The digital millennium is (finally) at hand; but how does it sound?
by Allan Kozinn
------------------
What Are "Digital Compact Discs"?
----The Compact Disc (foreground, center) and its forebears (clockwise,
from left): the Edison wax cylinder, acoustical and electrical 78s,
and 33- and 45-rpm microgroove discs.
THE SONY CDP-101 USED in these listening sessions is among the first players available (some time this spring in the U.S.) for true digital discs.
These discs, called Compact Discs or CDs, are fundamentally different from the familiar 12 inch long-playing phonograph record-much smaller (only 4 3/4 inches in diameter), groove less, and almost immune to physical contamination and abuse. They are also essentially perfect copies of the master tapes from which they are made--literally the last word in fidelity.
The musical information is encoded beneath the surface of the disc as a sequence of microscopic pits, representing binary ones and zeros. The digits, in turn, represent instructions for assembling a signal that is an exact replica of the one originally recorded. This construction job is left to the player, which reads the pits in the disc surface with a low-power laser. Since the digital information is protected by a clear plastic finish and is played back with a beam of light, there is absolutely no wear. There are also no clicks and pops and no surface noise.
"Digital" LPs are not true digital discs in the sense that CDs are. Rather, they are hybrids: analog records made from digital master tapes.
The LPs used in the classical listening session fall into this category. The CDs used for that session are pure digital records made from the same digital master tapes. On the other hand, the CDs used in the pop session are a reverse sort of hybrid: digital discs made from analog master tapes. And the LPs that were used for comparison are pure analog products, from start to finish.
For more information on Compact Discs and the Sony CDP-101 (including its remarkable and very handy operating features), see the hands-on report in last month's HF. We are now in the process of acquiring test discs for Compact Disc players. This will enable us to bring them into our normal test report program when the players hit the U.S. market.
-M.R.
-----------------
FIVE YEARS AGO, the words "digital recording" began creeping into the record collector's vocabulary. At first, they described what seemed some kind of closely guarded state secret-a developing technology rumored to yield noise-free recordings with a dynamic range and timbral fidelity beyond anything conventional "analog" recording could achieve. Soon enough, the technology's first products appeared on the market, proffered by small, audiophile labels that not only were eager to experiment with the new digital recorders, but took great care in the mastering and disc -cutting processes to preserve whatever edge digital recording gave them.
These first "digital" discs (actually hybrids-digitally recorded originals converted to analog form and sold as conventional, needle-on-vinyl LPs) were high priced, and often documented less than memorable performances. But they sold like hot cakes, and soon the major labels launched digital recording programs and began marketing specially mastered, premium-priced lines.
Today, major-label classical LPs are recorded digitally wherever practical. The expense and scarcity of digital multitracking equipment have limited entirely digital pop productions, although the process is now frequently used during the mixing and editing stages, as a way of preserving fidelity from one tape generation to the next.
The reactions of critics and performers to all of this have been mixed. Some note a greater clarity on the hybrid discs. Others insist that the higher-grade vinyl and the more careful disc-cutting techniques used in making these LPs are more significant factors in their improved sound. Still others argue that listeners who find digital sound an improvement are either hallucinating or gullible; some even insist that the process yields a colder, harsher, and for certain timbres, less natural sound than the best analog recordings.
From the start, we have been told that any problems we hear on hybrid LPs are functions not of the digital process, but of other weak links in the chain. In fact, the situation is much more complicated. For example, flaws in microphones and recording technique previously masked by tape noise, high -frequency compression, or other problems peculiar to analog recording would quickly be exposed by digital recording. These would be faithfully passed on from the digital tape to whatever medium might be used for distribution to consumers, whether long-playing phonograph record or pure digital disc. Digital discs (and very well-made LPs) might even appear to compound the misery in some cases by exhibiting little or none of the son- is degradation and loss that normally accompanies the transfer from master tape to LP. The only valid way to assess the fidelity of any process is to compare its out put directly to its input--something we are not at the moment in a position to do as regards digital recording.
