Examples of early digital recordings?

[Groucho]

I frequently read that in the early days of digital recording, nobody knew what they were doing and it was only later when oversampling ADCs, dither and so on came along that digital became half-acceptable. So aside from poorly-mastered CDs, are there any examples of early digital recordings where we can definitely point to problems in the process, rather than just poor production? (A recording of 80s pop based on the bafflingly-popular Yamaha DX7 synthesiser and using early digital reverb effects is always going to have dubious sound quality whatever the recording medium!)

It's fascinating that Decca Classical were pioneering digital recording in the 1970s using virtually prototype equipment sometimes built on Veroboard so, according to received wisdom, their recordings must have been truly terrible. Can anyone point to any examples I could listen to where the defects in the digital process reveal themselves noticeably?

There's a fascinating piece about Decca digital here http://www.mancini99.freeserve.co.uk/Decca_1.html

My still operational system (fingers crossed) is I believe one of only three Decca digital tape recorders now left in the UK, and is probably the only one in private hands. It consists of a 20 bit analogue to digital converter, a signal processing unit (codec) with timecode facilities, a modified IVC 800 series helical video tape transport, and an 18 bit digital to analogue converter.

This was all done before PCs were fast enough and therefore Decca built their own editing computers and memory systems. Semiconductor memory was also used to store a limited amount of the actual digitized audio itself. This was to speed up the editing process while the mechanical tape machines 'caught up'.

Almost all of the Decca system was of their own design and manufacture, at first with their own soldering irons and 'Veroboard', though later subcontractors were used. But most final assembly and programming remained 'in house'.

 

[Bruce B]

The PNWAS had a meeting last year with Jules Bloomenthal discussing the Soundstream system. First used by Telarc, Delos, RCA and Phillips, the first digital recording of an orchestra was in 1976 by a 2-track 16/37k Soundstream recorder.

 

[Groucho]

The PNWAS had a meeting last year with Jules Bloomenthal discussing the Soundstream system. First used by Telarc, Delos, RCA and Phillips, the first digital recording of an orchestra was in 1976 by a 2-track 16/37k Soundstream recorder.

Absolutely fascinating - thanks for that.

audiosociety.org/audioletter/Audioletter%20May%202011.pdf

You can find many of the recordings listed as being made in the mid-70s on Spotify. For example this version of the 1812 from 1978:
http://open.spotify.com/track/4pef09BK6reTEIS1jgVInJ

Or Linda Ronstadt from 1976:
http://open.spotify.com/track/6GXnW8Dd8zWsXoPrElcTGr

It would be interesting to know what people think of the quality (320kbps Ogg Vorbis on Spotify should be good enough to highlight the terrible-ness of nearly-40 year old digital audio, built using wirewrap shouldn't it..? There may even be some 741 op amps in the signal chain I shouldn't wonder.)

 

[Ethan Winer]

are there any examples of early digital recordings where we can definitely point to problems in the process, rather than just poor production?

I doubt it. Early digital had excellent fidelity, surely much better than analog tape recorders of the time. I recently wrote an article about exactly this issue:

Early Digital

--Ethan

 

[Groucho]

...the first commercial digital recording was Nippon Columbia NCB-7003, "Something" by Steve Marcus, released January 1971.

It might be fascinating to hear this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MARCUS-St...?pt=UK_CDsDVDs_CDs_CDs_GL&hash=item2a2d619f38

It's quite something to think where I was in 1971, and yet at the same time there were commercial digital recordings being made.

 

[mep]

Check out all of the first Beatles CDs that were released if you want some really yummy digital.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Tom Jung was involved in some early digital work in the mid-'70s with Sound 80. Know they had released some LP but not sure if they were ever released on CD.

http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/604jung/

 

[Groucho]

I doubt it. Early digital had excellent fidelity, surely much better than analog tape recorders of the time. I recently wrote an article about exactly this issue.

