how to make a state-of-the-art digital live recording
.JPG@webp)
- the "trinity" head -
One of my greatest passions has long been, and still is, the live recording of classical music. For me, only a few things compare to the joy and fulfilment that washes over you after capturing a beautiful concert, which is always unique and unrepeatable. And then there's the quiet awareness that the recording will stay with you forever and ... even beyond you!
I started in 1976 in Italy, recording almost unknown musicians and, year after year, I recorded many of the best performers in the world of classical music (mostly Baroque), such as Ton Koopman, Gustav Leonhardt, London Baroque, Ensemble 415, I Solisti Veneti, Fiori Musicali Bremen (with David Cordier), Harry Christophers & The Sixteen, Hagen Quartet, Les Percussions de Strasbourg, Anner Bylsma, Kenneth Gilbert, Severino Gazzelloni, Jörg Demus, Nikita Magaloff, Raimondo Campisi, Bruno Canino, Pina Carmirelli, Bruce Dickey, Giardino Armonico, Corul Madrigal Marin Constantin, Marco Taio, Tölzer Knabenchor, Patrizia Kwella and ... many, many others, accumulating I don't know how many hundreds of hours of live recordings.
Here in NZ, I continue to feed my big passion, having become the official recorder for Bach Musica New Zealand (of which I had the privilege of being a member of the Board of Directors for more than 10 years), Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra (Learn & Participate), Auckland Youth Orchestra, Auckland Chamber Orchestra, plus other smaller but equally talented musical ensembles.
I have also recorded numerous world premieres of contemporary classical music by New Zealand composers. I find their music both interesting and emotionally powerful. When performing this modern music, orchestras are often pushed to their instrumental limits, resulting in sounds with overwhelming dynamics that border on the incredible!
Since 1976, I have matured technically, with the ultimate goal of closely reconstructing the original event. This entails accurately reproducing the orchestra's sound and virtually visualising the stage, ensuring precise localisation of the musicians in terms of direction and distance (3D). Today, I am close to achieving 90% of this reality. I believe this represents a very challenging barrier to surpass, if even possible!
To achieve such a result, you need an "unusual" recording system and a perfect hi-fi system. This is quite intriguing because recording and playback are correlatives! Therefore, I had to proceed step by step, using the recording to improve the audio system, and then using the improved audio system to enhance both the recording system and the recording technique. It's like trying to solve the age-old conundrum of the chicken and the egg: which one came first? It took me a considerable amount of time to achieve these results, but I ultimately succeeded!
NOTE: If you are NOT interested in the following technical part and explanation of the system I invented and use for live recording, and instead wish only to focus on different recording methods, the one I use, and my perspective on the baffling analogue-digital "diatribe", please skip directly to the bottom of the page (just after the last two smaller photos), where you'll find this mark (@@@)
As mentioned before, I started my recording "journey" in 1976, using a normal 4-track Revox A77 and two dynamic Sennheiser MD 441-U microphones. My hi-fi system consisted of an AGI 511 preamp, a Michaelson & Austin TVA-1 tube amp, and a pair of Dahlquist DQ10 speakers on 40 cm high stands. The speakers were connected to the amp using short, thick speaker cables that I had made myself. Back then, the importance of the speaker cables was unknown, and everyone used those thin red‑and‑black ones.
Anyway, in the era of the “dinosaurs” (Klipschorn, JBL, Tannoy, Altec Lansing, Magneplanar, etc.), my system was like a “green man” from Mars around the world! Indeed, if used to play vinyl, that system could still compete on equal terms with many modern, exorbitantly priced “so-called” hi-end systems. In fact, for many good reasons, I'm used to classifying today’s hi-end as “back to the '70s”!
Anyway, I still remember the first time I made a recording (an organ concert in Lierna's church, on Lake Como) and the shock I felt when I later played it through my system! Until that moment, I was totally happy with it, but listening to the recording made me suddenly realise there were problems! Initially, I blamed the recording, and I was partially right, but then I realised the fault was not only with the recording but also with the playback system. So, I began upgrading the recording system, buying two Schoeps CMC3-MK41 microphones and a 2-track Revox A700 (a large and inhumanely heavy unit weighing 25 kg). Later, in 1978, I upgraded the hi-fi system, adding the just-imported active subwoofer (an unfamiliar term and concept at the time) B2-50 from audio pro, to finally achieve perfect reproduction of the infrabass as well.
What I didn’t imagine back then was how much the speakers and the amp would benefit from being rolled off in the bass range to blend with the sub correctly! Indeed, being relieved from reproducing the infrabass range (in vain, for the speakers) resulted in a general improvement of the entire system, with reduced total distortion, increased dynamics and a better, cleaner mid-high range (I explain why this happens in the first topic of the school of hi-fi page).
To sum up, the addition was almost miraculous, and the system was elevated to new glories!
Interestingly, after 48 years, that sub is still in my lounge. It remains an essential component of my current main system, and given the panorama of pseudo-competitors out there, I have no intention of replacing it yet!
In 1980, I sold the Dahlquist and the TVA-1 and upgraded to the new audio pro A4-14, incredible active speakers, which I enjoyed until 2002. Since then, the sachem era started and now my reference system consists of a sachem pure v.2, two sachem v.3 monoblocks, a DAC Topping D-50 III (powered by iPower X) connected to the computer, a Sony Blu-ray as CD transport, the "immortal" B2-50 subwoofer (modified) and a pair of audio pro speakers Avanti A.20 DC, connected to the monoblocks by NORDOST 2-flat cable (1 metre long).
Please note that the Avanti A.20 DCs are centre speakers! However, I've positioned them vertically on 60 cm stands, creating an ideal D'Appolito configuration that best reproduces the sound source’s spatial imaging.
My listening room is a spacious lounge on two (two-steps) levels, featuring parquet flooring, Persian rugs, and furnishings, which is seamlessly connected to adjacent open areas. This architectural openness allows sound to propagate, expand, and dissipate, making this lounge acoustically "blessed"!I have set up and tuned the system with meticulous (nay, maniacal) care, achieving an unusual frequency response from 20Hz to 8kHz within a tight 4dB window (not ±4dB) at the listening position. The response is flat at 20Hz, dips to -3dB at 8kHz, and reaches -6dB at 16kHz, honouring the in-room sound reproduction guidelines set by "its majesty" Brüel & Kjær.
The system boasts an uncommon dynamic range, exceptional speed and control, flawless imaging, and the lowest distortion currently achievable in the bass and infrabass regions, resulting in extraordinary clarity across the entire audio spectrum. You may find this difficult to believe, but, in my listening position, it rivals the performance of my STAX SR-Lambda Pro electrostatic headphones!
If you're interested in seeing my system's frequency response, you'll find a screenshot of the spectrum analyser on the school of hi-fi page, towards the end of the second topic.
.JPG@webp)
- the power supply and the three preamps on the background -
Even though I consider myself an enthusiastic and complete “digital man", I have no problem admitting that, before the advent of digital, I made beautiful recordings with the Revox too, running it at 15 IPS, 2 tracks and using a very thick tape, the AMPEX 456. By employing this thick, professional tape, it was possible to set the BIAS of the A700 very high, raising the saturation point by approximately 12dB. This is the "secret" to reduce (not eliminate) the tape hiss, which is the main nightmare of analogue reel-to-reel machines. Obviously, with this setup, the distortion increases, especially on transients, yet it reminds me of the timeless truth of Cicero's famous phrase ... "ubi maior, minor cessat".