But now that the availability of the first home digital playback system is imminent, we at least have an opportunity to get some inkling of what lies in store. Developed jointly by Philips and Sony, it plays a 4.7-inch Compact Disc (CD)--a three-layer sandwich of digitally encoded impulses, scanned by a laser. Already available in Japan, the first players and a selection of popular and classical CDs will appear in European and American audio shops this spring. Last month, HIGH FIDELITY published a hands-on report on Sony's first Compact Disc player, the CDP-101, and the editors decided, since the player was on the premises, to assemble some of the magazine's record reviewers to ascertain their first reactions to the system.
Having gathered a selection of LPs and their CD counterparts (from Japan), we conducted a series of head-on comparisons, either synchronizing the two and switching from one format to the other, or listening to entire tracks in both formats. During ,he synchronized A/B comparisons, we normally knew which format was on, although during one selection, only the switcher knew which was which, and the critics evaluated the sounds (four out of five correctly identifying the CD) after the playing.
The tests were held in two sessions, the first for pop critics, the second for classical. All were given copies of the CDP-101 report by technical editor Michael Riggs [December 1982], who was present through both sessions to explain the digital process, answer questions, and do the disc switching. Yet it is probably fair to say that the critics were unswayed by Riggs's enthusiasm for the CD medium: At the start of the sessions, several voiced reservations about digital recording, based on their experience with the hybrids; and although the tests changed some opinions about the sound, most of the critics continued to voice reservations about the merits of a format change.
Critics at the pop session included Susan Elliott (managing editor/Backbeat editor), Stephen Holden, J. B. Moore, and John Milward. At the classical session were Peter G. Davis, Harris Goldsmith, and David Hamilton. James R. Oestreich (classical music editor) and I attended both.
The equipment: In the digital corner, the Sony CDP-101. The analog player was a Linn Sondek LP-12 turntable with an SME 3009 Series II Improved tonearm and a Shure V-15 Type V cartridge. Both were fed through an Apt/Holman preamp and an Apt Model I power amp; for the one CX encoded LP, we used a Sound Concepts SX-80 decoder. We experimented with B&W 801F speakers and a second pair but quickly decided that switching between radically different -sounding speakers only clouded the digital/analog comparison; the difference between the speaker systems was considerably more striking than the difference between the LPs and CDs played through both.
The three pop recordings--Billy Joel's "52nd Street," Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water," and a contemporary jazz disc, "One on One," by Earl Klugh and Bob James--were drawn from analog masters (one of them more than a decade old) and therefore posed special problems not met later in the day, when the classical panel compared LP and CD versions of digitally recorded material.
Chief among these is tape hiss, particularly on the old Simon and Garfunkel recording.
Since the CD is a literal copy of the master tape, without any of the compensations (bass roll-off and blending) that take place in the LP mastering process, the master's tape hiss remains intact.
Ironically, the bright sound of tape hiss is partially masked on LP by the duller vinyl noise; and while it may simply be a question of familiarity with LP sound, several critics found the unmasked tape hiss on the CD more "uncomfortable" than the combined tape hiss and surface noise of the LP. To be fair, the impression should not be left that the music was buried in hiss, and as on any tape, hiss was noticeable especially between selections. Lacking access to the actual master tapes, we could not compare the original sound with the CD; one can reasonably assume, however, that, in the transfer from master tape to CD, no new tape hiss was introduced by the digital process.
-------- Kozinn: "I doubted that the CD could improve on the
Klugh/James LP sound. I was wrong."
-------- Moore: "I wonder whether labels will re-master for
this disc. It's a whole new ball game."
------- Hamilton: "Um afraid the CD sound let me hear more
clearly what the performers weren't doing."
-------- Davis: "I wonder what I would have thought of those
old Cetra operas if I'd had them on CD."
----------- HF critics (from left): John Milward, David Hamilton,
Harris Goldsmith, Allan Kozinn, J.B. Moore, Stephen Holden, Peter G.
