wrote:

There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after, otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

Recall when CDs were labelled DDD or AAD or ADD?
What the hell was that all about?


It was about letting people know how clean the disk would be based on
how much digital technoloby had been used. I assume they stopped it
because people, like me wanted the disks with the DDD designation more
than any other, due the fact that sounded cleaner and more dynamic,
just as direct to digital does.

and perhaps didn't sound like the original instrument recorded.

The master.. the master tape.. the master tape.
Why do you keep ignoring all that goes on... and often in the digital
domain before your beloved master is created?
For many recordings today there is no "master" analogue tape.
Ever hear "direct to digital". Tracks recorded and mixed
DIGITALLY! You keep bitching about SS and tubes
and **** while you yourself are stuck in analogue world
without a ****ing clue about the pitfalls of digital processing.

Do tell, I'm always willing to learn.
There is still a version thaqt is considered the master from which the
CD's are produced.
LP can't match CD for accuracy or faithfullness to that master, no
matter how it was created.

So you don't care how faithful the master is to the original event
(if there was one)?

Digital processing research continues to this day on how
to handle floating point vs fixed and all the dithering options.

This ****s over my head and Zelniker handed Arny his
ass more than a few times for his lack of comprehension
on these issues... but it is clear that digital audio
processing continues to be studied and improved.

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/imag...tingdither.pdf

Don't let Mike oversimplify things. What he says is true..
digitizing an analogue master results in an audible
equivalent of the master. But that isn't what causes
the problems with many digital recordings IMO.

What problems are you talking about?

Read the paper.


Most of the problems AFAIK have more to do with choices made by the
people doing the mixing and not much with the technology.

Choices made by the people providing the mixing hardware
you mean which is the essence of the technology.
Not many mixing engineers know squat about the goings on
inside their DAWs. They apply the algorithms in their
equipment and expect
a result. This paper shows that the people who develop those
algorithms which are implemented in those DAWs
continue to improve them.

ScottW