In Reply to: Digital versus Analog Recording posted by jedrider on January 6, 2025 at 16:25:40:
about the contrast between recording then and now. When I played a minor role in recording Telarc's Firebird with the ASO, it spanned only two days. Time was money and there were only so many retakes. Since union performer timing was my job, I felt official using an Omega Flightmaster chronograph for the task as it was similar to the watch used by Apollo astronauts. One notable retake was with the short clarinet solo in the Borodin piece located at about 2:30.We went downstairs under the hall where the recording gear was located to hear the first take. While it was digital, this was 1978 using Tom Stockham's Soundstream recorder using a Honeywell tape drive for media. Sidebar: it was a 50/16 format as Jack Renner was not satisfied with 44/16. Back to the story, Shaw was not happy with the first take. The HVAC was turned off to reduce noise and he frequently had a towel around his neck! He advised the clarinetist precisely what he wanted. The second take was magic and is what you hear. It was not an endless series of "undos". :)
As for Hume's collection of old hard drives, I always migrated all my data to newer, higher capacity versions and never lost anything. Today, the digital library lives on mirrored SSDs with multiple backup sets. Even fits on this for the Oppo player:
Still enjoy playing my vinyl now and again but prefer spending more time listening to the shared library across several systems via media server.
For the recording process, however, perhaps the pace should be slowed down to retain the magic. :)
Edits: 01/07/25
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- He has some good points - E-Stat 07:28:23 01/07/25 (1)
- Interesting, thanks for sharing. nT - M-dB 10:46:30 01/12/25 (0)