Davis
Testing began with Billy Joel. The analog version, CX-encoded, had a clean, clear sound. We made A/B comparisons of several tracks--Big Shot, Stiletto, Rosalinda's Eyes, and Until the Night. For me, two qualities stood out in the CD version: The bass sound was noticeably richer, and the percussion, though certainly crisp enough on LP, became more tangible. Others agreed and offered additional observations.
"The CD gave a clearer sense of every kind of instrumental profile and timbre, and the vocal profile was much clearer," Holden commented. "But the differences were so marginal, overall, that they could really only be appreciated by an obsessive audiophile." Elliott, and indeed all of us, found the differences between the two systems negligible at first--as Riggs assured us should be the case when the music's dynamic range is not too great and the LP is carefully made and played back on top-quality equipment. But after listening to the digital for awhile, Elliott added, "The analog sound was mushy, relative to the digital." Both she and Oestreich were particularly bothered by the shrill sound on CD of a saxophone solo that sounded more natural on LP. They would voice a similar objection to the string sound on the Simon and Garfunkel CD later in the session.
Moore, an independent record producer and perhaps the most technically-oriented of the critics, was often the most specific in his reactions. "I was surprised that the top was not a lot more present, having heard some digital tapes at mastering plants; but it was a bit more transparent, no question about it, and it reproduced that lovely echo sound on Until the Night very nicely. The bass had more size to it. I agree with the rest that it's a subtle difference; but from my point of view, anything that doesn't have pops and clicks is okay if it sounds as good as the analog." The absence of pops and clicks is indeed one of the CD's most impressive givens. Allied thereto-in that it relates to the system itself rather than to its sound--is the player's ease of operation, which impressed the critics at both sessions. The Sony CDP-101 resembles a cassette deck in certain respects: Among its controls are for ward, reverse, fast-forward, and fast-reverse buttons. To operate it, you simply press a button that activates a tray on the front of the machine, put the disc on the tray, and press another button that takes the tray and CD into the player. To cue up a track, you can use either the forward and reverse buttons-the track number and a count of minutes and seconds elapsed into the track are displayed--or a remote control that allows you to tap the track number directly into the system. Thus, you can reorder tracks at will, and once the desired track (or point therein) is located on the display, the machine will play it without further fine-tuning.
The elapsed-time display is particularly handy to find specific passages within a track. In the classical session, we used this facility several times to note suspected tape splices, to which we wanted to return at the end of the movement. Another feature allows you to replay passages of any length over and over: Simply punch in the starting and ending times of the section, and the machine returns to the start of the passage automatically, until you release the function. Also of interest is a fast-forward con trol that allows the music to be sampled sped -up, yet at original pitch. One critic likened this sound to that of a distant, just-out-of-range FM station.
Turning to Simon and Garfunkel, we made direct A/B comparisons of Bridge Over Troubled Water, and then heard The Boxer straight through, first on CD, then on LP. A dozen years old-and a lavish production for its day--the "Bridge" album pointed up both benefits and drawbacks, and raised a few questions.
"The differences were much more noticeable this time," Oestreich said. "The voices had much more character on the dig ital recording-there were many vocal qualities apparent on the CD that were not on the LP. On the other hand, the string sound [on Bridge] was god-awful. And on the CD version [of Boxer] the sibilants were overemphasized." Milward also noted certain peculiarities in the CD version: "That little bass-harmonica effect [in Boxer] sounds almost comic; I didn't notice it as much on analog, possibly because that's the sound I'm used to hearing. There's a fascinating philosophical dilemma here: In pop music, the performers and producers arc often going for effects, but when you put this on an ultra-clean system, the effects become com pounded and seem to become something else altogether." Holden found this less bothersome:
"The most noticeable improvement, for me, was Art Garfunkel's voice--the subtleties in the timbre of the singing, which sounded much richer on CD. I think that production technique, in which all the instrumentation is deliberately turned into an echoed, artificial sound, becomes a little weirder when the sound is presented in a cleaner format. But I like it--it's supposed to be that way, so it doesn't bother me. I've always thought the strings sounded strident tin Bridge,] and they sound more so in digital. There is also that muddy, low-frequency roar, which is discernible on LP, but which becomes much more of a roar on CD. That abstract, thunderous quality comes off much better in digital, yet some people may find that disturbing. What you have is six of one, half a dozen of the other--the sonic improvement of something that is made to sound artificial." Moore ventured some technical observations on the transference to CD of master tapes created for LP. "In my experience mastering records, I find that when you listen to the results, you listen most closely to the sound you get from the acetates, particularly on top. And invariably, I find that if I push the high frequencies a bit-around 10-12 kHz--I end up with a little presence on the LP that I would otherwise not have.