Another drawback of live recording using this professional tape is that a 10.5" reel (the largest one), running at 15 IPS, has a quite short duration (45 minutes). This often led to "panicking moments" over the possibility of missing the ending of long symphonies or movements!
However, on the evening of May 12, 1981, using a 14-bit Sharp-Optonica RX-1 (one of the first AD-DA converters, just arrived from Germany) and a VHS video recorder, I recorded my dear friend, and acclaimed classical guitarist, Marco Taio performing a concert in Rho (Milan). To the best of my knowledge, this was the very first digital live recording of a classical music concert in Italy. When I heard the result, I was so impressed that I exclaimed, "hi-fi has been born"!
So, I obviously distance myself from the funny crowd of newly reborn analogue and vinyl enthusiasts (now and then, the world reminds us that self-evident reality isn’t always invited to the party). Actually, after 45 years and with good reason, I'd like to reaffirm my original statement, which was unequivocally correct!
In my view, there's no reason left to make analogue recordings, except the economic one, since catering to this ever-growing army of charmingly quirky analogue nostalgics has already become a lucrative business.
That said, you could still create analogue recordings of light music, but this would not apply to classical music, where perfection is essential. Getting rid of the tape-hiss during an “adagio” was a dream come true, along with the astonishing clarity of the "pianissimi" and in general of the entire audio band, not to mention the "sculptural" precision, control, speed and endless dynamic excursion of the percussion instruments and the bass-infrabass range.
So, as soon as it arrived on the Italian market, I bought a Sony PCM-F1, and years later, a DAT Tascam DA-30 MK II. I still have them!
It's now time to tell you what I use nowadays and how to create a state-of-the-art recording of any natural (non-amplified) sonic event. Starting with the recorders, I use a portable Tascam HD-P2, a great (small and light) professional machine, and, as a backup, a Tascam DR-100MKIII, which is a serious "toy" too. I know you might think these machines aren't the best available nowadays. And yes, there are definitely better AC/DC converters out there, but the differences, if audible at all, are so tiny that, given the cost, I don’t think they're worth the money. In fact, the final result of a recording is much more influenced by other factors, which are far more crucial and audible.
I set them up at 44.1 kHz - 24 bit because I sometimes need to make CDs, which use 44.1kHZ as the standard sampling rate. If I had to record at 192 kHz, then I would need to downsample to 44.1 kHz to create a CD. Although I haven’t personally verified it yet, I’ve heard this procedure may not be entirely advisable.
Instead, I've personally verified that using any sampling rate higher than 44.1 kHz is completely useless! To test this, I recorded a concert on my two recorders, one set at 44.1 kHz and the other at 192 kHz. Later, using my STAX SR-Lambda Pro electrostatic headphones and my system too, I compared the two synchronised recordings, switching between them in real time. The result? Absolutely NO audible difference. I’m sorry for those who believe otherwise, but this is the plain reality: everything else is "theology"!
When it comes to microphones, I exclusively use Schoeps condenser microphones. Like all other top brands, Schoeps produces a wide range of microphones for various uses and with different characteristics. With the essential help of Mr Alberto Albertini (an exquisite person and the “Schoeps man” in Italy at the time), I tried a few capsules that could suit my needs and opted for the MK41. This capsule is super-cardioid and has unique peculiarities: it excels in maintaining a consistent polar response across the entire audio spectrum. As a result, sounds within 90º on both sides of the main axis are captured with virtually no alteration to the frequency response or tone colour, ensuring a stable image too. For these reasons, two of them are the perfect mics for the ORTF stereo technique, which is the one I use. By setting them at 110°, with the capsules 17 cm apart, you recreate the physiognomy of the human auditory system, giving the mics a panoramic sonic view of the entire orchestra!
When it comes to microphones, I exclusively use Schoeps condenser microphones. Like all other top brands, Schoeps produces a wide range of microphones for various uses and with different characteristics. With the essential help of Mr Alberto Albertini (an exquisite person and the “Schoeps man” in Italy at the time), I tried a few capsules that could suit my needs and opted for the MK41. This capsule is super-cardioid and has unique peculiarities: it excels in maintaining a consistent polar response across the entire audio spectrum. As a result, sounds within 90º on both sides of the main axis are captured with virtually no alteration to the frequency response or tone colour, ensuring a stable image too. For these reasons, two of them are the perfect mics for the ORTF stereo technique, which is the one I use. By setting them at 110°, with the capsules 17 cm apart, you recreate the physiognomy of the human auditory system, giving the mics a panoramic sonic view of the entire orchestra!
- the power supply and back panel with output-sockets, transformer and AC filter -
For four years, I used the two MK41 alone, and I assure you that when I played a recording back, I enjoyed a perfect 3D sound, with superb localisation of the players in direction and depth! In a few words, it was like reliving the live concert all over again, but ...
Yes, unfortunately, there is always a “but”, and in this case, the "but" is that the MK41 capsules, as all cardioid and super-cardioid capsules of any brand, roll off the bass range! Starting from 200Hz, they feature an approximate mechanical roll-off of 3dB/oct, making 20Hz ... "wishful thinking".
This practically means that if you record a violin, a guitar, a flute, a small Baroque ensemble or a flying bumblebee, this lack of extension in the low range is "almost" forgivable. Still, this deficiency becomes tragically audible in recordings of an organ or a large orchestra, particularly with a bass drum!
As luck would have it, most of my recordings at the time were of Baroque music. However, as a former bassist, I've always had (and still have) a close relationship with the bass-infrabass range, actually, an obsession. So, I had to find a solution to my sonic nightmare!
I started considering alternative recording techniques, and one of them was the OSS Jecklin Disc recording system (its detailed description is towards the end of this page). This system utilises two omnidirectional mics, which, unlike super-cardioid and cardioid, provide a linear response extended down to infrasound. To try it, Mr Albertini lent me two Schoeps bodies, with two MK2 omnidirectional capsules. So, on the evening of October 6, 1983, in the Cathedral of Lodi, I recorded a glorious concert by “I Solisti Veneti” using the OSS and simultaneously my normal system. The day after, comparing the two recordings (switching in real-time), I was delighted by the entire bass range of the recording made by the OSS-MK2 system. However, the rest of the audio band could not compete with the one achieved with my two MK41 mics in ORTF configuration!
Ever since that day, I have started dreaming of a system capable of the bass and infrabass of the MK2 with the mid-high range excellence of the MK41!
After thinking it over again and again, I finally had a flash of genius: why not apply the "satellites + subwoofer" concept, which is the best for top-tier audio systems, to microphones?
So, I bought another body CMC3 with an MK2 omnidirectional capsule. It’s worth noting that only one microphone is needed for this task, as this microphone operates solely between 5Hz and 69Hz (-3dB). At these frequencies, there’s no stereo effect, since the human ear cannot localise sounds below 300Hz.
Then, not finding the electronics to accomplish my project on the professional market, I had to build (following the design made by my old friends and excellent technicians Rino Cieri and Daniele Gherardi) a specific preamp-crossover-mixer unit for the three mics. This quite complex unit is made up of three hi-end preamps, a second-order Butterworth electronic low-pass filter (12dB/oct), and a three-way mixer.
