Examples of early digital recordings?

[Phelonious Ponk]

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.

Yeah, I was just fooling around. What's truly amusing and has been revisited in this thread, is the fact that "Brothers in Arms," an audiophile touchstone for many, was an early DDD. You can like or dislike Brothers in Arms; it's a bit lush for my tastes. But all the things early digital gets accused of on audiophile forums - harsh, edgy, fatigueing, brittle, analytical, yadayada: It is none of those. Not even close. Warm, expansive, rich...lush...I think I already said that. Of course it had Knopfler and Neil Dorfsman, and on its way to a 24-track digital Sony, Brother in Arms went through a Neve 8078. That certainly didn't hurt. As memory serves, it even sounded good on vinyl.

The point is that it wasn't early digital recording and reproduction technology that sucked. It was early digital recording and reproduction executionthat sucked. If anything demonstrates that it is B i A. Though there are many jazz, classical and new age recordings that demonstrate it as well.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

Everything you don't agree with seems to get labeled as a straw man argument.

No, it was very much a straw man argument. If you don't understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, it was very much a straw man argument. If you don't understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.

--Ethan

It's about as hard to find a straw man around here as it is to find middle-aged guys with a lot of money tied up in audio.

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

Yeah, I was just fooling around. What's truly amusing and has been revisited in this thread, is the fact that "Brothers in Arms," an audiophile touchstone for many, was an early DDD. You can like or dislike Brothers in Arms; it's a bit lush for my tastes. But all the things early digital gets accused of on audiophile forums - harsh, edgy, fatigueing, brittle, analytical, yadayada: It is none of those. Not even close. Warm, expansive, rich...lush...I think I already said that. Of course it had Knopfler and Neil Dorfsman, and on its way to a 24-track digital Sony, Brother in Arms went through a Neve 8078. That certainly didn't hurt. As memory serves, it even sounded good on vinyl.

The point is that it wasn't early digital recording and reproduction technology that sucked. It was early digital recording and reproduction executionthat sucked. If anything demonstrates that it is B i A. Though there are many jazz, classical and new age recordings that demonstrate it as well.

Tim

Interestingly, the Brothers in Arms 2005 SACD was remixed from the original digital multitracks to analog, then captured to DSD.
It is a mind blowing revelation as to how good the recording really is. The digital mixdown of the original was probably its weakest link.

Here is another one that slipped by Rush: Moving Pictures. 44.1/16 digital recording. One of the best sounding rock records I have ever owned..
on vinyl, remastered CD, and the HDTracks download.

While we are at it..Barbra Streisand: Guilty. 48/16 native digital.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Interestingly, the Brothers in Arms 2005 SACD was remixed from the original digital multitracks to analog, then captured to DSD.
It is a mind blowing revelation as to how good the recording really is. The digital mixdown of the original was probably its weakest link.

Here is another one that slipped by Rush: Moving Pictures. 44.1/16 digital recording. One of the best sounding rock records I have ever owned..
on vinyl, remastered CD, and the HDTracks download.

While we are at it..Barbra Streisand: Guilty. 48/16 native digital.

Somebody missed the grunge of a completely unnecessary generation of analog? I'm open to be educated, but I can't think of a single good reason to do this. It's also an artistically questionable to re-mix a classic recording 20 years after its relaease. Are you sure you're not getting confused with the 2005 remix to 5.1?

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

Somebody missed the grunge of a completely unnecessary generation of analog? I'm open to be educated, but I can't think of a single good reason to do this. It's also an artistically questionable to re-mix a classic recording 20 years after its relaease. Are you sure you're not getting confused with the 2005 remix to 5.1?

Tim

No, the SACD has both the 5.1, AND stereo mix downs sourced from the original digital multis, with the stereo being
mixed to analog, then captured in DSD. The surround actually went to 96/24, then to DSD.

Tim, hearing is believing. It simply sounds like no other stereo version I have heard. Many years ago I used to be a remix hater.