But that is taking into account that I'll be going through a few generations of mothers, fathers, stampers, and finally, the crummy vinyl used in this country.
"Now if these tapes were taken and run into digital with the equalization left intact, then there might be six tons of extra 10-12 kHz on them, meant to defeat what ever losses would occur in the disc-cutting process but superfluous for a CD application. That could account for the problems we heard in the sax sound on the Billy Joel CD, or the strings and sibilants on "Bridge." The transfer engineers in the CD process may have decided that they don't need compression any longer, but perhaps a bit of compression might bring that string sound back to what the original producers and artists intended as their final product.
What I wonder is whether the labels are just going to take their analog masters and dump them onto CD in a nonchalant fashion, or whether they will see that the key to doing this right is to go back and re-master with the sound of this disc in mind. Because it really is a whole new ball game." Time was running out as we got to the Klugh/James disc, so we focused on one track. Winding River. selected for its broad timbral spectrum and particularly for Ron Carter's extraordinarily colorful bass playing. Using neither electric instruments nor extensive postproduction, it provided some necessary contrast in the pop session. We heard the LP version first, and I, for one.
considered the sound so crisp and well rounded that I doubted the CD could improve on it much. I was wrong: As on the Billy Joel CD, the percussion here could be felt rather than simply heard. The acoustic guitar sound. especially the note attacks, was even brighter and more realistic than on the perfectly acceptable LP. and the unusual, bending timbres and subtle shadings of the bass playing were even more striking.
There was general agreement on these points.
"This was the most dramatic example of the difference between LP and CD we've had," said Holden. "All the instrumental voices, including every little percussive effect, were much clearer, and the entire sound was enormously brightened.
The only instrument that didn't seem to be affected was the piano. The whole experience was more percussive than on LP." Moore concurred, adding that the CD's sound was "outrageously good-clear and crispy." Milward was less impressed. "I noticed an improvement in the sound of the cymbals. but overall I didn't catch that much of a difference, and reflecting back on all we've heard, I noticed the difference between CD and LP more on the tracks that included voice. So while I agree that the percussion seemed to jump out more, the general atmosphere of the music remained relatively the same." Elliott's reaction to the entire test, however, was more in line with Holden's and Moore's. "In the recordings I know best--Billy Joel and Simon and Garfunkel--I felt a great deal of discomfort listening to the CD versions. There were certain aspects that sounded better or cleaner, but on the whole, the digital results sounded very superficial and sharp to me. Normally I like an edgy sound, but there was almost too much of an edge here. Perhaps it's because I feel uncomfortable hearing recordings I know with a different sound quality." The classical session was markedly diffe ent in several respects. For one thing, we used discs made from digital master tapes.
These included Lorin Maazel and the Orchestre National de France in Holst's Planets; Rafael Kubelik and the Bavarian Radio Symphony in Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and Bruckner's Fourth; and a CD sampler containing selections from several Polygram (Philips, DG, London) releases.
The performances on these recent releases, new to most of us, themselves became subjects for discussion. Such judgments were at first considered beyond the scope and against the ground rules of the test. But it soon became apparent that a relationship between digital clarity and performance quality did indeed exist and that certain performance-related comments had to be considered fair game.