To better explain, each mic has its own preamp. The output of the MK2 preamp is fed into the electronic filter, and its output is then sent to the mixer, which combines the resulting rolled-off signal with the signal from the two MK41 mics. As mentioned, these don’t need any electronic cut to join the MK2, as they already have their mechanical roll-off.
Finally, the only thing left was to equalise the level of the MK2 to the level of the two MK41, and also find the right frequency for the -3dB roll-off point for the low-pass filter of the MK2. This task is paramount and complex: you need a spectrum analyser, a hi-fi system that is veeeery flat in the midbass-bass-infrabass range and/or a serious electrostatic headphones set (fortunately, I have all these things!).
Once the initial system calibration has been done in broad strokes using the instruments, it's indispensable to move into "field action". You make a recording, identify the issues in the bass range, and then, driven purely by your hands-on experience, you carry out the adjustments you judge to be necessary. Then you record again, follow the same process, and so on, until perfection is achieved. It's a lengthy and frustrating process that must be undertaken empirically, as this is the only viable approach, because roll-off frequency and level are interdependent.
To give you an idea of how challenging this operation is, more than twenty recordings were the price paid to perfection!
Anyway, at the end of this essential procedure, the rewarding and remarkable thing was that I had at my disposal a recording system that was second to none and simply stunning! This system works like a head with two perfect ears. To make an incomparable recording, you walk up and down the venue's aisle during the rehearsal. When you find the point where the orchestra's sound is perfectly in focus, you place the "trinity" there, at the right height and inclination!
.jpg@webp)
- the original electronic of one of my Schoeps CMC3 -
Now, a few words about the quality of the electronics and the improvements I have made to the mics. To help you understand exactly what I did and why, I need to make an introductory speech. As mentioned on the sachem pure v.2 and school of hi-fi pages, so-called “professional” equipment is generally not hi-end, sonically speaking. This also applies to the electronics inside microphones, mixers, effect generators, compressors, and similar devices. All these units usually incorporate electrolytic capacitors in the signal path. Furthermore, if you open a large professional mixer, you’ll be struck by the complexity of its circuits, which must meet the many “noxious” requirements of modern sound engineers. It seems that no one has told them: “the simpler, the better” or “what is missing doesn’t damage the sound and doesn’t sound itself”. In fact, listening to a CD by The Shadows or some old jazz CDs recorded between the late '50s and early '60s using straightforward, primitive equipment, and comparing them to similar music produced today, normally reveals that something has gone wrong. It seems the past 60 years weren't spent on improvement, but rather sadly and mercilessly flushed down the toilet!
Coming now to the technology of the mics, every condenser microphone is made up of a capsule and a "body" with electronic circuits to feed the capsule with a polarisation current, plus a preamp to provide gain and a balanced output for the signal. So, all condenser mics need a phantom power supply: the standard one is 48V DC, but with the Schoeps "bodies" (CMC series), you can use different voltages without any loss. So, I opted for 12V DC because it is easier to construct an extremely pure power supply at this voltage or to source an industrial one on the market, such as the iPOWER X, which delivers incredibly pure DC.
Phantom power applies the same DC voltage to both signal lines of the balanced shielded cable connecting the microphone and preamp. The issue is that this DC must be blocked before it reaches the audio circuits inside the microphone, and similarly, at the other end, before the preamp’s circuits.
The manufacturers of mics solve this problem with two small electrolytic capacitors, whereas the manufacturers of professional mixers can choose between electrolytic capacitors or small 1:1 isolation transformers made for this purpose, but they normally prefer the capacitors.
.jpg@webp)
- the modified electronic of my Scoeps CMC3 - note the red WIMA polypropylene caps and the new electrolytics too -
So, in microphones and professional mixers that don’t use isolation transformers, where a capacitance of just above 300nF (0.3μF) is required, manufacturers typically opt for electrolytic caps due to their small physical dimensions. But, from a sonic perspective, electrolytic capacitors are among the worst options. When placed in the signal path (as in this case), they can deplete harmonics and overtones. Therefore, I explored a different approach to minimise any potential sonic alterations.
I started modifying the electronics inside the "bodies" of the two old MK41, replacing all the electrolytic caps on the signal path with beautiful Wima polypropylene ones (a crazy job of micro-soldering and moving many components from the top to the bottom surface of the PCB - see the photos above). I also replaced the old electrolytic caps outside the signal path with high-quality, modern ones.
For the body of the MK2 (the mic for the bass range), it was impossible to use polypropylene caps because the ones of the appropriate value were too large, so there was no way to fit them inside the cylindrical enclosure of the CMC3. However, I replaced the old, original electrolytic caps with modern ones of top quality. I have also changed the value of the two caps that originally limited the mic's frequency response to 30Hz at -3dB. Now, this mic goes down to 5Hz (-3dB), ensuring linearity at 20Hz.
Then I built the preamp-crossover-mixer unit with the signal path electrolytic-free and with the same performance as the sachem pure v.2 preamp, which is ... "another planet" (slew rate 140 V/μs, bandwidth @ 0dB DC > 4 MHz and a distortion of 0.00003%)!
In the recording world, I believe I may be the only one to use only four Wima MKP10 series polypropylene capacitors in the signal path from the microphone capsule to the digital recorder (any fewer is impossible). These capacitors are extremely fast and preserve the original content of overtones and harmonics. Additionally, this unit features only metal-film resistors with a ±0.1% tolerance and ±15ppm/°C, ensuring very low thermal noise and an identical performance and gain between the two channels.
Regarding the cables used to connect the mics to the preamp, I employ top-quality balanced shielded cables only 5 metres long. Hard to say how much, but surely this is an additional benefit, considering that studios and concert halls often use cables that are 20/30 metres long, or even longer!
The interesting thing is that, with this system, anyone can potentially create a stunning recording without being a so-called "sound engineer" (by the way, never call me one if you want to stay my friend)! The key is finding the optimal placement for the "trinity". If you do that accurately, you’ll be rewarded with incomparable recordings that are milestones in real sound of the whole orchestra, sound stage, silky mid-highs, unchanged original overtones, fulminant speed, a “granitic” low range, extended to infrasound, and a possible dynamic range of 90dB!
In the first photo at the top of the page, you can see the "trinity" (two CMC3-MK41 at 110°, with the CMC3-MK2 in the centre).
Scrolling down, the next two shots show the inside of the "preamp-crossover-mixer" unit, which is state-of-the-art and totally wire-free.
In the following shot, you see the original body of a Schoeps CMC3, and in the shot below, the same body after my upgrade. Please note the modifications I made to its electronics and components.
Just down here, the left image shows the crossover-mixer section. The right image, where I'm holding a small blue capacitor between my fingers, highlights the physical size differences between electrolytic and polypropylene capacitors. The group of five red polypropylene capacitors, connected in parallel, offers the same capacitance as the small blue electrolytic capacitor in my fingers. The size difference is remarkable, as is the difference in sound quality and ... price!
- electronic low-pass filter and mixer -
- electrolytic capacitor versus polypropylene -
(@@@)
The time has finally come to talk about the various methods used to record classical music or any acoustic performance without electronic amplification, in stereo (two-channel) mode.
