding me that I've been ignoring my love for Bonnie Raitt; I haven't seen
her live since the 4 times in 2001. Or was that 2000?

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

....snip to specific content ......

And there is no question that the '70's "sound" for pop/rock has not been
s
urpassed, digital or no.

IMO that's a pretty low hurdle. I have acquired a full set of Tony Brown/Terry
Garthwaite recordings dubned from lp to cd-r. I had actually forgotten how
awful some of those lp productions were.

LIkewise the SACD/CD of Dark Side of the Moon was a huge disappointment on
either format. Many of those old recordings weren't all that great. I think
that much of the trouble was masked by the extant media.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:IjYTb.210852$I06.2341448@attbi_s01...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...snip to specific content ......

And there is no question that the '70's "sound" for pop/rock has not been
s
urpassed, digital or no.

IMO that's a pretty low hurdle. I have acquired a full set of Tony
Brown/Terry
Garthwaite recordings dubned from lp to cd-r. I had actually forgotten how
awful some of those lp productions were.

LIkewise the SACD/CD of Dark Side of the Moon was a huge disappointment on
either format. Many of those old recordings weren't all that great. I
think
that much of the trouble was masked by the extant media.


I'm not referring to the issued LP's per se; I'm talking about what is on
the master tapes. Want to know what I mean. Come on over and listen to a
pre-recorded open-reel of Janis Joplin's Pearl. Or Loggins and Messina's
Sittin In.

And BTW, on my five full range Thiel surround system, the Dark Side of the
Moon SACD sounds spectacular in surround sound. I don't own the CD, so
can't comment. Ditto for the Police's Every Breath You Take.