Actually, performers themselves have made the point about the relationship between performance quality and sonic clarity. During an interview a few years back, Maazel--who had then just completed his first digital sessions, and who had heard a prototype CD player during a tour of Japan--told me that "digital recording will divide the men from the boys. There is no place to hide--no electronic noises you can duck behind, none of the sonic tinkering that can make even the worst orchestra sound acceptable, no adding of sheen to the strings. You can hear everything perfectly.
and when the public has an opportunity to hear true digital sound, it will notice that the difference between first-class and second and third-class playing is enormous. I welcome it." The critics agreed with Maazel's analysis wholeheartedly; in fact, it was his Planets recording that got both the testing and the observations about performance quality underway. We started with "Mars," in a "blind" A/B test; Riggs switched formats at two-minute intervals. I found it fairly easy to identify the CD version, although the difference in clarity was slight. Hamilton, not trying to decide which was which, noted a slight improvement in the two sections that turned out to be CD.
Ocstreich, on the other hand, thought he heard "more openness in the sound of the analog sections." Davis also identified the CD correctly but added, "it's pretty subtle, in fact, it's hard to tell. I mean, how are we supposed to separate the sound of the recording from the sound of an orchestra that's playing like pigs? The ensemble itself was so mushy that improved sound doesn't do anything for it." Goldsmith, like Oestreich, preferred the "greater depth of sound" of the LP version. In fact, of all the critics at both sessions. Goldsmith seemed to have the strongest reservations about the vaunted merits of digital recording. He arrived in time to hear the jazz track at the end of the pop session and commented that. "perhaps it's that we're listening to this at high volume in a windowless room, or perhaps it's some thing intrinsic in the system. but I felt a kind of cold, discolored sound where everything is clinically analyzed but very unreal. My initial reaction is very negative." After "Mars," he reacted similarly: "Both the LP and the CD had the kind of antiseptic coloration a lot of recordings tend to have these days: I don't know whether it's the digital process. or just the microphoning, or even the way orchestras arc encouraged to play by certain conductors, but I don't like it." Goldsmith soon changed his mind.
Laying Planets aside (for the moment), we turned to Kubelik's Mozart, and played the finale twice--LP, then CD. The differences, which had been fractional in The Planets, were quite dramatic in the Mozart.
My own reaction was one I haven't entirely been able to analyze; I not only found the CD version son/catty better, but felt it gave the performance itself a more captivating edge.
Davis reacted similarly: "This time the CD was incredibly different from the LP; it even made the performance sound different. On the LP. all that invertible counterpoint seemed very foggy and indistinct, but it all just blossomed on the CD." Hamilton, equally impressed, felt that here.
too, the improved sonics shone a bright light on performance details. "The CD sound was quite good. even down to the deep bass. It didn't quite make the contra basses play as cleanly as I'd hoped they'd come across--I'm afraid the CD sound let me hear more clearly what they weren't doing." Goldsmith, on the other hand, waxed rhapsodic: "This sounds like the kind of thing you hear in the studio when you play back a master tape during a recording session-it has that kind of immediacy you get from the tape. Also, the little clicks, pops, and defects, really not all that terrible on the LP, just disappeared here, and that is a definite point in the CD's favor. Beyond that, I found the sound rounder and fuller and more lifelike. You hear more of the resonance, the sound of the bow on the strings, and the puffiness of the winds. I cat my words: I could listen to this ad infinium." "I, too, found the sound almost three dimensional here." Oestreich added.
"Wouldn't it be ironic if this is the music digital recording turns out to serve best, when all the record companies have been assuming it would be the big sonic block busters?" Even so, we thought we would return to those sonic blockbusters to get an idea of the CD's ability to reproduce broad dynamic ranges. A 90-dB dynamic range has been claimed for the CD, compared with an optimistic 60 dB on LP; but testing this is difficult, since most music employs a considerably narrower range. Rock and baroque music, for instance, require a dynamic range of only 20 to 30 dB, well within the LP's grasp. It is in the late-Romantic orchestral works that the larger range is needed, and so we turned next to the Bruckner Fourth. Alas, we had no LP version for comparison.
