Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
From: ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: CD availability
Message-ID: <429@moncol.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 02:21:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: moncol.429
Posted: Thu Jul 18 02:21:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 03:26:08 EDT
References: <116@prime.UUCP>
Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
Lines: 26

>As to many records being still analog, I draw your attention to the fact
>that most of what you're listening to is popular.  Classical albums have
>been routinely recorded digitally for the better labels for a good 5 to 10
>years.  My own guess is that because popular music is so much less
>demanding (few quiet passages, less dynamic range), record companies
>have simply not felt the improvement in sound quality for pop would
>justify the cost of the scarce digital equipment.

What you say is true, however I don't think it is the primary reason
that classical artists have been the first to record digitally.  I
believe it is primarily due to the way the two styles of music are
recorded.  In a classical recording session, the microphones are set
up, the recorder is turned on, then the work is performed.  There is
minimal editing, and the work can be recorded in two track stereo.
On a pop album, first a rhythm track is laid down.  Then other
instruments are added.  The performer might then decide to sing
harmonies with himself.  By the time the recording is finished, there
are some 24 tracks to be mixed down to the two track stereo needed to
cut the master.  Time on a digital console capable of doing the
mixdown is very expensive, and engineers used to analog are reluctant
to relearn their craft to suit the new technology.

Ben Broder
..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben