SACD finally taking-off? non-classical listeners

Great for us to evolve into a discussion of ECM and thinking about the music again. I have about 70 Watt and ECM records, and maybe only 15 CD's of same.

Just as an aside, it's a common practice in the pop/rock production world to mix digitally (ProTools), but to then generate a final 2 channel mix on analog tape (1/2 inch). This is then delivered to the mastering studio where it is converted back to a digital format. People comment that the analog tape gives the music a greater cohesiveness than if left in the original digital format.

Also, it's not uncommon that once a master "tape" has left the mastering studio that the sound is degraded in the duplication factories.

Getting high quality sound mass produced is not a trivial task.

Onhwy61, There is a logical conclusion that you cannot get away from analogue unless you're mastering directly to the neccessary format wheather it's CD or SACD with bit-to-bit sample-to-sample correspondence.

Why would we realy need to record digitally on the first place if we still have to mix it into the analogue in the most cases? Isn't it more expences and time involved there?

Marakanetz, the recording companies record to digital "multitrack" in order to do their editing. While the sound quality may not be up to analog, the editing capability of digital is much more versatile. This gives cleaner edits and other manipulations of the recording. Also, time coding of each track can be more precise when locking up the tracks. Other advantages as well.

Marakanetz, big name pop/rock acts with corresponding big recording budgets and recording in a world class studio(s) will typically track using 2" 24 track analog tape (two machines can be synced if more tracks are required). It will then be ported over to a digital format for manipulation and mixing. Effects and processors used can either be analog or digital. The final mix is via analog large format console mixer to 1/2" analog tape. The mastering studio will provide the finishing touches, nearly always analog processors, and then transfer the music into a computer running software to compile it as a redbook CD.

The reason for such a convoluted recording process is a combination of sound quality, comfort level and convenience. For the tracking sessions most people think 2" analog tape sounds better than any other format. It is also a world wide accepted standard that engineers are comfortable handling. Digital mixing affords far greater flexibility than possible with a purely analog signal path. It also avoids the generational losses associated with analog tape based mixing. (Even if you stayed analog, you would never mix with the original recordings, you would use dubs.) Typical manipulation at this stage might be producing a single composite vocal track from a dozen individual tracks. Or maybe replacing the kick drum sound with a pre-recorded kick drum sample. The vocal comp can be done, if somewhat messily, on analog tape with a razor and tape. The kick drum replacement can only be accomplished in the digital domain. The final two channel mix is done to analog tape because it sounds better than way. The mastering stage continues the analog sound processes because of its sonic superiority. The most common mastering processes are volume changes, EQ and compression. While there are perfectly good digital devices that accomplish these processes, the general consensus is that the best sounding outboard devices are all analog based.

Modern pop/rock recording is conceptually similar to making a commericial Hollywood movie. No director is making a faithful reproduction of real events, the documentary approach, but instead everything is fake and any level of artifice is employed to make it "better than real".