A single hearing of the first movement proved instructive, though. "Far more than what it did for the loud parts," Oestreich noted, "I was impressed with the sound in the quiet parts. The end of the development section was astonishing." Hamilton. "So was the clarity of the tremolo strings in the beginning." Oestreich: "And to hear all of that with no surface noise to disturb you is amazing." Equally tantalizing-this entire sixty-eight-minute performance is comfort ably accommodated on a single disc side.
Although current marketing plans call for one-sided CDs that play about an hour, both sides can be used, and the disc is obviously capable of holding more than an hour on each; thus, should the companies decide to package CDs this way, some full operas could fit on a single CD, with only one side break.
Still in search of wide dynamics, we returned to The Planets, this time trying "Mercury," a mostly quiet movement with a central climax and a nice array of wind, string, and tuned -percussion timbres.
Again we were sidetracked by performance problems. What seemed a clearly exposed splice-or at least a sonic shift--could be heard only on the CD, and string playing that sounded merely poor on LP proved laughable under the glaring light of CD reproduction. "The overtones, the vinyl noise, and the comparative thinness of the LP add a kind of bizarre atmosphere to that version," Goldsmith observed, "but when you take those things away, what's left is just dull playing." Davis wondered "whether this is going to have any effect on who makes records now. I don't see how a record like that will be able to get away with being on the market. In fact, considering the way this system tends to point up both the best and worst aspects of the performances we've heard, I wonder what I would have thought of those old Cetra opera sets I listened to on my Webcor when I was fifteen if I'd had them on CD. How on earth would I listen to music now?" We finally found what seemed an unusually wide and brilliantly captured example of the CD's dynamic range on the Polygram sampler, in a Solti/Chicago Sym phony recording of the Rakoczy March from Berlioz' Damnation of Faust, and a Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic performance of the second movement from the Shostakovich Tenth Symphony. In both cases, the discrepancy between the sot test and loudest passages, and the clarity achieved in both, were startling. We liked, in these digitally mastered selections, the way a full orchestra (plus chorus, in other examples) sprang out of the CD's complete silence, and Hamilton noted yet another of the system's com forting aspects: "What I'm finding most striking is the sound at the top of the range.
You no longer worry about whether the flute sound is going to be distorted." In several examples, we also noted some odd sonic shifts that indicated either newly exposed splices or perhaps some dial -twiddling in the tape-mixing stage.
This, combined with such widely disparate performance standards, indicated that possibly one of digital sound's biggest prospective advantages in classical recording is the effect it will have on players and producers, both of whom will have to approach their arts with greater honesty and more refined techniques.
One final test remained. When Philips began demonstrating its prototype CD and player at audio shows in 1979, it issued press kits full of technical specs, illustrations, and claims for the new system's superiority to the LP. One seemingly incidental yet entirely practical claim was that the CD is virtually indestructible. Yet a report in a recent issue of the British Gramophone noted that CDs may require careful handling after all. Since non-audiophiles are sometimes careless with their LPs--leaving them out of their sleeves to collect dust and cat hairs, or handling them carelessly, with fingers on the grooves--we thought some sort of endurance test should be per formed.
We had, in fact, had one example of a CD mistracking, apparently because of dirt, during the pop session, but a quick pass with a handkerchief over the smooth, plastic surface (the clear bottom surface, which protects the aluminized layer holding the digital information in a series of microscopic pits; the top surface simply contains label information) put things right. According to the literature, dirt and scratches on the CD's surface are read as out -of -focus by the laser, which scans past it; also, the coded music contains redundant information for error correction. What, we wondered, would it take to make the player mis track? By critical consensus, we targeted The Planets for demolition and subjected it to treatment that would have destroyed an LP.
First we smudged fingerprints all over it. It played perfectly. Then, testing it between each attempt, we wrote on it with pencil and with pencil eraser; we scratched it with a key; we even smeared powdered coffee creamer on it, all to no avail. Bending or melting it would probably have done the trick, but we had to conclude that under normal-well, even under severe--bordering-on-hostile--conditions, the CD is in deed indestructible. Even had we been able to block the laser enough to cause mistracking, the discs are easily cleaned.