While no method is perfect, recording techniques can generally be grouped, despite countless variations, into two main categories: binaural and multi-microphone. Each has its pros and cons, so the best approach depends on which advantages outweigh the disadvantages, considering the recording's intended purpose and the compromises one is willing to accept. For live recording, I do believe the binaural method is the best possible, and these are the "pros": 1- thanks to the absence of phase errors, it enables the virtual reconstruction of the sound stage in dimension and depth (three-dimensional sound) and a perfect localisation of the musicians. 2- it captures the full, authentic sound of the entire orchestra (or any smaller ensemble, down to a solo instrument or voice), exactly as you would hear it if your head were in place of the microphone system. This is the ONLY method truly capable of achieving this ESSENTIAL goal. So, I use this method, and my "trinity", even though it consists of three microphones, is a pure binaural system because the third mic serves the sole purpose of extending the microphone system’s frequency response down to infrasounds (5Hz -3dB). Considering the drawbacks and being overly critical, a minor limitation of this system could be that, for truly precise 3D playback of the recording, it is advisable to use headphones. This is because, in theory, the left ear should not receive any sound from the right source and vice versa. Therefore, strict adherence to this requirement becomes challenging when using loudspeakers, especially dipole speakers that emit sound both frontally and rearward, or omnidirectional speakers that emit sound in a full 360° pattern. However, something very close to perfection can be achieved with high-quality, front-emitting, phase-correct and time-aligned speakers. This is a minor issue, and what matters most is that the sound quality isn’t involved at all. So, all things considered, I’m convinced this method outperforms any other for live recording. After all, when listening to a concert (or anything else), you're using just two ears, and if they’re pristine, they’re more than enough! Another interesting system for recording live music and events is the previously mentioned OSS Jecklin Disc. This, too, is a binaural system, but much simpler than mine. In short, it consists of a foam-covered (to avoid sound reflections) 35 cm disc and two full-range, omnidirectional microphones (one on each side of the disc). The distance between the capsules of the two microphones must be 36 cm, with each microphone angled outward from the relative surface of the disc by 20°. Regarding the microphones, for top performance, I recommend a pair of Schoeps CMC6 bodies with MK 2XS capsules. For those who can’t afford to spend a fortune, an interesting alternative could be two Neumann KM 183, which are priced much more "humanely" than the Schoeps. As mentioned earlier, four decades ago, I compared the OSS system to mine and didn't like its mid-high range. Now this issue appears resolved thanks to the MK 2XS capsules, which compensate for high-frequency loss, unlike the MK2 I used back then. Even the Neumann KM 183 reflects this feature, with an emphasis on the mid-high frequencies. I think the OSS is the simplest system for serious amateurs, producing very good live recordings, surely better than the commercial ones. Its setup is straightforward, considering that the entire system consists of a disc with the two mics on a stand, two short cables, and a small, portable recorder, such as a Tascam DR-100 MK III (or similar). Another advantage is that no connection to mains power is required, as the recorder uses its own battery, which also provides the phantom power to the microphones. Additionally, just connecting the two microphones to the recorder, without using any commercial or professional mixers, is undoubtedly another goal! Here’s just a hypothesis of mine, but … may the lack of "speed" and the harshness often found in commercial recordings (and consequently on their CDs) in part be due to the use of large professional mixers that employ electrolytic capacitors in the signal paths?
Unlike me, commercial recording labels of classical music and studios almost always (not to say always) use the multi-microphone method, with countless variations depending on the sound engineers, the venue, its acoustics, and the size of the orchestra. To record a large orchestra, they employ dozens of mics, each positioned in front of small groups of two or three musicians, plus other mics placed high up and pointed towards entire sections of the orchestra, and so on. Even when recording just one instrument, such as a piano, they tragically use a whole array of mics, with some of them inside the instrument as well! Exceptions aside, the result is normally disappointing! If you have a perfect hi-fi system, the sound of the commercial CDs, produced using this recording method (practically almost all the CDs and LPs on the market), is lifeless, only as large as the speakers, flat (no 3D, being out of phase), with difficult or impossible localisation of the performers, and a “harsh” sound, mainly due to the short distance between mics and instruments, or voices. It’s a fact that the sound of any instrument or voice differs significantly in timbre, dimension, sweetness and naturalness when heard in proximity compared to from metres away. Just to say, put your head inside a performing piano or one metre (or less) in front of a singing soprano, and you won't envy those "poor" mics! The sound of an orchestra at the optimal listening point is the result of the natural acoustic decay of its performing instruments. Therefore, the musicians are not positioned randomly; indeed, their placement has been carefully determined and refined over centuries of experience and experimentation to ensure the perfect harmonisation of all the instruments and to reach the desired final sound! The same applies to any other sound or musical source. Instead, the multi-microphone method primarily records all the instruments from the same short distance. As a result, the recording cannot reproduce the authentic sound of the orchestra at a good listening point; rather, the sound of the recording is the result of the skill and personal taste of the sound engineer(s) responsible for the editing process, who, often enough, cannot resist adding electronic effects and compression as well. Another variable that influences the sound of these recordings is the quality of the monitors used in the studios for the editing process. So, the "big question" is: why do they adopt this recording method? Probably because it simplifies manipulating the master and correcting possible orchestral mistakes or imperfections. Another reason might be that sound engineers need to stay employed, and with a system like mine, they are useless! Anyway, for a plausible answer to the "big question", you’d have to ask them, not me. Joking aside, I'm free to use the binaural method because I record live performances, where the only requirement is to capture the faithful representation of the concert and its authentic sound. I only use the editing process to cut out the dead times, but I don't modify, correct, or fix anything. By contrast, producing a commercial CD is more demanding in certain respects, since the musical execution must be flawless. To achieve this, the master has to be manipulated. In this process, the multi-microphone method proves very helpful, and the role of sound engineers is also essential. Whether commercial CDs should showcase flawless performances, which rarely, if ever, occur live, and thus make it impossible to gauge the true orchestra's quality and skill, is indeed a topic worthy of serious discussion. Personally, I find this procedure to be a miseducational distortion of reality. I would much prefer commercial CDs to be made solely from live binaural recordings of the concert, including the audience, which is an essential part of the venue's acoustics, even if their dreadful noises drive me mad! If that were the case, it would accomplish three goals simultaneously: preserving the authenticity of the concert performance, conveying the orchestra’s genuine sound, and ultimately putting to rest, once and for all, the absurdities written and spoken about digital. Such a shift will result from the "new sound" of these recordings and the CDs that follow. Unfortunately, and sadly, this will never happen because there are too many vested interests at play! Well, it seems the sound of the commercial CDs isn't as enjoyable as their "perfect" executions! Therefore, these CDs have become the best allies of the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl supporters, who, "helped" by magazines and gurus, haven't yet understood that the unpleasant sound of the CDs comes from the immaculate reproduction of their original bad recordings and NOT from sound alterations due to the digital medium! As for the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl enthusiasts, I find the phenomenon rather grotesque, yet it undeniably merits attention. It reflects a broader trend in today’s hi-fi and hi-end market, where technology and research have taken a regressive turn, as if we’ve been hurled straight ... back to the '70s! I don't think this happened by chance; it feels like the result of a masterfully orchestrated campaign by true marketing geniuses. Furthermore, the less-than-paradisiacal sound of commercial CDs led audiophiles to blame digital technology itself, without anyone clarifying the true reason behind this reality. Ironically, even this misunderstanding helped revive an agonising hi-fi market that was otherwise spiralling toward the unprofitable realm of streaming technology. The exhumation of long-dismissed technologies has reignited the production of speakers larger than a pantry, turntables, cartridges, tonearms, phono preamps, and accessories, as well as the vinyl industry as a whole. The revival has proven to be monumentally lucrative, especially considering the absurd prices at which these "new" items are sold, providing not just a breath of fresh air but a large oxygen tank to manufacturers, magazines, and retailers! For keen observers, the astonishing speed with which all brands have redesigned, produced, and marketed these products based on obsolete technologies speaks volumes about the economic urgency and critical necessity of this operation. So, once the big