Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    
    I have some DDD recordings on Columbia which are marked "Digitally
    Mastered Analog Recording" on the front cover.  They also are marked
    "Made in Japan" on the sleeve but the disk says "Made in USA". ???
    
    As far as "digital Recording" goes, all CDs are digital recordings
    but not all are from digital *source* recordings, right?          
    
    Some companies print the code on the disk but not on the sleeve!!!
    
    

    
    See also Note 563 on this topic.

	The disc "Misplaced Childhood" by the group "Marillion" is
one of the most interesting things I've seen in the world of CD.  The
interesting thing involves two different versions of the disc.

	Version 1, the one that I have, is an import from, I think, England.
It is clearly marked DDD and certainly sounds it.

	Version 2, the version a friend has, is an import from France.
It is clearly marked ADD and sounds like mine.

	Now, we can assume there's only one "MASTER TAPE" right?

    This reminds me of `First Circle' by the Pat Metheny Group.  The CD
    clearly says AAD, but the vinyl has a sticker on it that says "digital
    recording."  I could never figure this one out.  :-)

    		
    			ADD vs.  DDD
    
    I don't know about anybody else, but I really have a hard
    time distinguishing aurally between ADD and DDD.  For example
    I have a a BSO version of Holst: the Planets and I would swear
    it was DDD.  
    
    The thing is, modern Analog PROFESSIONAL equipment is damn good
    and if a recording is only analog at the initial inscription, you're
    going to need a really serious stereo to hear the difference in
    most cases.  It does, of course depend on the music and expertise
    of the producers and engineers and stuff.
    
    

    Sometimes yes and sometimes no.  A good example of the differences
    can be heard by comparing Til Tuesday's (analog recording) Voices
    Carry to their latest (digital recording) Welcome Home.  The Voices
    Carry CD sounds good, but the Welcome Home CD sounds fantastic.
    
    For the most part I personally cannot tell the difference unless
    I have something to compare it to.  I also did not spend $10,000
    for my system which I'm sure has something to do with it.  But after
    growing up with albums and tapes, almost any CD will blow away what
    I'm use to.

    
    re .5
    
    I'd hafta agree w/ .6.  It depends a lot on the equipment used
    when making the master.  U2's "Unforgettable Fire" is ADD, and
    it's sound quality doesn't compare w/ Gabriel's DDD "Security."
    As a matter of fact, I was quite surprised after having listened
    to "Fire" - I would've guessed it was AAD.

    R

Re: several

Modern taping equipment is extremely good. I believe where most 
screw-ups take place is the post-recording engineering work, ie. the 
"mix". Doesn't matter how good the master is if the engineering is not 
so hot. I think Van Halen's 5150 is a good example of this. Using some 
of the best recording equipment available today they managed to put out 
an awful (technically) CD. Seems like it was EQ'd for cassette tape. 

So ADD can be, in some cases, much better than DDD. A lot depends on 
the remix. I would think that this is equally true for AAD stuff.

My humble opinion,
Chuck

    I believe that even AAD can have superior sound if mixed properly.
    Digital Audio recently published their list of perfect 10's for
    both performance and sound quality.  On that list were at least
    3 that were listed AAD.  Can anyone verify this, is it possible
    for a AAD disc to sound as good as a quality DDD disc?
    

    
    From the standpoint of frequency response and dynamic range, a dbx
    analog tape (pro dbx that is) has the *potential* to be as good as
    a digital tape.  Whether or not other distortions are added in the
    analog process which have no corollary, I am not sure.  For instance,
    once a signal is digitized, wow and flutter in the analog sense can
    no longer exist.  Whether or not you can *hear* the wow and flutter
    of a 24-track studio tape deck is beyond me.

    I also agree that ADD or AAD can be just as good as DDD when modern
    equipment is used.  Some of the modern equipment can have comperable
    or superior bandwidth to a DDD mix.  It does seem to boil down to
    the capabilities and experience of the engineer and producer with
    the equipment.
    
    But, over the years the magnetic image on a master tape deteriorates. 
    If the "Final D" mix is done soon after the album is produced, there
    is no loss, and the digital copy of the image is virtually immortal.
    If you wait five, or ten years before you digitize, then you may
    have lost a "few Db" to noise and tape hiss, or find that some peaks 
    in the performance may sound a little flat.  How much is lost depends 
    on how the master tapes are handled over time.