Conclusions?
Most everyone found the display of the CD's and CDP-101 's capabilities impressive--but exactly how impressive varied among the critics. In the pop session, there was a general admission that the CDs sounded clearer and boasted a better bass response than the LPs, and that the sounds of vocals and mid- to low-range and percussive instruments sounded more natural. But there was also the feeling that upper-range instruments sounded "wrong" or "uncomfortable," and that the older material sounded better in its original form.
Of course, if Moore's analysis is correct, and if companies do re-master their tapes before issuing them on CD, that objection may evaporate.
On the classical side, where we had the advantage of digitally mastered recordings, the tests saw a certain amount of cynicism about digital sound disappear as the critics were confronted with the CD's seemingly limitless ability to accurately reproduce pure orchestral sound in all ranges. As Oestreich observed after the sessions, "the problems we had with the high strings in the pop recordings were exactly what I expected to hear, but didn't, in the classical samples." Here too, it was suggested that producers are going to have to listen more closely to their master tapes for CD releases than they have for LP productions; and the prospect that CD might lead to an extensive cleansing of the catalog was perceived as a potential benefit in itself.
Yet even among the classical critics, who generally found the LP/CD comparisons more striking, there remained a feeling that the advent of CD would be less than earth-shaking. "I can't say that I wasn't impressed," Peter Davis reflected a day after the session, "but I don't think that, in purely sonic terms, this is anywhere near as dramatic an advance as I found when we went from mono to stereo. This is just a further refinement, and as far as I'm concerned, its most important aspects are the physical ones--the convenience of the player, the longevity of the discs, the elimination of clicks, pops, and wow, and the fact that you can't really harm them. All that seems much more significant to me than the marginal improvement in sound reproduction."
-HF
----------------
Forthcoming CDs
THE FOLLOWING TITLES are drawn from Polygram's worldwide production list and represent only a small part of its initial CD package.
None is scheduled for official release in the U.S. before mid-1983-by which time many more titles will also be available--and some may not appear here at all. Most (but not all) classical titles are derived from digital masters, most (but not all) pop titles from analog masters. The information furnished for some titles is incomplete, and all plans are, of course, subject to change. The classical list uses the following abbreviations:
Ac (Academy), Ch (Chorus, Choir), O (Orchestra, Orchestre), P (Philharmonic), Qrt. (Quartet), S (Symphony).
Classical
ARCHIV
Bach: Harpsichord Concertos. Pinnock; English Concert.
Vivaldi: Four Seasons. Standage; English Concert, Pinnock.
DEUTSCHE GRAMMOPHON
Beethoven: Piano Sonatas, Nos. 8, 13, 14. Giles.
Berlioz: Reverie et caprice. Lalo: Symphonic espagnole. Perlman; O de Paris, Barenboim.
Brahms: Ballades (4). Schubert: Piano Sonata, D. 537. Michelangeli.
Brahms: Symphony No. 2. Los Angeles PO, Giulini.
Brahms: Symphony No. 4. Vienna PO, E. Kleiber.
Brahms: Violin Concerto. Mutter; Berlin PO, Karajan.
Bruch: Violin Concerto No. 1. Mendelssohn: Concerto. Mutter; Berlin PO, Karajan.
Dvorak, Tchaikovsky: String Serenades. Berlin PO, Karajan.
Franck: Symphony. Saint -Satins: Le Rouet d'Omphale. O National de France, Bernstein.
Grieg: Holberg Suite. Mozart: Eine kleine Nachtmusik. Prokoflev: Symphony No. 1.Berlin PO, Karajan.
Holst: The Planets. Berlin PO, Karajan.
Mahler: Symphony No. 1. Chicago SO, Abbado.
Mozart: Eine kleine Nachtmusik: Ein musikalischer Spass. Amadeus Qrt.
Mozart: Mass, K. 427. Hendricks, Perry.
Schreier, Luzon; Vienna Singverein, Berlin PO, Karajan.
