Tír Na HiFi

Conventional wisdom seems to have it that the golden age of orchestral recording was in the analogue era, and indeed I can see why Kenneth Wilkinson's recordings at Decca are still highly regarded by audiophiles, the few examples I have are all undoubtedly very fine.

However, early in the Four Seasons thread, Fran (I think) mentioned something about the "dreaded DDD". I certainly know where this comes from, early digital (early 80s) classical recordings are often horrible, and I've a few such examples myself. However, as time goes on I'm definitely starting to think the opposite way. My last few classical purchases that were recorded on analogue tape have been disappointing sonically, and I really struggle to get past that no matter how good the performance. On the other hand, recent digital purchases have been anywhere between good and fantastic. I value the extra clarity that good digital seems to bring, and I think it gives better timbral accuracy of instruments when it's done right. In short, it sounds more like a real orchestra. Analogue recordings often sound muddy to me, and not in the sense of added warmth, timbral accuracy seems compromised and I never get the illusion of real orchestra in real space.

Now, we already know I'm a confirmed digiphile, but I really think that in pure sonic terms, we often do far better now with classical recordings than we did in the "golden age" of analogue recording. Of course there are counter-examples on both sides, but as much as I hate to admit it, I'm regressing to favouring DDD recordings of classical works when I'm buying...

Interesting thoughts Simon and something that I had not given much consideration to myself. Are you using SACD replay or just regular DDD recordings?

Regular red-book CD, Fergus. I have very few SACDs, and to be perfectly frank I don't find them to be consistently better. Cleaner perhaps, but not always better for it.

I've got a bunch of vinyl from the DG label that was recorded sometime in the mid 60's. Sonically they are head and shoulders above the equivalent recording on CD. Although I'd say it's more down to less than perfect mastering rather than anything wrong with the CD medium.

I'd be inclined to agree with Simon here: on average DDD recordings of the last two decades are cleaner, clearer and more natural sounding, and have no tape hiss. There are of course some enormously enjoyable analogue recordings going right back to the fifties and some very poor digital recordings, but if the only thing I knew about two CDs was that one was an analogue recording and the other was digital, I'd choose the digital.

Just taking up Dave's comment: some early DG digital remasters of analogue recordings are dreadful, and not comparable with the LP version. Recent DG digital remasters are wonderful:

Yeah, some of the earlier transcriptions to CD of old analogue recordings are awful. I think that's why Chesky did so well in the early days with their reissues. They took the time to do it right.

I remember some spectacularly fine LP recordings that were not successfully transferred to cd like Haitink´s The Planets and Scheherazade on Philips. And on the contrary, some LP´s that didn´t sound too good when first released were very successfully transferred to cd like DG Falla´s La Vida Breve.
I was just listening last week to Otto Nicolai´s The Merry Wives of Windsor in the 1976 Kubelik recording and it still sounds absolutely marvelous, in fact much better than the recent DG Werther with Villazón and Pappano, which proves that recording is an ART, irrespective of the technologies available at the moment.

Recording is indeed an art, but sometimes it just comes down to microphone placement and level balancing, each of which are ultimately informed by experience. I'm a great fan of Lorin Maazel's underrated Mahler cycle for Sony, recorded in the early- to mid-Eighties with the VPO in the Musikverein. Aside from the quality of the readings, I have always been struck by the very natural sound that the Sony engineers achieved on these recordings. At a time when many companies (most notably DG) were getting carried away by the possibilities of digital recordings, and in particular over-miking of performances, Sony under-miked these performances and relied instead on the natural ambience of the legendary Musikverein. The result was a very naturally focused sound that did not artificially exaggerate instrumental details. Over the past few months I've been listening to three very rewarding and very well-chosen box sets that combine beautifully natural recorded sound with truly memorable performances that highlight just how much of an art recording can be: The Decca Sound, Mercury Living Presence and the Living Stereo Collection.

Would you recommend any one of those sets over the others, mcq? I mean for musical and sonic reasons.

I think it's not clear cut - digital recordings done badly will always sound worse than analog ones done well - and vice versa of course. The problem is that there probably isn't a level playing field..... A lack of newly mastered and pressed (cm) vinyl is one issue. Remastering of good quality old recordings to suit modern tastes means it's likely that digital will likely win out for cm listeners....


Fran