    Am I correct in my understanding that a digital tape does NOT suffer
    from 'print through' that is commonly found on analog tapes?  Thus,
    in this case, a DDD would win over AAD or ADD.
    
    
    							-Paul
     

    Re; -.12
    
    This is half-true.  Print-through is a magnetic phenomenon.  Thus,
    a digital tape can print through, which would result in a low-level
    "error" siganl added to the tape.  Probably the error correction
    mechanisms make this a moot point.
    
    On the other hand, I can't think of any recent recordings I've heard
    that suffer from print-through.
    
    Hey, remember Led Zeppelin II where print-through was used as an
    *effect* and thus spawned today's "digital pre-echo" effect???

On LP's, there is a possibility of pre-echo due to adjacent grooves being
overmodulated compared to the groove spacing.  Happens when the producer
decides to squeeze too many grooves onto a side.  Can't happen on a CD.

    Regarding the AAD vs ADD vs DDD controversy:
    
    All can sound clean and crisp given reasonable care in the:
    1) Master
    2) Engineering
    3) Mixing, etc
    
    However, the ADD and the DDD suffer from a greater loss of the
    soundstage that is present and can only be completely heard on a
    good turntable and cartridge. This is not to say that I am a *total*
    Digital-hater (I have some 30 CDs) only that I find the AAD, (*when
    well produced*) to be better in the soundstage width (and especially)
    depth. Still not as good as my turntable and MC cartridge, but
    acceptable.
    
    David_who_likes_controversy!
    

    re:15
      Does anyone know the *technical* reason for the "soundstage" not
    being completely reproduced w/digital recording?  I mean, you set
    up your microphones through a small amp which runs to your tape
    machine.  Once the sound is represented as an audio signal, it seems
    the best thing you can do is reproduce this signal *exactly*.  Digital
    comes much closer to that goal, although admittedly you lose everything
    above 22kHz.  But so what?  The human ear can't hear much better
    than 15kHz, and the ear is a frequency analyzer, so fast transients
    that represent frequencies above 15kHz aren't reproduced by the
    ear anyway.  I haven't compared analog to digital recordings as
    closely as some people I'm sure, but just from a technical standpoint,
    what am I missing?
    
    -Steve (continuing the debate)
    

    I am not completely sure but have some hypothesis, that may or
    may not sound like BS. All I know is that it is a hearable difference
    to me.
    
    Anyway, while it is true that the human cannot "hear" above 22Khz,
    and most of us start attenuating much below that, it is true that
    *many* harmonics exist above that range, and I firmly believe that
    these can be sensed. The theory of Digital recording allows for
    a complete reconstruction of the sound on the master tape, but I
    somehow cannot resolve in my own mind, how breaking things into
    little pieces and then putting them back together can possibly
    contain the nuances of width (and especially depth) that can be
    had by not breaking it up in the first place.
    
    Just call me Dr. McCoy (he didn't like teleporters for the same
    reason!)
    
    Anyway, with my MC cartridge with its response to over 60Khz I get
    *tremendous* width and depth of soundstage as compared with CDs
    of the exact same performance and from the same master. This doesn't
    prevent me from buying CDs, Pop and Rock seem better suited to the
    medium to me as their soundstage, if any, is artificial to begin
    with. However, for classical, especially chamber music, it is an
    almost religious experience to listen to a good DMM LP, you can
    close your eyes and point to every instrument in space in three
    dimensions, and even identify where the keys are on pianos (assuming
    proper miking technique.
    
    Anyone wishing a demonstration of this sometime, perhaps we could
    conduct a exploratory session?
    
    Admittedly, I don't have the megabucks/altered/tube/etc style CD
    player, but my Technics is supposed to be OK. (though I suspect
    that it's analogue stage is deficient)
    
    Anyway, that is my ramble on what the difference is, and can be
    probably the only technical difference since CD doesn't reproduce
    the harmonics and overtones that a good cartridge can. I may be
    completely wrong, but I know what I hear, and that, afterall is
    more important than technology for technologies sake.
    
    ... I think :-)
    
    David

>    However, for classical, especially chamber music, it is an
>    almost religious experience to listen to a good DMM LP, you can
>    close your eyes and point to every instrument in space in three
>    dimensions, and even identify where the keys are on pianos (assuming
>    proper miking technique.