opportunity was spotted, magazines and retailers enthusiastically promoted and pushed the resurgence of analogue and vinyl, to the delight of audiophiles too, who had secretly longed for such a revival, if only to have the chance of splurging once more on new "toys". Just like in the old days, they can now have the "lust" again to re-fight the lost battle of trying to achieve acceptable sound from bad recordings again! What’s better than vinyl for this purpose? Vinyl offers a sound that is never the real one of the original edited recording, but rather "one" of the innumerable possible sounds shaped by endless combinations of playback paraphernalia. So, the party’s underway! For a large part of audiophiles, the perfection of digital was not understood or if understood, not loved. It was seen as a limitation, reducing almost to zero the chances of "playing" with parts of the components of the system. So, they had to end up using the system solely for ... listening to music, which, let’s be honest, has never really been the primary "activity" for the vast majority of so-called audiophiles! For them, the problem was that the only way to try modifying the sound of a CD was by changing the CD player. But given that CD players are true hi-fi machines, the sound differences between them were (and still are) so minor that the juice just wasn’t worth the squeeze. Indeed, the CD has the "nasty habit" of producing only one sound, which is the definitive product of the recording’s final editing process. Sadly, in most cases, this sound is not exciting and must be seen as the indelible "original sin" in the chain of musical reproduction. On the contrary, the vinyl world allows to "alterate" this original sin (thanks to the distortion in the low end, which, by boosting it, brings the sound into better balance), and even more so, as previously mentioned, through the infinite combinations of cartridges, RIAA phono preamps, tonearms, turntables, interconnects, and accessories. Curiously, no one seems to have considered this yet: since every recording and LP harbours its own set of flaws, the devoted audiophile on a quest for sonic Valhalla would logically require a bespoke "sonic correction kit" for each LP (a palette of cartridges, RIAA preamps, etc.), thereby creating a true Valhalla for retailers and manufacturers too … ha, ha! For these reasons, vinyl cannot be considered hi-fi, let alone hi-end. It was merely the best medium for playing music before the advent of digital and CDs. If you want further proof, play the 1kHz track (the least problematic one) from a test LP on one of today’s not-so-rare half-million-dollar turntables, the ones I call "gold-plated mini-ploughs". Watch the result on a connected oscilloscope and... brace yourself! One thing’s for sure: you wouldn’t ever buy or use any other hi-fi gear with a similar performance! The truly baffling and absurd thing is that the fruit of this primitive technology is experiencing an incredible resurgence and is even being marketed as top-tier hi-end! Surely, the only good thing is that many audiophiles are now happy again ... though not nearly as happy as the manufacturers, retailers, and magazines, as said before. At the end of the day, if vinyl isn't hi-fi, it's no big deal, just a "negligible" technical detail, right? A popular Italian saying that seems to sum up perfectly the "sonic philosophy" embraced by today's audiophiles is: "happy you? ... happy everyone"! However, it would be high time to stop spouting idiocies about digital! The fact that the CD is a perfect medium for music reproduction is easily verifiable, but has been and still is carefully avoided by magazines. To test this, you can burn a CD from any original master (I used one of my recordings). Then, perform a real-time synchronised switching between the original master and the CD. If you use the same DAC, you'll find that they sound absolutely identical! For audiophiles who don’t have access to an original master, there’s another simple way to verify the perfection of the digital medium: burn a copy of any CD with your computer. Use this copy as the source to burn another copy, and continue making a new copy from the last copy until you’re tired. Now, using two identical CD players, compare (switching in real time) the original CD to the final copy. Surprise, surprise: there’s NO difference between the original CD and the umpteenth copy! So, there is NO doubt that the CD doesn't modify the sound. So, what you hear playing a CD is the original sound of its content, for better or worse. The real issue is that "better" is practically a curse word most of the time! If you perform the previous "experiment" using two professional, top-level analogue reel-to-reel recorders (Studer, Revox, Ampex, Nagra, etc.), listening to the third copy is more than enough to make you start understanding the "joyful" reality and the "hi-end" fidelity of analogue! In light of these considerations, the incredible and shameful thing is that no magazine has ever considered the real problem, lifting the lid on the "huge and smelly" pot of recordings and their quality, preferring to blame the innocent digital medium and sacrificing it on the altar of ignorance or vested interests! Or have they truly not yet realised that the recordings (not the digital) are to blame? If so, it would be even worse and ... the litmus test of their competence! In any case, if this path isn’t abandoned, or at least revised, industrial recording labels will happily continue producing problematic recordings without a care in the world, putting on the market music that needs to be listened to on a primitive, not hi-fi medium like vinyl, just to try to mask their unpleasant "original sin". Poor hi-fi! I’m in a different dimension, where words like hi-fi and hi-end still retain their etymological meaning. Instead of trying to alter or mitigate the “original sin” of bad recordings, I prefer making perfect recordings that don’t need any manipulation to be fully enjoyed. In this realm, digital is the only medium that can truly respect hi-end standards, full stop! When you listen to my recordings, you’ll realise "harsh" is a label for everything but these. Close your eyes, and you'll be transported back to the concert hall, reliving the magic of the live performance once again! Anyway, words are just words. So, if you'd like to get a practical idea of the recording quality achievable nowadays, listen to the three concerts below. They are DVDs, resulting from my collaboration with SOUNZ (I did the audio recording, while Chris Watson handled the video and the editing). Unfortunately, due to the huge size of these files in original quality (more than 1GB each), it’s impossible to upload them to a website. So, you'll have to settle for the online versions of these concerts. Even if they don’t quite match the quality of the original recording (they are in MP4 format), I’m sure you’ll still be impressed by the flawless timbre and remarkably "alive", three-dimensional sound. You’ll find it easy to pinpoint the performers’ positions, and the lightning-fast transients add an exhilarating sense of immediacy! I would wager that if you listened to all three concerts consecutively and, right after, played any commercial CD or LP (including Telarc), your first spontaneous exclamation would be: what kind of blurry funeral is this? However, to fully enjoy these recordings, I strongly recommend using electrostatic headphones (STAX or similar "toys") or superior, fast hi-fi systems, equipped with top-level active subwoofers perfectly set up. These are the only equipment capable of faithfully reproducing the true content of these files. Apologies, but as you likely already imagine, I’m not a fan of the various, enormous and exorbitantly priced so-called "hi-end" systems advertised on Facebook. The funny (or sad) thing is that these systems get hundreds of “likes” and "hearts", not one “laughing” or “crying” emoji, and no negative comments! In my opinion, and speaking broadly, they are nothing more than a parade of flashy tech-fantasy gimmicks designed to capture wealthy audiophiles. With their oversized dimensions and a compilation of drivers, they aim to entice people into spending a fortune, probably delivering, at best, a mediocre result. In this regard, go to the school of hi-fi page and read the second topic. The Auckland Youth Orchestra performed the three concerts below in the Concert Hall of the Auckland Town Hall. The first is a great work by the Kiwi composer Anthony Ritchie, with the oboe gloriously played by a very young Noah Rudd (the recording dates back to 2017). There are also interesting moments with an uncommonly fast, deep, and clean bass drum. The second concert doesn't need any presentation, being a beautiful and well-known piece of music by my beloved Shostakovich, perfectly executed and recorded. About halfway through the first movement (6'19"), there is an incredibly clean, fulminant timpani strike, with a dynamic excursion of around 90 dB (in the original recording)! If played at live volume, it's the right material to verify the clipping limits and the "speed" of your amp and speakers: best of luck! The last concert features the world premiere of a stunning work by Kiwi bassoonist and composer Ben Hoadley. Oliver Spalter, the double bassist, is just 19 years old, and I’ve very rarely heard that instrument played live with such flawless intonation, especially given the difficulty of the piece. The recording, aside from the occasional cracking of Oliver’s stool, the usual audience noises, and the hum of the air conditioning, is remarkable: clean, dynamic, with radiographic precision across the entire bass range. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but if the double bass on your system sounds muddled or "boomy", do yourself a favour: ditch your speakers and… your amps too, especially if they’re black and sporting "big blue eyes" (totally useless, but essential for stealing your heart!). Anthony Ritchie - Fantasy for Oboe and Orchestra Dmitri Shostakovich - Piano Concerto No. 2 Ben Hoadley - Concerto for Double Bass Technically speaking, with the appropriate music, my recordings display an unusual dynamic range of 70 to 80 dB, and often even more! The screenshot below shows the spectrum analysis of the "average noise floor" during a violent transient captured in my recording of a piece of modern music performed by the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra.
