Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekig1.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!tekig1!gregr From: gregr@tekig1.UUCP (Greg Rogers) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: High Quality Recordings Message-ID: <1505@tekig1.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Jan-84 06:38:33 EST Article-I.D.: tekig1.1505 Posted: Fri Jan 6 06:38:33 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Jan-84 01:12:15 EST References: <355@whuxk.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 124 I always enjoy and respect Bill Mitchell's comments in this newsgroup and he has invited dialog on Doug Sax's (Sheffield Lab's) interview in the January Audio so here goes. Seem's I'm always defending digital recording (CD) in this newsgroup and since I'm about to claim Sax is very biased I should first explain my bias's. 1. I should be biased in favor of analog recording since I own a state-of-the-art analog (reel-to-reel) recorder as well as a DBX noise reduction system. I now consider it obsolete and don't look forward to the cost of a digital recorder replacement. 2. I virtually can't stand listening to conventional records now and the replacement cost of CD's adds up fast. In summary I would be financially much better off to badmouth digital and stay with a very fine analog system. Unfortunately this is also true of Sheffield Lab. When CD's take over it would seem that Sax has much to lose. For the record I think Sheffield Labs should be congratulated for their fine work over the years, in fact I believe the entire "audiophile" record industry is a direct result of their efforts in the early 70's in producing the landmark S9 and S10 direct to disk recordings. To my ears the improvement offered by these disks were primarily due to reduced limiting prior to the head cutter and better disk pressing quality resulting in lower surface noise and less pop and tick defects. This simply translates to higher dynamic range of the audio signal and somewhat less background noise. The lower background noise was necessary because the overall level on the disk had to be reduced to keep from overloading the headcutting equipment on the non- limited peaks. Even with all that the surface noise was always present and detracted from quiet passages. Aside from the much more natural dynamic range on their disks I didn't find them (subjective opinion) to be as accurate in other sonic qualities as other well made recordings. As other audiophile recordings became available I found them to be generally superior to the later Sheffield recordings particularly when the Telarc digital series appeared. I have made these subjective comments about the "sound" of Sheffield disks because of the many comments in the article in which Sax implies that his records are superior due to the use of TUBE amplifiers and TUBE microphone /preamp systems. In fact he makes completely unsubstantiated claims like, "...old tube microphones are the most revered in the industry by all the recording engineers." Really? Who else uses them today? He gives no examples. Again about the mikes, "They're designed by my brother. They're literally for what they do, state of the art." I leave it to someone else to explain the last sentence. Another absurd statement, "...the only broad-gauge improvement in audio, I feel, over something made 15 years ago, is the improvement of the modern phono cartridge." I would be most interested to know what 15 year old speaker Sax uses to monitor his recordings. Anyway my point here is that this is not the type person that will readily accept new technology and I personally don't think the sound of his recordings justify his use of "old" technology. His additional comments in which he claims digital recording loses "low level information in great quantities" and "I don't have a good time with digital" seem like pretty lame complaints to me. He never gives any example of why he doesn't have a good time with digital only that "what I want to hear is somehow obscured". He never explains what is obscured or how. I suspect what he misses is the background noise. In a much more detailed and descriptive article in the December Audio, Richard Burwen gives his thoughts on digital recording. Again like Sax and myself his bias is toward analog recording. Burwen designs and manufactures noise reduction equipment for analog tape recording. Hence his product becomes obsolete with digital recording. However his conclusions on digital recording are about like mine. "Having heard about loss of ambience, harmonic distorsion at low signal levels, and ringing caused by anti-aliasing filters, I listened carefully .... The only difference I could hear between the input and the output was a little noise." Another very inteesting comment which I believe explains a lot, "Making simultaneous analog and digital live recordings, I was at first distressed to find that the digital recordings, although very clear, had lost the excitement of the analog tapes. The problem wasn't in the digital recorder (which accurately reproduced what the microphones fed in) but in the analog system's imperfections which, to me, enhanced the music." He goes on to explain that even though his analog recorders have been modified for near perfect response the small variations in response that remained affected the tone quality and dynamics. He goes on to explain tests which were done that refute Sax's comments about low level information loss. He summarizes "The main reason digital recording does not sound the same as analog is imperfection in the analog recording system." This from a man that makes his living selling noise reduction devices for analog recorders. This is very interesting article and highly recommended. Burwen also argues that the 96 db S/N ratio of digital isn't high enough but that's the only fault he can find with digital recording. Sorry this is getting a little long but Bill also mentioned the dynamic range issue so I can't quit yet. Yes, with dBx S/N ratios of 90 db is possible (or 110 db with Burwen's system) but remember all these devices have side effects which include both expansion of the frequency response variations of the analog recorder as well as breathing effects. Again Burwen honestly alludes to these problems in his article. (Yes dBx breathes, its a direct result of the design not misadjusted units. Let's not start that discussion again.) So you can duplicate the S/N ratio of digital on an analog dBx disk with side effects, or an analog TAPE RECORDER again with side effects, but you can't get around the 60 dB or so S/N of a conventional record without a dBx type compander. So no matter what you try to do the breathing and frequency variations will show up on the conventional disk. Sheffield disks, not dBx encoded simply are stuck with the 60 dB or so S/N. (Only a rare pressing is this good and they detriorate fast with age whether you play them or not.) So Sax's 15 dB that can be heard even in the presence of noise is possible but who wants to listen to it. Yes if the problem is speech recognition, like the cocktail party, or spying on the Russians, this is acceptable performance. I have no interest in listening to music however buried in the grundge of record groove noise 15 dB louder than the music. That ain't HI-FI. Greg Rogers Tektronix