    
    Strange (no pun intended), but this is nearly always impossible
    in a concert hall, good or bad (especially the 'keys on the pianos' bit).
    I thought the goal was realism.

    
    From my eighth row center seat in Symphony Hall, I can easily
    discern where the instruments are located with my eyes closed. 
    Not only is it possible, but it's easy to get a sense of
    direction and location of the instruments. I admit I can't 
    really get a feeling for the high or low keys on the piano being
    further right or left from me or whatever, but it's clear that
    the violin is right up front on the left, the basses are on the
    right, the french horn is further back, etc. When this is reproduced
    well on a good system at home, its extremely enjoyable, if not
    exactly religious.  

    Ah, that's it.   I don't like to sit so close to the orchestra,
    as the balance is really not all that good that close.  I don't
    want my stereo to sound like I'm too close either.
    
    As for the piano, my wife suggested that the only way to get a
    left-right effect listening to a real piano was to stick your
    head inside it!

    Digital recording has certain advantages and certain disadvantages
    over analog.  I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages,
    particularly if the transmission medium is compact disc.  However,
    there are those who disagree.  There's no point in arguing over
    which is "better".  The only course to take is to understand the
    relative strengths of each, and make a choice based on your own
    tastes.
    
    Compact discs are capable of much greater dynamic range, and
    signal-to-noise ratio, then analog media.  In addition, because
    of the optical disc technology (as opposed to the digital signal
    technology), compact discs have no surface noise, and suffer no
    wear from being played.  To me, surface noise is MUCH more audible
    and distracting than a shallow sound stage.
    
    However, because of the nature of digital "sampling", there are certain
    possible unpleasant artifacts that can arise.  Basically, these are
    aliasing and quantization errors.  Aliasing arises because there are
    components of the audio signal with frequencies greater than 20.75KHz.
    These are not merely inaudible.  If left to their own devices, these
    would show up as lower frequency "aliases" on the digital recording. To
    lessen this effect, recorders include filters to try to remove the
    higher frequency components of the signal.  However, filters are
    imperfect, so there are some residual artifacts of that. 
    
    Quantization errors, on the other hand, result from the number of
    bits used to represent each sample of music.  Compact discs
    theoretically use 16 bit samples, but those 16 bits are only used
    on the LOUDEST parts of the signal.  Softer parts get fewer bits.
    
    Finally, another complaint that people have lodged against CDs has
    been attributed to the fact that many CDs were made from mixes
    engineered for vinyl.  For years, recording engineers have been
    playing games with equalization to try to compensate for some of
    the properties of vinyl records.  Basically, they emphasize the
    high end and truncate the low end.  Once this equalization was
    standardized as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
    equalization curve,  it was expected that tonearms and cartridges
    were supposed to "correct" the signal.  However, if that RIAA equalized
    recording were made into a CD, it would sound like there's too much
    treble and not enough bass.
    
    Now, as for sound stage, I have to speculate somewhat.  Suppose
    you have an orchestra on a stage, and two microphones, one at each
    side of the stage.  The physical separation of the microphones would
    determine the "width" of the sound stage.  Also, the instruments closer
    to the front (and hence, closer to one microphone or the other)
    would be more likely to be picked up predominantly by one microphone.
    The instruments in the back, on the other hand, would tend to be
    picked up more equally by both mics.  I THINK (here's the speculation
    part) that this might account for what is heard as the "depth" of
    the sound stage in a recording.  Hence, the better the stereo
    separation between the left and right channels, the shallower the
    sound stage would seem to be.  It may be that analog recordings
    give the effect of soundstage depth because of poor channel separation.
    Like I said, this is pure speculation on my part.  I'd be very happy
    to hear the "real" explanation from someone more knowledgeable.

    RE:.21 and the two mike soundstage depth theory.
    
    I agree, but the reality is, unfortunately, that even orchestral
    recording uses multiple mikes to spotlight various instrumental
    groups and, of course, soloists.  So having a realistic soundstage
    is difficult to achieve unless the listener's realism is derived
    from their experience of having their ears hung over several positions
    of the orchestra at once.
    
    Re:.17
    >...I somehow cannot resolve in my own mind, how breaking things
    >into little pieces and then putting them back together can possibly
    >contain the nuances...
    
    Perhaps this is simplistic and I'm sure the technical experts will
    offer (welcome) corrections, but the same argument can be made about
    analog.
    