While no method is perfect, recording techniques can generally be grouped, despite countless variations, into two main categories: binaural and multi-microphone. Each has its pros and cons, so the best approach depends on which advantages outweigh the disadvantages, considering the recording's intended purpose and the compromises one is willing to accept. For live recording, I do believe the binaural method is the best possible, and these are the "pros": 1- thanks to the absence of phase errors, it enables the virtual reconstruction of the sound stage in dimension and depth (three-dimensional sound) and a perfect localisation of the musicians. 2- it captures the full, authentic sound of the entire orchestra (or any smaller ensemble, down to a solo instrument or voice), exactly as you would hear it if your head were in place of the microphone system. This is the ONLY method truly capable of achieving this ESSENTIAL goal. So, I use this method, and my "trinity", even though it consists of three microphones, is a pure binaural system because the third mic serves the sole purpose of extending the microphone system’s frequency response down to infrasounds (5Hz -3dB). Considering the drawbacks and being overly critical, a minor limitation of this system could be that, for truly precise 3D playback of the recording, it is advisable to use headphones. This is because, in theory, the left ear should not receive any sound from the right source and vice versa. Therefore, strict adherence to this requirement becomes challenging when using loudspeakers, especially dipole speakers that emit sound both frontally and rearward, or omnidirectional speakers that emit sound in a full 360° pattern. However, something very close to perfection can be achieved with high-quality, front-emitting, phase-correct and time-aligned speakers. This is a minor issue, and what matters most is that the sound quality isn’t involved at all. So, all things considered, I’m convinced this method outperforms any other for live recording. After all, when listening to a concert (or anything else), you're using just two ears, and if they’re pristine, they’re more than enough! Another interesting system for recording live music and events is the previously mentioned OSS Jecklin Disc. This, too, is a binaural system, but much simpler than mine. In short, it consists of a foam-covered (to avoid sound reflections) 35 cm disc and two full-range, omnidirectional microphones (one on each side of the disc). The distance between the capsules of the two microphones must be 36 cm, with each microphone angled outward from the relative surface of the disc by 20°. Regarding the microphones, for top performance, I recommend a pair of Schoeps CMC6 bodies with MK 2XS capsules. For those who can’t afford to spend a fortune, an interesting alternative could be two Neumann KM 183, which are priced much more "humanely" than the Schoeps. As mentioned earlier, four decades ago, I compared the OSS system to mine and didn't like its mid-high range. Now this issue appears resolved thanks to the MK 2XS capsules, which compensate for high-frequency loss, unlike the MK2 I used back then. Even the Neumann KM 183 reflects this feature, with an emphasis on the mid-high frequencies. I think the OSS is the simplest system for serious amateurs, producing very good live recordings, surely better than the commercial ones. Its setup is straightforward, considering that the entire system consists of a disc with the two mics on a stand, two short cables, and a small, portable recorder, such as a Tascam DR-100 MK III (or similar). Another advantage is that no connection to mains power is required, as the recorder uses its own battery, which also provides the phantom power to the microphones. Additionally, just connecting the two microphones to the recorder, without using any commercial or professional mixers, is undoubtedly another goal! Here’s just a hypothesis of mine, but … may the lack of "speed" and the harshness often found in commercial recordings (and consequently on their CDs) in part be due to the use of large professional mixers that employ electrolytic capacitors in the signal paths?
