Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!whuxl!whuxj!wjm
From: wjm@whuxj.UUCP (MITCHELL)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Live and Digital Recording
Message-ID: <176@whuxj.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 09:18:01 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxj.176
Posted: Fri Mar 30 09:18:01 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 07:24:02 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany, N.J.
Lines: 18

[sacrifice to the first line eating beasties]
I agree with both Craig Dory and Phil Rastocny about the REAL problem with CD's
and most digital recordings - that many recording engineers don't know how to
properly mike and EQ a digital recording.
As I've said many times, I don't like multi-miking -- PERIOD!!!
and all the recordings I've heard that sound to me like live performances are
those that used a minimum number of mikes - whether they be some of the
legendary Mercury LP's from the start of the stereo era or recent Telarc CD's.
Let's not lose sight of the ultimate objective of high fidelity - to accuratelyy
reproduce (as best as possible given technology, budget, and other factors) a
live performance.  Admittedly, I'm an engineer but I also enjoy music and view
the high technology as a means to this end, not as the end in itself.
Digital recording is not per se bad, but it has been frequently misused, and
I hope the engineers for the major record companies soon learn how to take
advantage of it.
Bill Mitchell
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
Whippany, NJ (whuxj!wjm)