    To use the classic example of visualising sound waves, imagine the
    pebble thrown into the pond with the impact point as the sound source.
    The water waves radiate outward as do sound waves.  They are not
    continuous, but come in ... well, waves that strike our eardrum,
    causing it to vibrate in and out.
    
    The argument, then, goes: I can't understand how I hear continuous
    sound when the sound waves are *beating* on my eardrum.  Taking
    this to the stylus/vinyl point, although the stylus moves through
    the groove in an "analog" path, what makes the sound is the frequency
    of the stylus being knocked back and forth within the groove --
    little pieces of motion.  N'est pas?
    
    > R.Michael

    With regard to all the symphonies I have attended (I like CLOSE
    seating) I have been able to identify instruments by their location
    in space (I close my eyes to help visualize). So this attribute
    is important to me.
    
    As far as a piano goes, if one is listening to a piano from about
    10-20 feet away, one can visualize (again with eyes closed) where
    the low note keys vs the highs are located.
    
    At least I can. With *live* music. So, this again is important to
    me. Yes it was perhaps slightly inaccurate to say where the individual
    keys are on the piano (that would be *totally* disjointed and sound
    very wierd, I agree) but I think you understand what I am trying
    to say here. Space is an important part of music that I notice a
    very large difference in equipments ability (or lack thereof) to
    recreate. Timing, musicality, and other non-quantifiables are also
    as important too.
    
    Hopefully I have clarified things a little bit here. My point
    especially revolves around chamber music because by nature one sits
    fairly close to it, compared with other types of orchestras. It
    *is* a matter of taste.
    
    I will take *live music* any day!
    
    David
    

I can tell where the instruments are located in Symphony Hall from my seats 2/3
of the way to the back of the hall (GG20/21).

The best audio reproductions are the ones produced by the best technicians,
whether the mixing is analogue or digital.

Minimal miking makes the mixing job simpler -- less chance for screwups.  Thus
better quality recordings, in most cases.

/john

    
    	One of the more interesting distinctions in analogue/digital
    seems to be the sub-harmonic phenomenon.
    
    record a group of "pure" tones above 10Khz. play back through a
    lo-pass filter built for 10Khz. should here nothing, right?
    
    well, on analogue you hear very low hiss, that doesn't vary with
    the input signal.
    
    on digital, you hear loud hash, that varies directly with with the
    input signal.
    
    I've tried this wiith several recorders and a number of filters.
    I don't understand it but it's there.
    
    surface noise on analogue stays at one level, so the music usually
    masks it. seems like this grundge in digital goes up when the music
    does. no wonder it sounds odd.
    
    				-eric
    

    re .22
    
    High quality analog LPs made by companies such as Sheffield, Chesky,
    ad nauseum, that are made in a Direct to Metal Master method (DMM)
    ie: from performance to metal master (no tape) and then to high
    quality Teldec vinyl sound GREAT. They typically use no more than
    3 microphones. The background noise (and hence dynamic range) is
    over 85dB down (compares *very* favorable with CD). There was an
    article in a recent (Audio, I think) that describes the DMM process.
    
    It is true that multiple miked recordings onto tape and hence to
    LP do not contain the depth information that DMMs do. What I would
    be *real* interested in getting would be CDs made from DMM performances
    ie a sort of DCDM (direct to CD master) so that I could here what
    truly *careful* engineering would sound like in a Digital format.
    It may be that it sounds as good, or better, than the analog (to
    me). I will reserve judgement on that score.
    
    However, all CDs are currently made from master tapes, and *most*
    are not of performances where minimal-miking techniques have been
    employed.
    
    Regarding the way we hear sound vis-a-vis the analog/digital
    comparison, it is a non-issue. Human ears are "engineered"
    (for lack of a better term) to turn those waves pounding against
    our eardrums into a perception that we choose to call sound (music).
    So the actual issue is how realistic the waves are produced by the
    stereo system.
    
    Also, a stylus is not knocked back and forth in a groove, it is
    continuously and smoothly moved along a single path, creating a
    smoother wave than is possible in a digital scheme encoding in
    44khz can. (assuming a good cartridge capable of tracking into the
    40-50Khz + range, anyway). Within its range, it is *smooth* and
    not knocked about. Knocking about is defined as skipping, and is
    nasty sounding.
    
    Anyone know of CDs engineered with minimal miking techniques and
    transferred to the CD master with no intervening steps? I would
    really like to hear it. 
    