Unlike me, commercial recording labels of classical music and studios almost always (not to say always) use the multi-microphone method, with countless variations depending on the sound engineers, the venue, its acoustics, and the size of the orchestra. To record a large orchestra, they employ dozens of mics, each positioned in front of small groups of two or three musicians, plus other mics placed high up and pointed towards entire sections of the orchestra, and so on. Even when recording just one instrument, such as a piano, they tragically use a whole array of mics, with some of them inside the instrument as well! Exceptions aside, the result is normally disappointing! If you have a perfect hi-fi system, the sound of the commercial CDs, produced using this recording method (practically almost all the CDs and LPs on the market), is lifeless, only as large as the speakers, flat (no 3D, being out of phase), with difficult or impossible localisation of the performers, and a “harsh” sound, mainly due to the short distance between mics and instruments, or voices. It’s a fact that the sound of any instrument or voice differs significantly in timbre, dimension, sweetness and naturalness when heard in proximity compared to from metres away. Just to say, put your head inside a performing piano or one metre (or less) in front of a singing soprano, and you won't envy those "poor" mics! The sound of an orchestra at the optimal listening point is the result of the natural acoustic decay of its performing instruments. Therefore, the musicians are not positioned randomly; indeed, their placement has been carefully determined and refined over centuries of experience and experimentation to ensure the perfect harmonisation of all the instruments and to reach the desired final sound! The same applies to any other sound or musical source. Instead, the multi-microphone method primarily records all the instruments from the same short distance. As a result, the recording cannot reproduce the authentic sound of the orchestra at a good listening point; rather, the sound of the recording is the result of the skill and personal taste of the sound engineer(s) responsible for the editing process, who, often enough, cannot resist adding electronic effects and compression as well. Another variable that influences the sound of these recordings is the quality of the monitors used in the studios for the editing process. So, the "big question" is: why do they adopt this recording method? Probably because it simplifies manipulating the master and correcting possible orchestral mistakes or imperfections. Another reason might be that sound engineers need to stay employed, and with a system like mine, they are useless! Anyway, for a plausible answer to the "big question", you’d have to ask them, not me. Joking aside, I'm free to use the binaural method because I record live performances, where the only requirement is to capture the faithful representation of the concert and its authentic sound. I only use the editing process to cut out the dead times, but I don't modify, correct, or fix anything. By contrast, producing a commercial CD is more demanding in certain respects, since the musical execution must be flawless. To achieve this, the master has to be manipulated. In this process, the multi-microphone method proves very helpful, and the role of sound engineers is also essential. Whether commercial CDs should showcase flawless performances, which rarely, if ever, occur live, and thus make it impossible to gauge the true orchestra's quality and skill, is indeed a topic worthy of serious discussion. Personally, I find this procedure to be a miseducational distortion of reality. I would much prefer commercial CDs to be made solely from live binaural recordings of the concert, including the audience, which is an essential part of the venue's acoustics, even if their dreadful noises drive me mad! If that were the case, it would accomplish three goals simultaneously: preserving the authenticity of the concert performance, conveying the orchestra’s genuine sound, and ultimately putting to rest, once and for all, the absurdities written and spoken about digital. Such a shift will result from the "new sound" of these recordings and the CDs that follow. Unfortunately, and sadly, this will never happen because there are too many vested interests at play! Well, it seems the sound of the commercial CDs isn't as enjoyable as their "perfect" executions! Therefore, these CDs have become the best allies of the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl supporters, who, "helped" by magazines and gurus, haven't yet understood that the unpleasant sound of the CDs comes from the immaculate reproduction of their original bad recordings and NOT from sound alterations due to the digital medium! As for the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl enthusiasts, I find the phenomenon rather grotesque, yet it undeniably merits attention. It reflects a broader trend in today’s hi-fi and hi-end market, where technology and research have taken a regressive turn, as if we’ve been hurled straight ... back to the '70s! I don't think this happened by chance; it feels like the result of a masterfully orchestrated campaign by true marketing geniuses. Furthermore, the less-than-paradisiacal sound of commercial CDs led audiophiles to blame digital technology itself, without anyone clarifying the true reason behind this reality. Ironically, even this misunderstanding helped revive an agonising hi-fi market that was otherwise spiralling toward the unprofitable realm of streaming technology. The exhumation of long-dismissed technologies has reignited the production of speakers larger than a pantry, turntables, cartridges, tonearms, phono preamps, and accessories, as well as the vinyl industry as a whole. The revival has proven to be monumentally lucrative, especially considering the absurd prices at which these "new" items are sold, providing not just a breath of fresh air but a large oxygen tank to manufacturers, magazines, and retailers! For keen observers, the astonishing speed with which all brands have redesigned, produced, and marketed these products based on obsolete technologies speaks volumes about the economic urgency and critical necessity of this operation. So, once the big opportunity was spotted, magazines and retailers enthusiastically promoted and pushed the resurgence of analogue and vinyl, to the delight of audiophiles too, who had secretly longed for such a revival, if only to have the chance of splurging once more on new "toys". Just like in the old days, they can now have the "lust" again to re-fight the lost battle of trying to achieve acceptable sound from bad recordings again! What’s better than vinyl for this purpose? Vinyl offers a sound that is never the real one of the original edited recording, but rather "one" of the innumerable possible sounds shaped by endless combinations of playback paraphernalia. So, the party’s underway! For a large part of audiophiles, the perfection of digital was not understood or if understood, not loved. It was seen as a limitation, reducing almost to zero the chances of "playing" with parts of the components of the system. So, they had to end up using the system solely for ... listening to music, which, let’s be honest, has never really been the primary "activity" for the vast majority of so-called audiophiles! For them, the problem was that the only way to try modifying the sound of a CD was by changing the CD player. But given that CD players are true hi-fi machines, the sound differences between them were (and still are) so minor that the juice just wasn’t worth the squeeze. Indeed, the CD has the "nasty habit" of producing only one sound, which is the definitive product of the recording’s final editing process. Sadly, in most cases, this sound is not exciting and must be seen as the indelible "original sin" in the chain of musical reproduction. On the contrary, the vinyl world allows to "alterate" this original sin (thanks to the distortion in the low end, which, by boosting it, brings the sound into better balance), and even more so, as previously mentioned, through the infinite combinations of cartridges, RIAA phono preamps, tonearms, turntables, interconnects, and accessories. Curiously, no one seems to have considered this yet: since every recording and LP harbours its own set of flaws, the devoted audiophile on a quest for sonic Valhalla would logically require a bespoke "sonic correction kit" for each LP (a palette of cartridges, RIAA preamps, etc.), thereby creating a true Valhalla for retailers and manufacturers too … ha, ha! For these reasons, vinyl cannot be considered hi-fi, let alone hi-end. It was merely the best medium for playing music before the advent of digital and CDs. If you want further proof, play the 1kHz track (the least problematic one) from a test LP on one of today’s not-so-rare half-million-dollar turntables, the ones I call "gold-plated mini-ploughs". Watch the result on a connected oscilloscope and... brace yourself! One thing’s for sure: you wouldn’t ever buy or use any other hi-fi gear with a similar performance! The truly baffling and absurd thing is that the fruit of this primitive technology is experiencing an incredible resurgence and is even being marketed as top-tier hi-end! Surely, the only good thing is that many audiophiles are now happy again ... though not nearly as happy as the manufacturers, retailers, and magazines, as said before. At the end of the day, if vinyl isn't hi-fi, it's no big deal, just a "negligible" technical detail, right? A popular Italian saying that seems to sum up perfectly the "sonic philosophy" embraced by today's audiophiles is: "happy you? ... happy everyone"! However, it would be high time to stop spouting idiocies about digital! The fact that the CD is a perfect medium for music reproduction is easily verifiable, but has been and still is carefully avoided by magazines. To test this, you can burn a CD from any original master (I used one of my recordings). Then, perform a real-time synchronised switching between the original master and the CD. If you use the same DAC, you'll find that they sound absolutely identical! For audiophiles who don’t have access to an original master, there’s another simple way to verify the perfection of the digital medium: burn a copy