Half the information on CDs is analogue

These types of threads always get me a little riled up because of the amount of misinformation and pure bulls**t that people spew. So that you know where I'm coming from, I'm a full-time recording engineer who uses top-flight digital and analog gear on a daily basis.

To begin with, the difference between a 16-bit, 44.1kHz recording and a 24-bit, 96kHz recording is pretty subtle. Multi-track recording to 24-bit is extremely important because it results in a significantly easier mixing and mastering process and a drastically reduced noise floor, but the difference between a 24-bit stereo file and a 16-bit stereo file is very slight. The S/N ratio of most recording and reproduction gear (including most DACs and especially microphones) barely exceeds that of a redbook CD anyhow, and I challenge anyone to find any recording with more than 96dB of dynamic range (which would be a recording who's loudest passages have an amplitude 2,000,000,000 times greater than the softest). As for higher sample rates, the audible advantage to getting the sample rate above 44.1K is getting the filter (a low-pass filter is involved with all A/D conversion) out of the audible frequency range. Most converters (especially in the pro world) oversample and get the filter out of the audible range anyhow.

The main differences that you are hearing in your SACDs and DVD-As is in the mixing and mastering. Most redbook CDs are compressed to hell (just import a track from a CD into any audio editing program and look at the waveform), meaning limited (read no) dynamic range, not compressed as in MP3s, especially compared to the old analog releases. This is because people expect to put a CD in their car or stereo and have it be as loud as the rest of their CDs. It's also an attempt at having the loudest track on the radio. Most SACDs and DVD-As are mixed and/or mastered with audiophiles in mind, meaning enhanced dynamic range, and a more natural presentation.

As for the poster who said that extreme equalization was needed to make digital recordings sound natural, you actually have it backwards. RIAA equalization was already mentioned as it pertains to LPs, but you might be interested to know that significant equalization is also applied to multitrack analog tape to even out the frequency response. Digital requires no such EQ, and is usually as perfect and natural a representation of the original event as is possible.

Even most engineers that prefer analog tape as a recording medium will admit that the aspects that they like about tape are tape saturation (resulting in natural compression as the tape is driven with a hot signal) and harmonic distortion, two things which make the recording LESS natural.

In short, there's really nothing wrong with redbook as a medium. SACD offers some improvement through DSD, and DVD-A offers slight improvements through higher bit-depths and sample rates (although they are very subtle), but incredible sound is possible via redbook. The problem with most bad sounding recordings is in the mastering (due to *gasp* PUBLIC DEMAND), and somewhat in mixing. Part of what many of you consider the problem to be with most commercial recordings is that realistic and natural reproduction of an acoustic event is NOT the typical goal.

These are just the opinions of someone that works with analog and digital audio of all types all day, every day, and who produces CDs for a living.

Sean,

What do you think monitoring setups in most studios and recording schools are like? If you think that $3,000-$5,000 nearfield monitors and a pair of expensive mains is akin to bose speakers, then you've obviously never heard a serious studio playback system. A student listening in a highly acoustically treated, specially designed room on dynaudio nearfields and ATC mains has an idea of what good sound is like.

It really gets me angry when over and over again I see a lack of respect on this and other audiophile forums for people in the recording industry. There is a negative (in my opinion) trend towards over compression and SOME poor recording practices, but the problem isn't all the engineers. You would also be SHOCKED to hear how different most recordings sound like before mastering. If anybody is interested I can post a clip of a project I just finished before mastering, and afterward. There's probably a 10-15db difference in percieved loudness, and the difference in dynamic range is huge.

The problem is NOT the engineers (or even the mastering engineers), it's the labels and people's expectations. When someone puts a CD in their car and it's 15db softer than the rest of their CD's, their instant reaction is that it is an inferior product, and that the sound quality is lower than their other CD's. In a short AB test, people almost always prefer the louder, brighter recording.