    I hope that someday they are made, especially if they do convey
    the depth and other musical nuances that I enjoy. Because i really
    like to feature of minimal wear. LPs, when all is said and done,
    and in the final analysis (and even us analog fans can't argue)
    to wear out.
    
    David
    

    I believe that I read that Paul Simon's Graceland album was recorded
    using the DMM method and that the CD also benefited somehow from this
    process.  I also remember reading somewhere that Paul Simon manages
    to attain a more natural sounding image in spite of the fact that
    multiple microphones were used in the recording.
    

    I have a Direct-to-Disk recording of the Boston Pops (Crystal Clear?),
    made just before Arthur Fiedler died.  The liner mentions that a
    digital recording was also made from the same feed, since there
    are a limited number of Direct-to-Disk copies that can be made.
     Don't know if a CD has been issued, but the original sure does
    sound good.
    
    			George
    
    p.s. they used 3 mikes

    I'm afraid I don't understand this minimalist mic'ing attitude.
    Is the idea supposed to be that we have only two ears, so two
    microphones should produce ideal recordings?
    
    If so, I don't buy it.  I don't believe a recording is supposed
    to sound just like a performance, or to give the listener the illusion
    of being in the concert hall.  As was hinted earlier, both the
    performance and the recording are approximations of some abstract,
    unrealizable ideal called "the music."  The two approximations have
    different qualities, and neither should be mistaken for being the
    "true" musical event.  For example, when listening to a live
    performance, a certain amount of audience noise (shuffling feet,
    coughing, etc.) is enevitable.  However, these things are very
    distracting when listening to a recording in your own home.  Similarly,
    the acoustical properties of the listening space, the nature of
    the sound producers (wood, brass, etc. vs. cardboard cones), and
    the type of listening one is doing make these two completely distinct
    musical experiences.  For example, I frequently play music as
    background while I'm sitting around the house reading, etc.  However,
    I don't bring books to concerts and read during the performance.
    
    The job of the recording engineer is to understand the "typical"
    audio system and listening environment, and to make the best sounding
    recording for those.  This may involve overdubbing, multiple
    microphones, playing with mixing and equalization, etc.
    
    

    The notion of 2-3 microphone recording being better stems primarily
    (in my experience) from the issue of accuracy and realism in
    imaging. The sound image results from a complex interplay of
    phase relationships, and multi-miking tends to muddle the phase
    relationships between different instruments/sound sources.
    
    This is the reason that minimalist recordings benefit more from
    processing like Carver's audio holography than do multi-miking
    recordings.
    
    Of course, when the event being recorded never actually occurred
    as such, as is the case with most pop recordings (with overdups
    and other electronic manipulation), then the question becomes
    moot.

    re:.26
    
    I believe that Sheffield has always taped the recording sessions
    in addition to the DMM. With some of Sheffield's later efforts
    (ie. after they decided to start issuing CD's), they used digital
    tape to make the CD master sound better.
    
    In fact, I seem to recall someone of Usenet using Amanda McBroom's
    WEST OF OZ to compare an audiophile LP with a CD. I think it was
    his opinion that the LP sounded better.
    
    --- jerry

    re .29
    
    This is where we must diverge paths, I'm afraid.
    
    It is my opinion that the purpose of a recording is to reproduce,
    as exactly as possible, the sound of what was played... so that
    the listener can interpret the music, as the composer/conductor/players
    intended!  I don't listen to producers, I listen to the music that
    someone wrote. My favorite performances are when the composer conducts
    so that I can get a good idea of what he/she intended to be heard.
    
    I believe that the job of the recording engineer must *NOT* be to
    understand the *typical* audio system (what is that, anyway?) and
    then "tune" the recording to that perceived system. I believe the
    majority of listeners are better served with an accurate reproduction
    of the music as performed (as is possible with today's tech, anyway!)
    and if they want to play with it at home, have at it.
    
    It is obviously a matter of taste. To mine, 3 miked setups sound
    much more *real* than multi-miked ones do. I still haven't found
    out whether or not DDD or ADD or AAD is best *within* the 3 mike
    technique, however. (I think, that DDD would be best for CD, and
    DMM for LP)
    
    David
    

    Re/ .32:
    
    Much classical music was intended to be performed by one or more
    musicians, playing before an audience.  In other words, the live
    performance gives the best approximation of the composer's intentions
    (disregarding such factors as interpretation, the use of modern
    instruments, etc.) Therefore, we assume that a recording can be
    evaluated by how well it reproduces the effect of listening to the
    players in a live performance. 
    