That's great, thanks Ethan. I was just looking for an angle to get around the impasse that maintains that digital audio can never be acceptable even using modern techniques. There is no way to prove this, but I thought that if even digital audio from 1976 could be shown to OK, it might suggest that modern digital is pretty reasonable, to say the least.

 

[Ethan Winer]

the impasse that maintains that digital audio can never be acceptable even using modern techniques. There is no way to prove this

It is absolutely possible to prove that modern digital has "acceptable" fidelity. I've done it many times. Here's a recent example:

Converter Loop-Back Tests

It's equally possible to prove that analog tape and vinyl records have noticeably poorer fidelity than modern digital. Now, some people enjoy the distortion of those analog mediums, and that's fine. But the notion that modern (or ancient) digital is somehow inferior to analog recorders is trivial to disprove.

--Ethan

 

[mep]

It is absolutely possible to prove that modern digital has "acceptable" fidelity. I've done it many times. Here's a recent example:

Converter Loop-Back Tests

It's equally possible to prove that analog tape and vinyl records have noticeably poorer fidelity than modern digital. Now, some people enjoy the distortion of those analog mediums, and that's fine. But the notion that modern (or ancient) digital is somehow inferior to analog recorders is trivial to disprove.

--Ethan

You might able able to prove that some of the typical measurements used on audio gear would show that some of the measurements for digital recording gear are superior to analog tape measurements, but you won't be able to *prove* that the digital recording gear sounds better. Most people don't buy recordings based on measurements, they buy them based on sound. And if people did buy music being made today based on measurements, they certainly wouldn't want to buy today's digital recordings that have been compressed so badly there is no dynamic range.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Another comparison :

Mc donalds /burger king is Digital .
Fresh barbequed meat and homemadefries is analogue

 

[Ethan Winer]

you won't be able to *prove* that the digital recording gear sounds better.

The very definition of high fidelity is accuracy, and it's easy to prove that digital is more accurate. Now, if you like the sound of slight distortion from tubes and tape and vinyl, that's fine. You can capture that digitally too with perfect accuracy.

they certainly wouldn't want to buy today's digital recordings that have been compressed so badly there is no dynamic range.

That's a straw man argument because the practice of adding too much compression has nothing to do with the medium itself.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Check out all of the first Beatles CDs that were released if you want some really yummy digital.

The Beatles didn't make any digital recordings.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You might able able to prove that some of the typical measurements used on audio gear would show that some of the measurements for digital recording gear are superior to analog tape measurements, but you won't be able to *prove* that the digital recording gear sounds better. Most people don't buy recordings based on measurements, they buy them based on sound. And if people did buy music being made today based on measurements, they certainly wouldn't want to buy today's digital recordings that have been compressed so badly there is no dynamic range.

Substitue "accepted industry standards" for "typical measurements" and "higher fidelity to the source" for "some of the measurement" and you have an accurate statement. Of course that doesn't prove that digital "sounds better." You might not like a recording of a violin that is more faithful to the sound of the violin. That's subjective.

Back on topic, wasn't Ry Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop" the first commercial all-digital recording?

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

Back on topic, wasn't Ry Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop" the first commercial all-digital recording?

Yes it was. The first live direct digital recording that I know of was Joe Jackson's Big World CD 1986. No post production at all. Peter Gabriel also did Security all digital in 1982.

Rob

 

[NorthStar]

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms; was it also an all digital album?

Classical albums; some of them are all digital (I got few of those, and some are so thin that they probably weight only 100 grams or so).
What are your impressions on them? ...Me, I found that the piano (as best example) sounds way too "digital" indeed (no real life, unrealistic).

* Here's what I truly find: Albums are closer to the real thing, and CDs are more distant.
Why? Because live musical performances are not sterile, they are imperfect in all their small 'minute' details.
And in general albums are more representative of these facts. ...Digital adds a layer of 'shine' which 'sterilize' the original event; be it live or in the studio.

Analog well done and played back on the proper gear sounds fabulous.
Digital well done and played back on the proper gear sounds fabulous too.
It's just that the degree of 'fabulousness' is relative to our emotional groove of that moment in space and time.

