[Rclark]

well if anything compressed pop music just makes older cd's more attractive.

[mitch stl]

[RE: Protools]

Two things he said stick out:
The number of tracks you can have in the mix is limited only by your processing power
and
I'll give up the ambiance of tape for the convenience of being able to do this ("this" meaning ease of recording and mixing).

One of the hardest things in any profession is, that just because you have a tool that does fancy things, it doesn't mean you HAVE to do the fancy stuff every time you pick up the tool. Unfortunately, more often than not, if you give a toy to a boy, he's going to play with it even when it makes no sense.

Digital recording is perfectly capable of recording music without excess volume, overload and excessive compression. As noted before, that's just not fashionable right now. If you want a recoding that illustrates just how good digital and CD can be, I'd recommend The Great American Main Street Band's CD "Silks and Rags". It is just stunning.

Same thing with multiple channels. Sure, you can mix down 100 tracks of multi-mono and there are times that is musically useful, but it's often overused to the detriment of the music. There's a lot of music that needs little more than a respectful recording of good musicians playing their instrument.

[kevin360]

This is veering off topic but I can see why analog tape has gone out of fashion.
I was over at a buddy's house a few weeks ago and he was giving me an overview of Pro Tools for a solo album he's working on.

Two things he said stick out:
The number of tracks you can have in the mix is limited only by your processing power
and
I'll give up the ambiance of tape for the convenience of being able to do this ("this" meaning ease of recording and mixing).

I've gotta admit, Pro Tools is pretty slick.
That being said, his preferred format for music storage is 45 rpm.

I miss my RtR - the tapes met with an environmental catastrophe (of sorts - during an extended relocation from Germany to the U.S.) and I dumped the machine.

Pro Tools is super slick - as slick as snot on a door knob. Still, there's something about it. Steve Hackett did his last two 'studio' releases on Pro Tools (since his divorce claimed his proper studio as a casualty of war) and there's something different about the way they sound. On the other hand, given how they were produced, the results are pretty darn impressive - rather convincing.

[medium jim]

Really off topic...

ProTools, Acid and the other computer based recording programs have allowed many very talented folks to self produce.  It can be real close to a full on recording studio.  Today, 95% of all music is digitally mastered which loses the warmth and texture that analog gives.

Nothing like 2in tape!

The beauty is that the musicianship today is outstanding and it is easy to lose oneself into the music!

Jim

[James Lehman]

It's pretty hard to beat professional quality 1/2" tape machines running at 15 or even 30 IPS that were used for mastering analog recordings to be cut to vinyl, back in the day.

[tnargs]

....Brother in Arms by Dire Straights...said to be the first DDD

Definitely not. DDD releases were ready to go the first day the first CD plants cranked up, in 1982. Brothers in Arms came years later.

[FullRangeMan]

Definitely not. DDD releases were ready to go the first day the first CD plants cranked up, in 1982. Brothers in Arms came years later.

Hard to say what is the first DDD, but it is a classical music CD;
Some companies as Denon Records already used a PCM digital machine in the 1970s years.
Seems DG already do the same but with less time spam.

[Rclark]

For the "record" this Wagner album was recorded in Germany and it looks like they hadn't standardized the labelling protocol yet, so this one is merely labelled (in large lettering on the corner of the cover) "Digitally Recorded", which in all likelihood is equivalent to the DDD designation. Again, sounds fabulous.

[tnargs]

.... Here we have a medium - the CD - that has an extra 20 dB or 30 dB of dynamic range compared to the LP, and the artists, producers and engineers (pick your favorite villain) just throw it away. It's just sad.

Even more importantly, just imagine the ramifications if all CD's had been produced from day 1 with 30dB of headroom. It would have changed the course of audio.

Imagine you are listening to a CD at a typical average power of 1W and 85-90dB of sound level, when suddenly the producer USES all 30dB of headroom. You now require 1000W of amplification and 1000W of loudspeaker power handling.