I slowly came around when I heard some very, very good remixes of classic albums. In some cases, it is improvement, but I hear
you, the original mix is in our blood.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/brothers-in-arms.html

 

[RBFC]

Isn't the Telarc Firebird their earliest Soundstream recording? I had the LP and it even sounded very good!

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, the SACD has both the 5.1, AND stereo mix downs sourced from the original digital multis, with the stereo being
mixed to analog, then captured in DSD. The surround actually went to 96/24, then to DSD.

Tim, hearing is believing. It simply sounds like no other stereo version I have heard. Many years ago I used to be a remix hater.

I slowly came around when I heard some very, very good remixes of classic albums. In some cases, it is improvement, but I hear
you, the original mix is in our blood.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/brothers-in-arms.html

I'm not a remix hater. I'm completely open to the possiblility that another shot at a mix could be an improvement. God, I would LOVE to see some of Springsteen's classic albums go all the way back to the multi tracks and get a second chance. What really makes no sense in the scenario you've described is the extra generation of analog; that just makes no sense. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But if it has been remixed, I'm sure it sounds like no other version. There wouldn't be any point in a remix if if did.

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

I'm not a remix hater. I'm completely open to the possiblility that another shot at a mix could be an improvement. God, I would LOVE to see some of Springsteen's classic albums go all the way back to the multi tracks and get a second chance. What really makes no sense in the scenario you've described is the extra generation of analog; that just makes no sense. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But if it has been remixed, I'm sure it sounds like no other version. There wouldn't be any point in a remix if if did.

Tim

I really am only open to remixes when the ORIGINAL production team or artists is involved. Roger Glover did a very good
job with the Machine Head remix. But it does not always turn out well.

Ok, back to Brothers in Arms, lets face it, the sound of tape is something that is very appealing. They felt it added body and bit of soul
to the proceedings. When I say it sounds like no other, I did not mean it changed the entire presentation, I meant it sounds like no other
in that it is SO damn punchy, vibrant, alive, and, well...live sounding.

A friend of mine had been pestering me for ages to buy the disc, saying how great it was, and mind you, he is quite a purist..well,
he decided to get around my stubbornness he would buy me the disc for my birthday. When I put it on, I was simply beside my self
at how reach out and touch it it sounded. Again, YMMV. The Redbook layer, while not quite as good, is still excellent.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I just read your link, Andre, and I'm relieved to know they didn't run it through a generation of analogue because they thought it would be a fidelity enhancer.

The link --

Ainlay also faced the fact that pre-emphasis had been applied to the recordings on the DASH tapes. In essence, this was intended to help reduce PCM quantisation noise by basically boosting the high-end on record, and then decreasing it again, with the inverse slope to flatten the response back out on playback. Even today, the problem is there is no practical way to strip the emphasis whilst staying in the digital domain. In the end, the solution Ainlay came-up with was to use the machine’s analogue-outs which would output with the frequency response re-corrected on playback. Moreover, to achieve the best possible sound quality, the team used the latest model of Sony DASH machine they could lay their hands on: the 3348HR which used much better converters than those of the original 3324.

Andre said --

A friend of mine had been pestering me for ages to buy the disc, saying how great it was, and mind you, he is quite a purist..well,
he decided to get around my stubbornness he would buy me the disc for my birthday. When I put it on, I was simply beside my self
at how reach out and touch it it sounded. Again, YMMV. The Redbook layer, while not quite as good, is still excellent.

Is the redbook layer the re-mix/master, or is it the original?

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

I'm not a remix hater. I'm completely open to the possiblility that another shot at a mix could be an improvement. God, I would LOVE to see some of Springsteen's classic albums go all the way back to the multi tracks and get a second chance. What really makes no sense in the scenario you've described is the extra generation of analog; that just makes no sense. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But if it has been remixed, I'm sure it sounds like no other version. There wouldn't be any point in a remix if if did.

Tim

Oh, and while we are at it...how about Sting's Dream of the Blue Turtles and Nothing Like the Sun, and Neil Young's Freedom.

 

[Andre Marc]

I just read your link, Andre, and I'm relieved to know they didn't run it through a generation of analogue because they thought it would be a fidelity enhancer. I'd love to hear that re-mix.

