Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site clyde.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!jona
From: jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: CD availability & mixing
Message-ID: <871@clyde.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 12:07:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: clyde.871
Posted: Mon Jul 22 12:07:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 21:23:46 EDT
References: <116@prime.UUCP> <429@moncol.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 31

> >...  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

Expensive & different yes, but from what I hear, the things you
can do with a digital editing machine are just amazing and
a whole lot easier. 

I haven't actually seen one of these machines, but I sure would
like to.
-- 
Jon M. Allingham	(201)386-3466	AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH

"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"