The realism and dynamics would have left LP audiophiles in the 80's picking their jaws off the floor. Not to mention their 5" bass drivers!

To deal with this, the industry would have started supplying the necessary amps and speakers. LPs would have been sorely exposed for the dynamically flat and compressed and noisy medium they are.

There would have been no LP revival a decade later. There would have been no SET revival.

Nearly all of us here would today have completely different systems to what we now have. And we would have higher standards and expectations of audio playback than we have now.

So why didn't this happen?!? Well, this is pure conjecture, but maybe CD producers did the right thing for the medium's success: they more or less matched the headroom and dynamics of LP. A kind of 'dumbing down' of the medium.

After all, if high-headroom CD's as described above were the norm, what would have happened when most users put one on to play? It would either blow up their system if they tried to play at their usual average sound level (lawsuits anyone?), or they would have to play it at a very low volume that would sound very unsatisfactory and far worse than their record players.

I could easily imagine CD being rejected by the vast majority of buyers under that scenario, and failing commercially as a medium. Not a very large catalogue would have been produced (SACD anyone?), and only the few audiophiles who redeveloped their sound system from scratch would have been able to experience what, would have been, the best sound quality in the world.

[BobRex]

Even more importantly, just imagine the ramifications if all CD's had been produced from day 1 with 30dB of headroom. It would have changed the course of audio.

Imagine you are listening to a CD at a typical average power of 1W and 85-90dB of sound level, when suddenly the producer USES all 30dB of headroom. You now require 1000W of amplification and 1000W of loudspeaker power handling.

The realism and dynamics would have left LP audiophiles in the 80's picking their jaws off the floor. Not to mention their 5" bass drivers!

To deal with this, the industry would have started supplying the necessary amps and speakers. LPs would have been sorely exposed for the dynamically flat and compressed and noisy medium they are.

There would have been no LP revival a decade later. There would have been no SET revival.

And now your logic falls apart...  You are making the mistake of assuming that the average listening level takes one watt, and that's not always the case.  Let's work from SPL levels for a moment.  Let's assume that the average listening level is 80dB (which with a truly dynamic recording is pretty loud),  Now let's add your 30dB for a maximun level of 110dB (which is damned loud, probably far too loud for a typical domestic situation, but what the hey!)  Now, if a SET fanatic has a loudspeaker with a sensitivity of 100dB, he/she needs an additional 10db of gain, whcih equates to 10 watts - easily doable with SET technology.  So, no, SETs wouldn't disappear, in fact, they might become more prevalent, given the extreme costs of 1000w speakers and amps.  Also, don't assume that the 30dB of headroom is on the top side.  Why wouldn't producers attempt to push the noise floor (pianissamo) lower?

The other issue, you kind of touched on.  Given the extreme dynamics, the average user, in an attempt to maintain sanity and domestic tranquility, would have been driven from CDs and would either give up "hi-fi" or turn to a saner medium.  Dare I say it, LPs!

[Quiet Earth]

.... I  liked your post tnargs    Welcome aboard.

Most consumers (and many audiophiles) probably wouldn't enjoy a recording with 30 dB of dynamic range.

[*Scotty*]

Something that seldom mentioned in discussions of the CD's alleged dynamic range is the increasing distortion that occurs when the recorded signal is described by less than 16 bits. A quick glance at measurements accompanying any review of a DAC in Stereophile will show the terrible amount of distortion at -90, even at -60dB you have more than 3%THD. The huge dynamic range claimed for the CD isn't really there.
Scotty

[mitch stl]

Something that seldom mentioned in discussions of the CD's alleged dynamic range is the increasing distortion that occurs when the recorded signal is described by less than 16 bits. A quick glance at measurements accompanying any review of a DAC in Stereophile will show the terrible amount of distortion at -90, even at -60dB you have more than 3%THD. The huge dynamic range claimed for the CD isn't really there.
Scotty

But that is true of ANY recording medium. As the signal drops in level closer to the noise floor, the distortion increases, distortion being defined as any departure from the original sound before it was recorded.

The S/N ratio of the LP and open reel format is in the 50 to 70 dB range. When you have a low level analog signal, the preamp and amp amplifying the background noise right along with the signal. The distortion problem doesn't disappear just because we're not using digital.

Fortunately, the nature of human hearing makes this a non-issue in either case. We are less sensitive to distortion when hearing sound at softer volume levels. I've got plenty of CDs, LPs and open reels that all sound just fine when reproducing very the soft portions of a musical piece.

[medium jim]

Definitely not. DDD releases were ready to go the first day the first CD plants cranked up, in 1982. Brothers in Arms came years later.

I guess my point was missed, Bros in Arms was released in 1985 and was the first DDD to reach a million on sales.  Denon and I believe Sony were recording in Digital as early as 1972.  Yet it took over a decade for the technology and science to reach a level that allowed for quality mastering/recordings.

True DDD was very rare back in the early to mid 80's, most were AAD and these were some of the best, just take any early Steely Dan re-released to CD as an example of how good if could be back in the day.

Jim

[*Scotty*]

That's not quite true. Analogue recording mediums such as magnetic tape, have peak distortion levels when the signal is at peak levels. The distortion falls as the signal level decreases  until the signal is lost in the noise floor. Digital recording has exactly the opposite characteristic, which can easily explain how low level information can be obscured.
  My case for the illusory nature of the 16 bit mediums dynamic range still stands. The CD has about the same usable dynamic range as a vinyl record, roughly 60dB.
Scotty

[mitch stl]

That's not quite true. Analogue recording mediums such as magnetic tape, have peak distortion levels when the signal is at peak levels. The distortion falls as the signal level decreases  until the signal is lost in the noise floor. Digital recording has exactly the opposite characteristic, which can easily explain how low level information can be obscured.
  My case for the illusory nature of the 16 bit mediums dynamic range still stands. The CD has about the same usable dynamic range as a vinyl record, roughly 60dB.
Scotty

Guess we disagree. I was an open reel user for 40 years until recently. I've still got a basement full of test gear, including a signal generator and THD and IM distortion analyzers. I'll run some tests this weekend and post results.

[*Scotty*]

The distortion problem with the digital medium is a direct function of bit depth, the best case scenario is when all 16 bits are used to describe the waveform. There are roughly 6bits left to describe the -60dB waveform which makes a good case for a 24 bit system from a distortion standpoint.
Scotty

[mitch stl]

The distortion problem with the digital medium is a direct function of bit depth, the best case scenario is when all 16 bits are used to describe the waveform. There are roughly 6bits left to describe the -60dB waveform which makes a good case for a 24 bit system from a distortion standpoint.
Scotty

I'll say it again. We disagree. I don't think a waveform at -57 dB in -60 dB of analog background noise is all that pretty either.

[*Scotty*]

Supposedly a "quiet groove" on a record is about -60dB, my point is that on many records this groove is actually damn near silent and information present is easily audible with full fidelity which probably implies a better than 60dB signal to noise ratio. I don't think we actually disagree so much, if we have lost information into the noise floor or the distortion floor it is still gone.
My problem with 16bit systems is that if peaks are held to a maximum of -10dB or -15dB and the program has more than 40dB of dynamic range we have probably put quieter passages into an area of distortion that is greater than 1%THD which kind of disqualifies the recordings quieter sections from being high fidelity if less than 1% THD is our limiting threshold.
Scotty

[James Lehman]

That is why it is a good idea to carefully adjust the volume of the source recording to be as close to 0dB (digital max) as possible. This has nothing to do with compression. If you first make a 24-bit recording, you can normalize it in the digital domain to 16-bit and get darn near perfect.

When I do an LP to CD transfer I use 24/96 and normalize to 16/44.1.