of any CD with your computer. Use this copy as the source to burn another copy, and continue making a new copy from the last copy until you’re tired. Now, using two identical CD players, compare (switching in real time) the original CD to the final copy. Surprise, surprise: there’s NO difference between the original CD and the umpteenth copy! So, there is NO doubt that the CD doesn't modify the sound. So, what you hear playing a CD is the original sound of its content, for better or worse. The real issue is that "better" is practically a curse word most of the time! If you perform the previous "experiment" using two professional, top-level analogue reel-to-reel recorders (Studer, Revox, Ampex, Nagra, etc.), listening to the third copy is more than enough to make you start understanding the "joyful" reality and the "hi-end" fidelity of analogue! In light of these considerations, the incredible and shameful thing is that no magazine has ever considered the real problem, lifting the lid on the "huge and smelly" pot of recordings and their quality, preferring to blame the innocent digital medium and sacrificing it on the altar of ignorance or vested interests! Or have they truly not yet realised that the recordings (not the digital) are to blame? If so, it would be even worse and ... the litmus test of their competence! In any case, if this path isn’t abandoned, or at least revised, industrial recording labels will happily continue producing problematic recordings without a care in the world, putting on the market music that needs to be listened to on a primitive, not hi-fi medium like vinyl, just to try to mask their unpleasant "original sin". Poor hi-fi! I’m in a different dimension, where words like hi-fi and hi-end still retain their etymological meaning. Instead of trying to alter or mitigate the “original sin” of bad recordings, I prefer making perfect recordings that don’t need any manipulation to be fully enjoyed. In this realm, digital is the only medium that can truly respect hi-end standards, full stop! When you listen to my recordings, you’ll realise "harsh" is a label for everything but these. Close your eyes, and you'll be transported back to the concert hall, reliving the magic of the live performance once again! Anyway, words are just words. So, if you'd like to get a practical idea of the recording quality achievable nowadays, listen to the three concerts below. They are DVDs, resulting from my collaboration with SOUNZ (I did the audio recording, while Chris Watson handled the video and the editing). Unfortunately, due to the huge size of these files in original quality (more than 1GB each), it’s impossible to upload them to a website. So, you'll have to settle for the online versions of these concerts. Even if they don’t quite match the quality of the original recording (they are in MP4 format), I’m sure you’ll still be impressed by the flawless timbre and remarkably "alive", three-dimensional sound. You’ll find it easy to pinpoint the performers’ positions, and the lightning-fast transients add an exhilarating sense of immediacy! I would wager that if you listened to all three concerts consecutively and, right after, played any commercial CD or LP (including Telarc), your first spontaneous exclamation would be: what kind of blurry funeral is this? However, to fully enjoy these recordings, I strongly recommend using electrostatic headphones (STAX or similar "toys") or superior, fast hi-fi systems, equipped with top-level active subwoofers perfectly set up. These are the only equipment capable of faithfully reproducing the true content of these files. Apologies, but as you likely already imagine, I’m not a fan of the various, enormous and exorbitantly priced so-called "hi-end" systems advertised on Facebook. The funny (or sad) thing is that these systems get hundreds of “likes” and "hearts", not one “laughing” or “crying” emoji, and no negative comments! In my opinion, and speaking broadly, they are nothing more than a parade of flashy tech-fantasy gimmicks designed to capture wealthy audiophiles. With their oversized dimensions and a compilation of drivers, they aim to entice people into spending a fortune, probably delivering, at best, a mediocre result. In this regard, go to the school of hi-fi page and read the second topic. The Auckland Youth Orchestra performed the three concerts below in the Concert Hall of the Auckland Town Hall. The first is a great work by the Kiwi composer Anthony Ritchie, with the oboe gloriously played by a very young Noah Rudd (the recording dates back to 2017). There are also interesting moments with an uncommonly fast, deep, and clean bass drum. The second concert doesn't need any presentation, being a beautiful and well-known piece of music by my beloved Shostakovich, perfectly executed and recorded. About halfway through the first movement (6'19"), there is an incredibly clean, fulminant timpani strike, with a dynamic excursion of around 90 dB (in the original recording)! If played at live volume, it's the right material to verify the clipping limits and the "speed" of your amp and speakers: best of luck! The last concert features the world premiere of a stunning work by Kiwi bassoonist and composer Ben Hoadley. Oliver Spalter, the double bassist, is just 19 years old, and I’ve very rarely heard that instrument played live with such flawless intonation, especially given the difficulty of the piece. The recording, aside from the occasional cracking of Oliver’s stool, the usual audience noises, and the hum of the air conditioning, is remarkable: clean, dynamic, with radiographic precision across the entire bass range. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but if the double bass on your system sounds muddled or "boomy", do yourself a favour: ditch your speakers and… your amps too, especially if they’re black and sporting "big blue eyes" (totally useless, but essential for stealing your heart!). Anthony Ritchie - Fantasy for Oboe and Orchestra Dmitri Shostakovich - Piano Concerto No. 2 Ben Hoadley - Concerto for Double Bass Technically speaking, with the appropriate music, my recordings display an unusual dynamic range of 70 to 80 dB, and often even more! The screenshot below shows the spectrum analysis of the "average noise floor" during a violent transient captured in my recording of a piece of modern music performed by the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra.
This analysis (by Rino Cieri, a very skilled Italian technician and old friend of mine) was made considering the 2~3 seconds interval without music, just after a strong percussion, when the entire orchestra falls silent. The primary energy and components up to 200~300 Hz mainly result from the air conditioner noise in the Concert Hall, particularly the peak at 75 Hz and its third harmonic at 225 Hz. The other peaks between 400~3000 Hz are low-level remnants of the harmonics produced by the percussion instrument. Noise and components over 3 kHz are negligible for this analysis. The average "level of the noise floor", after filtering out these components and focusing on the mid-frequency range only, is measured around - 90 to - 100 dB (peak value). Therefore, the overall dynamic of the recording can be assessed at approximately 80 dB, relative to the peak level of the percussion (0 dB).
These numbers should make the incredibly "resurrected" lovers of reel-to-reel analogue recordings (and vinyl) start thinking correctly and technologically about digital, and move from religion to science! After all, dear lovers of reel-to-reel machines, it’s not such a bad thing to do away with distortion, restricted dynamics, tape hiss, wow & flutter, copy effects, and the 45-minute time limit of a 2-track machine running a reel of thick tape at 15 IPS!
What analogue enthusiasts call a “more harmonious sound” is, in reality, the original signal masked and reshaped by the aforementioned issues, issues that add colour and strip away detail, setting aside the hiss of the tape (a real nightmare!). Digital, by contrast, serves up a recording on a silver tray: the raw, unfiltered truth of the original sound, with all its beauty and flaws. To sum up with a practical example: analogue is like viewing a vivid, sunlit landscape through smudged glasses and saying it's better that way because the glare and contrast are less offensive. Meditate, my friends, meditate!
Well, after the above “long” digression about analogue/digital (sorry, I'm so outraged that I had to do that!), I will finish with a funny remark regarding the musicians. Many of them are accustomed to thinking that the only recording method is the multi-microphone one, thanks to its widespread use. So, when I record a new orchestra, it’s quite normal for some musicians to ask me why I don’t put mics around them! When I then tell them, very plainly, “because I want to make a beautiful recording, and not a sonic crime”, their usual reaction is a polite smile, but surely thinking I’m a “funny old man". In this regard, it is emblematic of what happened many years ago, at the end of the final rehearsal of the “Christchurch Vespers”, which was going to be the world premiere of the Kiwi composer Andrew Perkins, performed by Bach Musica NZ, in the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Auckland.
When I was almost finished setting up "my trinity" and the recording equipment, Andrew Perkins, the composer, came to me and, after introducing himself, asked if I was the official recorder of the concert. After my affirmative reply, he gently, but with a doubtful expression, asked me if the “three mics up there” were enough to record an orchestra! I replied: Andrew, your doubts are common, but will you hire another twenty, or more, ears for listening to your concert? The three "ears" up there are much more sensitive and linear than yours and positioned in a perfect listening point, so I do think they are enough!
Making the best of a bad situation, he had to accept my "not-too-posh" reply, but my feeling was that he didn't change his mind at all.
At that time, Andrew Perkins lived in Melbourne, where he was a Tutor at the Conservatorium of Music of Melbourne University.
So, when the CD was ready, I posted it to him, and after a few days, I received this essential email:
Franco, the recording is excellent - my university supervisors thought it was stunning! Thank you so much - Andrew