    However, there is certainly music for which the live concert is
    not the best approximation.  Complex, layered contemporary rock
    and pop music offers some examples of this.  Something like the
    Beatles "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album, for example,
    would not be do-able on a live stage.  It is precisely this reason
    that the Beatles gave for discontinuing live performances.
    
    Moreover, since the acoustical properties of a home (and of a home
    stereo system) are completely different from those of a concert hall,
    the "best" reproduction of a live performance may require some
    engineering beyond simply sticking a microphone in an auditorium. 

    Re:.26
    >...a stylus is not knocked back and forth in a groove, it is 
    >continously and smoothly moved along a single path, creating a
    >smoother wave than is possible in a digital scheme...
    >Within its range, it is *smooth* and not knocked about.  Knocking
    >about is defined as skipping, and is nasty sounding.
    
    Maybe this is better suited to the AUDIO notes, but I'll admit a
    stylus moves continuously, but "smoothly"?  If you look at photo
    enlargements of grooves, it looks like an aerial view of the Grand
    Canyon, especially in the highly modulated passages.  I read that
    the tiny stylus tip exerts an enormous amount of pounds per square
    inch pressure on the vinyl _because_ of the velocity with which
    it "bounces" back and forth within the groove.
    
    When you consider the stylus is dragged through the groove at about
    13 miles per hour at the outside edge and when you include the lateral
    movement, that's hardly what I'd call smooth.
    
    The impression I got from your reply ("continuously and smoothly
    moved along a single path") is that the stylus meanders its way
    through a gently rolling groove.  Granted, the path is an
    *approximatly* smooth spiral, but what are all those squiggly things
    deep within the groove?
    
    >Knocking about is defined as skipping and is nasty sounding.
    My dictionary defines knock as to strike with a hard blow which
    is exactly what I meant.  However, I will agree that skipping is
    nasty sounding.

    re:.34, .26
    When I read note .26, I figured what was meant by 'smoothly' was
    that the stylus never loses contact with the walls of the groove,
    which should always be the case.  However, I don't exactly understand
    what was meant by "creating a smoother wave than is possible in
    a digital scheme".  This is not true of a properly-implemented digital
    scheme.  If we're defining "smoothness" by the lack of frequencies
    above some given limit, digital recording is just as capable at
    reproducing a smooth signal as is analog.  If digital sampling is
    done at 44.1kHz, then an analog low-pass filter is used which (ideally)
    cuts off all frequencies above the nyquist frequency, which is half
    the sampling rate, 22.05kHz, and is the highest frequency that can
    be reproduced.  Am I assuming the originally-intended definition
    of "smoothness"?  What I'm getting at is that digital reproduction
    is theoretically perfect within the limits of the sampling frequency
    and the analog filters needed to avoid aliasing, etc. (emphasize
    Theoretically).
    
    -Steve

    Basically it is what I meant, smoothly being the stylus not losing
    contact with the groove. With a good cartridge, one can get response
    well above 40kHz.
    
    I agree with the fact that theoretically digital can provide response
    up to 22.05 kHz. However, this *only* holds true if one assumes
    that an integrated (read D to A'd) wave form with a dT of 1/44.1K
    is as smooth and accurate as the original analog from which it was
    derived. I cannot make this assumption.
    
    David

    re "minimalist" miking vs multiple mikes...
    As a serious amateur recordist I have found that the main reason
    for multiple mike set-ups is to save money.  It is ALWAYS
    cheaper to "fix it in the mix" than to ply the black art
    of getting 2 to 4 mikes "right".  And there is always the
    chance of a screw up.  Ever consider what it would cost to
    call up the BSO and say " Could you guys come back for a 
    retake next Tuesday?"
    
    Another valid reason for multiple mikes is room acoustics.
    If you just can't get the piano "balanced" with the band
    you have no choice.
    
    Having served as an apologist for the valid uses for multiple
    miking, I must hasten to add that I much prefer a well done
    "minimalist" recording.  Properly engineered, it will be a
    much closer approximation of what the engineer and musicians
    heard that day.
    
    re the endless debate over analog vs digital...
    
    SET QUANTITY = MY TWO CENTS WORTH.
    
