Digitally Recording FM Live (1981)

[michelej1]

Boston Globe (MA),March 19, 1981

Section: CALENDAR

TUNING IN TO DIGITAL RECORDS IT'S NOT FOR ROCK-POP YET

Jim Sullivan


Classical digital recordings line a good stretch of wall at the Harvard Coop. Chris Dwyer, a clerk in the classical department, says the store stocks about 250 titles, cites the superior sound of digital records and calls them "very, very popular."

And what if you're interested in digitally recorded pop and rock records?

Don't search too hard for a special section. Although there are a growing number of half-speed mastered audiophile pop records, there are very few albums that have been digitally produced and/or mixed. Ry Cooder was the first to use the process for his "Bop Till You Drop" album in 1979. Fleetwood Mac used digital mixing for last year's "Tusk" and their new live album, "Fleetwood Mac Live."

But not many rock artists have embraced the process.

Why has the digital process been used so widely in the classical field and so sparingly in the popular field?

"It's simple," says Ken Caillet, coproducer of both Fleetwood Mac albums. "Classical music doesn't need multitracking. With classical, typically you'd go in, take a tape recorder into an auditorium and record the show on four or eight tracks of digital. With rock 'n' roll, we're forced to go to multitrack."

Caillet says as of now there are no good 24-track digital recorders and a limited number of very expensive mixing facilities. Still, he notes, it's only a matter of time - perhaps two years - until the digital process is developed to a more accessible standard. And when that time comes, Caillet figures digital will revolutionize the recording industry.

What does digital recording do?

"What it does is it doesn't change anything," Caillet says. "With analogue recording there's always some difference - in addition to the tape hiss there are little changes in the transient response.

"Digital will eliminate any harmonic distortion, it'll eliminate amplifier noise, it'll eliminate tape noise," he says enthusiastically. "Basically, what you'll get from the time you put a microphone in front of an instrument until the person at home listens to it should be identical."

And on a $250 stereo system will there be any noticeable difference in sound?

"Ah, I'll tell you," Caillet says. "I think it makes a difference right down to the cheapest system in the world. The simple fact is: The better you make it to start with, no matter what they play it on, it's going to still sound better at the end."

Another main problem with digital recording now is its cost. "It's frighteningly expensive," says Larry Fast, a synthesizerist who records under the name Synergy and has used digital recording experimentally. "But it won't be in the coming decade. Electronic technology is about the only thing running counter to inflation right now. It will be compatible (cost-wise) with analogue within a few years and at some point it will be quite a bit cheaper."

Caillet says Fleetwood Mac spent an extra $20,000 to digitally mix "Fleetwood Mac Live." He figures the cost of using digital equipment adds about $500 a day to a band's studio expense.

For Fleetwood Mac, a band not exactly lacking in capital, Caillet says, "It's absolutely worth it." He notes that in addition to improved sound, a digital mix preserves the sound forever. "With analogue you have tape rubbing across the head and the tape noise. As the tape gets older, it wears more. Digital is a list of numbers which equates to a song's sound. It'll be exactly the same in a hundred years or a thousand plays."

Fast, who extensively used a new digital synthesizer with recording capabilities on Peter Gabriel's latest record, says he is excited by the promise digital recording holds, but he is wary of industry attempts to rush in before the process is perfected.

"There is an awful big push for commercial reasons," he says, "and those reasons have little to do with extending the frontiers of the art, but more in order to hype a record and say it was digitally produced."

Fast cautions that problems are being discovered continuously and that the pressure to latch onto standards at this point is premature. He wants to see more experimentation done. "It needs a fair shake, and it should not pushed to reach its market standard sooner than it really should."

Still, even if digital is perfected, one major problem remains: the quality of record pressings. Caillet notes, with no small measure of exasperation, that after Fleetood Mac's state-of-the-art recording on "Tusk," they found that many of the records were poorly pressed, with a high level of surface noise.

"After Tusk' came out," says Caillet, "we had a meeting of, literally, all the vinyl manufacturers. We had 'em all come in and actually tell us why there were so many problems. They got into how the formula was made . . . it's sort of like now we're dealing with the oil companies and they start changing the percentage of this or that and they don't tell anybody. That's why vinyl is going to be the weak link forever."

Or until laser technology takes over and listeners play music on credit card-sized pieces of plastic and records become obsolete. But that's another story.

[David]

Originally Posted by michelej1

For Fleetwood Mac, a band not exactly lacking in capital, Caillet says, "It's absolutely worth it." He notes that in addition to improved sound, a digital mix preserves the sound forever. "With analogue you have tape rubbing across the head and the tape noise. As the tape gets older, it wears more.

I now wonder whether it was that same problem they had with the Rumours masters in 1976 that convinced them to go digital with Tusk -- because Lindsey (I think) said after Tusk that he didn't really think digital made all that important of a difference in audio.