Another reason for over-compression and a lack of dynamic range is that most people don't just sit and listen to music anymore. They listen in the car, on headphones while commuting, jogging, etc, or in the background. A recording with little dynamic range is ideal for these purposes. I can't listen to classical music in the car because it's either too soft to hear, or it's blowing my ears out. Same goes for listening on the subway or while jogging. Music with too much dynamic range is tougher to listen to in a noisy environment or in the background. Most modern music isn't very dynamic anyway. Trust me, it's not like there's much in the way of dynamic swings in modern pop or rock before it hits mastering.

The problem is also that engineering is an INCREDIBLY competitive field. Most attempting to enter the field today won't be anything more than assistants, interns, or runners for the rest of the decade and beyond. There aren't many jobs for engineers out there, and getting the few that do exist involves mainly luck, but also feeding into exactly the expectations that are there for you. It's probably not too surprising that the goal is almost always "sound like band x", or "just like the break in song y", not "give us the best sound".

So don't be so quick to blame the state of modern recording on some incompetency on the part of engineers. We know what good sound is, even if most of the guys don't have nice playback rigs at home (do you like to bring your work home with you?). Engineers also know about the current state of the recording industry. Engineers are always complaining about over compression and the lack of musicality in modern recordings. Most of the problem is in mastering, and out of the recording/mix engineer's hands, and even then the problem is with the labels and expectations of the public and the guys writing the checks. I have a degree and years of experience in my field. If you think that you can do my job better, please come out to the studio and have a crack at it. You're welcome to try anytime.

Again, most engineers are fighting the same battle that you are Sean. The problem is two fold. For one, most bands attached to labels have little say in how their record sounds, except for the biggest, most established acts. Most people selling tons of records have absolutely no control over their album. At the same time, most people who are making independant recordings and who are not attached to a label only want something to compete with major label recordings. We DO try to educate our clients about good sound. We also get stuck between a rock and a hard place in that if we don't give the client what they want (loud, over compressed recordings), then we will often lose work.

As industry professionals our integrity is to do the job that we are hired to do. If it was purely up to me I would do many things differently with most of the recordings I produce. I also think that most music being produced (alot of the stuff that I work on in fact) is garbage as well, but much of the time it's not my place to comment on that either.

I also believe that the way recordings are produced today suits the way that most people listen to music. Less compression and more dynamic range is going to be bad news for most consumers. The real battle is over the role music place in the marketplace. The advent of the ipod, as well as the convenience of technology has turned music into a background affair. Most peolpe listen to music constantly for most of the day (be it on their ipod, the radio, on tv, in the car, etc), and as a result the meduim is losing its percieved value. We need to get more people actively listening, and going to live shows. Most people don't even listen to whole songs anymore.

The movement you're talking about will only occur if the general public changes their listening habits. Back when people would sit down and listen to an album in its entirety, many more people cared about sound quality than do today. Now the shift has been towards convenience and image, and things won't change until that changes. The vast majority of engineers would love to see a shift towards better recordings, but the market has to change first. Engineers complain about the state of the industry and sound quality more than audiophiles, if that's even possible. For now, we have to meet the demands of the market and our employers. Most of us are having a tough enough time working enough to feed our families. We live in a world where everyone thinks they are an engineer or producer, and budgets are always shrinking. It says alot that videos are more expensive than ever, when recording budgets are a fraction of what they were. The studio where I typically work charges less than similarly equipped studios 30 years ago, not accounting for inflation, and people still aren't exactly beating down the door.

The best thing for audiophiles to do is support the labels that do cater to us, and produce the kinds of recordings that you want to hear. There are lots of recordings produced today that sound better than ever, and we need to make sure that there's enough of a market to keep these people busy. We should also be fighting to get more people interested in music on an active level. If you can get somebody to start listening to music in an active way, and listening to complete albums, then getting them to care about sound quality is sure to follow shortly.

I think Back in Black is one of the best recorded straight-ahead rock albums of all time. Listen to that, then The Darkness' Permission to Land for an example of what overcompression does to a recording. Permission to Land would have been an incredible sounding recording if a little restraint was shown in mastering.