SH Spotlight Recording and Mastering Questions---Answered here. Any more?

Just about anything recorded before 1979 is going to be analog.

 

I had the Sony CDP-101 in college - and the ability to skip tracks and the lack of pops & ticks were the most attractive features to casual listeners. Only folks that would hang out here cared about noise floor, speed stability, and durability.

 

Perhaps Jazz, not a genre I get into, but not so with classical music. There were quite a few digital recordings in the mid to late 70s, years before CD was invented. Remember the Soundstream recorders?

Labels such as Telarc and Decca were always pushing the envelope on getting the best out of classical music, particularly capturing the dynamic range and nuance of full orchestral pieces. Decca released digital recordings commercially on reel to reel tape and vinyl in 1972.

I'd be surprised if there have been any professional analog recordings of classical music over the past two or three decades.

 

Have classical musicians started using digital instruments?

 

Heh heh.. perhaps one day we'll get a new sub genre that is a combination of classical and electronica.

 

Fair enough, live and learn and all that. Which of those recordings would you recommend as a stand out?

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Hi Steve

I was thinking some more about the production of classical releases (something I never gave much thought) and was wondering about a few things, particularly in the context of a concert recording. Firstly, are the mastering decisions around this type of music fundamentally different to say mastering a rock recording, and in what way? For example, would you focus on a few instruments or aim to bring out the concert how the audience might hear it? Is the recording process (eg placement of microphones etc) more important than with a studio recording? Lastly, who gets the say on the final masters, the music producer, conductor?

 

Okay, now you've piqued my interest. How many dBs reduction on an LA- 2A would you consider "a little"? How much would a lot be? Compression or Limiting?

 

Steve,

I liken you a bit to a pro athlete, with the rest of us being fans. Fans want the athletes to think like they do, but the pros see what they do as jobs more than anything. That leads to the question of whether when you get an assignment you 'enjoy' what you are listening to as opposed to purely listening to figure out how it can best be mastered with the studio tools you have to work with. It sounds (no pun intended) like it doesn't matter to you what the recording is; whether you know or like the recording, band, singer, etc., matters not in the least. For many of us, the idea of actually listening to master tapes is like fans being able to play pro sports. Never going to happen. Any thoughts on that?

 

Perfect answer. Now I get it.

 

I thought it sounded like crap, too, but I also remember that there were a few in the audio press who at the time had reservations about the sonics.

John K.

 

I think, and I'm not a pro, that Classical recordings done on analog equipment may make more sense than ever. Having listened to some soundtracks orchestral recordings from the 1990's tracked and mixed down on analog like the soundtrack for Jurassic Park, which also used Dolby Spectral, I can say that late analog sounds great, more natural than digital recordings, with very low noise and dinamic range as good as digital. Recording to analog is more expensive and time conssuming than digital (no ProTools) but sounds better for me.

 

There's just something about tape. By and large, the best audio demos I've heard at the various audio shows I've attended have had either reel-to-reel tape as the source or high resolution digital transfers of reel-to-reel tape as the source.

 

I can't agree more, I love how good analog sounds, I don't dislike digital but I do dislike how many or most digital recordings from the 80's sound, like Brothers In Arms, Like A Virgin, E.T. soundtrack or No Jacket Required (some digital recording, some analog recording, digital mixing) just to name a few. This may be because of the 80's production or because of digital recording, but I still have to hear an early digital recording that I like.

 

That is of course subjective, which many would disagree. Personally, and through my main stereo in particular, it is the quality of the recording/production that differentiates releases rather than if it was digital or analog recording.

Having said that, there is a significant market for music that captures analog "warmth", particularly if that is the sound one is accustomed with. There are many digital plug ins that try to emulate that type of sound but none that do so in a convincing manner. The article below explains the many variables involved which makes such emulation challenging.

Analogue Warmth |

 

You're at my house?

Thank you for your reply. I've been limiting 1dB and then compressing 4dBs. I find it a lot nicer than using lookahead limiting to get a little more heft without all of those weird transients. I'll give 3dB a try for a little more subtlety.

 

I do that too. Mostly in trying to imitate some of your tube processing. I will typically mix through two LA - 2A with no reduction and master into the limiter first and then into the compressor with the 1dB/4dB combination. Plenty loud enough for me.