Hi again,
as said before I’m a vinyl lover, but I came across mastering recordings from Barry Diament (Soundkeeper Recordings) that got me thinking. He’s a well-known recording engineer who has long hated loundness settings, had one breakdown and then came up with a pretty simple recording technique: just 2 microphones. And no loudness manipulations, no overdubbing, more or less nothing that we are so used to with modern mastering.
Although his recordings have an average dynamic range of 15-17 dB, some parts or songs are rather quiet. Only when the music demands it does it get louder. Something we are no longer used to. The way in which the musicians are presented reminds me more of analog recordings. Very precise located, communicative and the musicians pretty much the right size. On the other hand, if you look at traditional recordings like Diana Krall’s, they also have their own advantages, her voice is more present, but also a touch perhaps too big, perhaps too direct; The piano is massive, but also a little bit too big. It’s more of an in-your-face recording. A beautiful recording, maybe in its own way. And Diana Krall recordings are very good, but when you listen you are always aware that it is a recording, no matter how fantastic, but still a recording and not music.
Recording of Barry Diamneds are much better in this respect. It may lack the euphonoic of mechanical scanning that we all love when we listen to vinyl, but so far, and this is important for me, I haven’t been able to notice the typical digital fatigue that always comes to me when listening to digital, sooner or later, even with such good recordings as form Diana Krall. Also said before when I listen to Soundkeeper Recordings I don’t have the impression that, as usual with Digital, the players were recorded in space. Instead I have the impression they play in one room at the same time.
Maybe digital is still not the problem, only that the ease of manipulation which is used in excess by the recording engineers. The advantage of using digital as perhaps more advanced analog technology has been given up for the many digital possibilities which, according to official belief, can be used as often and as often as you want without loss.
So the consumer never had a chance to hear if digital is as good or even better than vinyl.
Here are two statements from other people:
Be sure to turn the volume up a bit as there is no compression so quiet sounds can be buried
.
All guitars (acoustic, electric, pedal steel and mandolin) emit an inherent sheen, like 180 gram vinyl. This is really an audiophile recording.
I downloaded the "Americas" recording, there all qualities are visible, only as a small critic the piano alone is perhaps too restrained for my taste. But the recording gets quite loud, when required, when the drummer hits it, the sound becomes wonderfully loud and real.The other recording I own is "Wind of Change" , just a great recording. Maybe I’ll get the "Confluence". I only bought 16bit so far.
But how many minimal microphone usage and manipulation-free recordings are there today? How many nondigital digital recordings. In this form I would, still cautiously, see it as an real alternative to vinyl. Both are fatigue-free, only with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Sure there are others, but overall there are too few Barry Diaments ...
I hope for the ones like Mr. "Timbre" that it is an worthy, an intelligent comment I made, because I have not used the word "timbre". It is not meant to be offensive, just a little joking remark :-)
Stay tuned
Wolfgang