No bias here, no belief, no religion, no politics, no economics, no partisanship, just an out-of-the-body experience.
Also, like we have been talking before, the live musical performance is one thing, and the reproduction at home from our analog or digital devices is totally a different thing, and that you cannot really relate them together, or unless you want to be further away of the true essence. ...Which is the experience of the moment with the emotional impact that comes with it.

...Just what I experienced in my lifetime; no more no less, no love, no hatred. ...Only the emotional vibrating chords inside my body, heart, and soul.

I prefer analog albums over those digital ones.
As for CDs (AAA, AAD, ADD, DDD); I prefer the AAA ones. ...But it is my set of ears that contributes to my overall preference, and my set of ears is unique; there isn't another set like it anywhere else on our planet.
And the word 'preference' has as different meanings as there are people on Earth.

Digital was a compromise right from the beginning, and still is. The proof? ...Just look at the resurgence of Analog!

1. Ry Cooder - Bop Till you Drop
2. Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
3. Several Classical albums.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms; was it also an all digital album?

Classical albums; some of them are all digital (I got few of those, and some are so thin that they probably weight only 100 grams or so).
What are your impressions on them? ...Me, I found that the piano (as best example) sounds way too "digital" indeed (no real life, unrealistic).

* Here's what I truly find: Albums are closer to the real thing, and CDs are more distant.
Why? Because live musical performances are not sterile, they are imperfect in all their small 'minute' details.
And in general albums are more representative of these facts. ...Digital adds a layer of 'shine' which 'sterilize' the original event; be it live or in the studio.

Analog well done and played back on the proper gear sounds fabulous.
Digital well done and played back on the proper gear sounds fabulous too.
It's just that the degree of 'fabulousness' is relative to our emotional groove of that moment in space and time.

No bias here, no belief, no religion, no politics, no economics, no partisanship, just an out-of-the-body experience.
Also, like we have been talking before, the live musical performance is one thing, and the reproduction at home from our analog or digital devices is totally a different thing, and that you cannot really relate them together, or unless you want to be further away of the true essence. ...Which is the experience of the moment with the emotional impact that comes with it.

...Just what I experienced in my lifetime; no more no less, no love, no hatred. ...Only the emotional vibrating chords inside my body, heart, and soul.

I prefer analog albums over those digital ones.
As for CDs (AAA, AAD, ADD, DDD); I prefer the AAA ones. ...But it is my set of ears that contributes to my overall preference, and my set of ears is unique; there isn't another set like it anywhere else on our planet.
And the word 'preference' has as different meanings as there are people on Earth.

Digital was a compromise right from the beginning, and still is. The proof? ...Just look at the resurgence of Analog!

1. Ry Cooder - Bop Till you Drop
2. Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
3. Several Classical albums.

Yes, Bob. Brothers in Arms is a digital recording. 1984. Terrible thing, too. No warmth. No spaciousness. Just cold, hard, analytical sound. And I think it has only sold about 30 million copies so far...

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

The Beatles didn't make any digital recordings.

Tim

Analog Mono.

 

[mep]

The very definition of high fidelity is accuracy, and it's easy to prove that digital is more accurate. Now, if you like the sound of slight distortion from tubes and tape and vinyl, that's fine. You can capture that digitally too with perfect accuracy.



That's a straw man argument because the practice of adding too much compression has nothing to do with the medium itself.

--Ethan

Everything you don't agree with seems to get labeled as a straw man argument. I simply made a statement that today's digital recordings are compressed badly. Do they have to be compressed because they are digital? Of course not and I never said they did. Reverse straw man argument on your part me thinks.

 

[mep]

The Beatles didn't make any digital recordings.

Tim

Tim-I know you know better than to say something this stupid and I hope you are kidding. I know that you know that I was referring to the all of the Beatles CDs when they were first released around 1986. Of course the Beatles didn't make any digital recordings, but their master tapes sure were converted to digital files and made into CDs.