    There is no valid ( read audible ) justification for a frequency
    response of dc to light. The "air" and "sweetness" attributed to
    megadollar MC cartridges is most often directly ( and measurably)
    related to an exaggerated response above 10khz.
    
    						Regards
    						Doug Dickerson
    

    
    	Re .-1
    
    	Sorry, I usually ignore this analog vs cd debate, but I can't
    resist this one.
    
    	Many high-end MC cartridges DO NOT have the High-frequency "tip-up"
    mentioned. Some early models did, but the major reason for chosing
    MC's is their greater "speed" at responding to groove modulations.
    
    	I have the response traces for my cartridge, produced with a
    Shure test record and HP meter, and it shows +/- 1/4 db to 24Khz,
    +/- 1/2 to 30Khz, and is 3db down at 40Khz. No tip-up. Much better
    sound, to me, than my much maligned, but very often played, CD player.
    
    	The analog vs. digital debate is pointless. SInce we can't agree
    on "better", we can probably all agree that top-notch analog sounds
    very different from top-notch digital. Different combinations of
    music, systems, ears, will yield different tastes. 
    
    	But I guess we ought to stop defending our buying decsions by
    assaulting the alternatives.
    
    				-eric
    
    

    re.-1
    Amen!
    

        This discussion started and died down while I was on vacation,
        but I can't resist adding to it.
        
        Re: .21
        
>    Now, as for sound stage, I have to speculate somewhat.  Suppose
>    you have an orchestra on a stage, and two microphones, one at each
>    side of the stage.  The physical separation of the microphones would
>    determine the "width" of the sound stage.  Also, the instruments closer
>    to the front (and hence, closer to one microphone or the other)
>    would be more likely to be picked up predominantly by one microphone.
>    The instruments in the back, on the other hand, would tend to be
>    picked up more equally by both mics.
        
        Eight years ago (as a computer science student) I took a course
        in computer music, and one of the points discussed was how the
        human brain perceives the direction of sound. 
        
        Relative volumes from two sources can be used to create an
        illusion of location, but the brain also looks at the time it
        takes the signal to reach the ears.  If the signal is on the
        left side, it will take the signal slightly longer to reach the
        right ear.  [Yes, I know I am talking about small time
        differences and complex signal processing.]  If a signal is
        generated that uses both volume changes and frequency offsets
        between the speakers, a much better illusion is generated. 
        
        This may be why minimalist (two or three microphones) sound more
        real than recordings with multiple mikes.  The mixing will take
        into account the correct signal intensity, but I doubt the
        engineer will take the time to calculate the incredibly small
        delays that needs to be added to correctly synchronize all of
        the components of the left and right signals.  If the final
        result has inconsistencies in it then the brain will probably
        reject the information and the recording will not sound as good. 
        
        Does anyone know: is this considered when recordings are mixed? 
        
        [As a side note, audible illusions have been used to test people
        who claim to suffer from hearing loss in one ear.  (Trying to
        construct an example I heard mentioned eight years ago...)
        Suppose someone says that they were deafened in the left ear in
        an accident.  Give them a hearing test and ask them to say when
        they hear a tone in each ear.  Some of the samples are sent to
        both ears, but with a time delay that would make them think (if
        both ears were working) that it came from the left side.  If
        they are deaf in the left ear then they will acknowledge the
        signal in the right ear, while if they are faking it they will
        assume that the signal came from the left side and not admit
        they heard anything.] 
        
        					B.J.

    Here's a case that ought to baffle you purists:
    	
    What's proper "technique" to record a synthesizer orchestra?  I'm
    dealing with a band which typically will have 9 polyphonic synthesizers
    (/samplers) going at once, sometimes going as high as 15.  Oh yes,
    plus one guy who plays bass guitar with a lot of distortion. 
    None of it is "miked" and there are no vocal parts, nor any acoustic
    instruments.  (none of us can sing worth beans :-)  ).
    	
    Total oscillators/wavegenerators going at once is in excess of
    100.  The overall sound is, as they say, rich in harmonics and
    detailing.  And confusing as hell at the mix board, which is where
    I sit, for besides no singing voice, I have lousy timing!
                             
    Any suggestions as to what, as Plato would say, is _ideal_ ?
    
                                  

    You may wish to check NOVA::COMMUSIC, a conference dedicated to
    synthesizer technology....
    
    Edd