Tim

It is real good Tim. Mind you the original engineer, Chuck Ainley did the work.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Oh, and while we are at it...how about Sting's Dream of the Blue Turtles and Nothing Like the Sun, and Neil Young's Freedom.

All early DDD?

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

All early DDD?

Tim

Yup. Actually, in the movie about the making of the album, Dream, you can see him at one of the earliest
DAW, sitting in front of a computer. What hell that must have been with tiny capacity hard drives, slow
processors and software.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yup. Actually, in the movie about the making of the album, Dream, you can see him at one of the earliest
DAW, sitting in front of a computer. What hell that must have been with tiny capacity hard drives, slow
processors and software.

It's almost frightening how fast digital has moved forward. I can probably do more with my MacBook and Garageband thatn they could accomplish with an 80s DAW. And a lot easier. I fiddled with some early personal computer recording software and ended up shaking my head and walking away. I've had a similar experience with amplifier modeling, except the early stuff just didn't sound right. Now I carry one 30 pound combo amp on stage to play through up to 100 models. Of course I don't use most of them, but the vintage Fender and Vox models are wonderful.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

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

OK, so listening to it now on Spotify Premium (320 kbps Ogg Vorbis). Anyone got it on CD? Can anyone hear anything that screams of early digital crapness?

e.g. The start of track 3, hearing some kind of modulation of noise with the guitar (but it could simply be analogue companding in a chorus pedal, or the mixing fader being ridden?), plus a moment of clipping at 0:20..?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, so listening to it now on Spotify Premium (320 kbps Ogg Vorbis). Anyone got it on CD? Can anyone hear anything that screams of early digital crapness?

e.g. The start of track 3, hearing some kind of modulation of noise with the guitar (but it could simply be analogue companding in a chorus pedal, or the mixing fader being ridden?), plus a moment of clipping at 0:20..?

Are you familiar with Cooder's taste in equipment? He has a love of early "cheapo" electric guitars that just don't sound "right" if some noise or another is not modulating. Nah. I don't think anyone is hearing early digital crapness in Bop Til You Drop or Brothers in Arms or Dreams of the Blue Turtles, etc. I think early digital crapness is nonsense. Always has been. It's (at best) equal parts of bad mastering (or no re-mastering for digital at all), and mythology fully embraced, repeated until the faithful actually hear clarity as sterility and myth becomes indistinguishable from reality.

Tim

 

[LL21]

I'm not a remix hater. I'm completely open to the possiblility that another shot at a mix could be an improvement. God, I would LOVE to see some of Springsteen's classic albums go all the way back to the multi tracks and get a second chance. Tim

+1. I just got Ghost of Tom Joad, which sounds promising in terms of quality of sound, and I do like the tunes. But so many of his other CDs are pretty flat/thin unfortunately.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

+1. I just got Ghost of Tom Joad, which sounds promising in terms of quality of sound, and I do like the tunes. But so many of his other CDs are pretty flat/thin unfortunately.

So are the LPs. Born to Run and Darkness on the Edge of Town are over compressed - analog, but still - The River, I don't know what it needs, but some really good remixing and remastering sure couldn't hurt. Tunnel of Love is good, Born in the USA is ok. E Street Shuffle isn't bad but could use remastering. The recent stuff is just ungodly loud. Even the good stuff -- Seeger Sessions, T of Love, etc. could use a little help. Evidently Bruce is not an audiophile, but he sure can write seminal American music.

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

It's almost frightening how fast digital has moved forward. I can probably do more with my MacBook and Garageband thatn they could accomplish with an 80s DAW. And a lot easier. I fiddled with some early personal computer recording software and ended up shaking my head and walking away. I've had a similar experience with amplifier modeling, except the early stuff just didn't sound right. Now I carry one 30 pound combo amp on stage to play through up to 100 models. Of course I don't use most of them, but the vintage Fender and Vox models are wonderful.

Tim

Yes, it is frightening.

Think of it this way. A smartphone the size of a pack of cards has more computing power than a room full of mainframes from the mid 60s.