Mozart: Piano Concertos Nos. 12, 20. R. Ser kin; London SO, Abbado.
Offenbach: Overtures (5); Barcarolle. Berlin PO, Karajan.
Ravel: Bolero; La Valse; Pavane pour une infante &funk,. 0 de Paris, Barenboim.
Saint -Satins: Symphony No. 3. Cochereau; Berlin PO, Karajan.
Schumann: Symphony No. 3. Los Angeles PO, Giulini.
Strauss, J. II: Waltzes (3); Polkas (3): March; Overture. Berlin PO, Karajan.
Strauss, R.: Alpine Symphony. Berlin PO, Karajan.
Stravinsky: Petrushka. London SO, Abbado.
Tchaikovsky: 1812 Overture; Capriccio italien; Marche slave. Chicago SO, Barenboim.
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6. Los Angeles PO, Giulini.
Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto; Serenade me lancolique. Kremer; Berlin PO, Maazel.
Placido Domingo: Opera Gala. Los Angeles PO, Giulini.
Lorin Maazel: New Year's Concert. Vienna PO.
LONDON
Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra; Dance Suite. Chicago SO, Solti.
Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 5. Lupu; Israel PO, Mehta.
Beethoven: Symphony No. 5; Leonore Overture No. 3. Philharmonia 0, Ashkenazy.
Beethoven: Violin Concerto. Chung; Vienna PO, Kondrashin.
Berlioz: Symphonic Fantastique. New York P, Mehta.
Dvorak: Symphony No. 9. Vienna PO, Kondrashin.
Mussorgsky (arr. Ravel): Pictures at an Exhibition. Ravel: Le Tombeau de Couperin. Chicago SO, Solti.
Mozart: Piano Concertos Nos. 23, 27. Ashkenazy; Philharmonia O.
Rachmaninoff: Symphony No. 2. Concertgebouw O, Ashkenazy.
Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe. Montreal SCh&O, Dutoit.
Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez; Fantasia para un gentilhombre. Bonell; Montreal SO, Dutoit.
Rossini: Overtures (7). National PO, Chailly.
Schubert: Symphony No. 9. Vienna PO, Solti.
Sibelius: Symphony No. 4; Finlandia; Luonno tar. Philharmonia O, Ashkenazy.
Strauss, R.: Don Juan; Tod and Verklarung; Till Eulenspiegel. Detroit SO, Dorati.
Stravinsky: Le Sacre du printemps. Detroit SO, Dorati.
Verdi: La Traviata (excerpts). Sutherland, Pavarotti; London Opera Ch, National PO, Bonynge.
Luciano Pavarotti: Best-Loved Tenor Arias.
Luciano Pavarotti: Verismo Arias.
Joan Sutherland and Luciano Pavarotti: Operatic Duets.
L’OISEAU-LYRE
Bach: Violin Concertos, S. 1041-43. Schroder; Ancient Music Ac, Hogwood.
Handel: Messiah (excerpts). Ancient Music Ac, Hogwood.
Handel: Water Music; Royal Fireworks Music.
Ancient Music Ac, Hogwood.
PHILIPS
Bach: Brandenburg Concertos (6). St. Martin's Ac, Marriner (two CDs).
Chopin: Waltzes. Arran.
Debussy: Nocturnes (3); Jeux. Concertgebouw O, Haitink.
Dvoilk: String, Wind Serenades. St. Martin's Ac, Marriner.
Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue; Concerto in F. K.&M. Labeque.
Ketelbey: In a Persian Market; In a Monastery Garden; et al. London Promenade O, Far is.
Mozart: Piano Concertos Nos. 15, 21. Brendel;
St. Martin's Ac, Marriner.
Ravel: Ma Mere l'oye. Saint-Saens: Le Carnaval des animau.r. Pittsburgh SO, Previn.
Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade. Concertgebouw O, Kondrashin.
Rodrigo: Concierto madrigal; Concierto anda luz . Romeros; St. Martin's Ac, Marriner.
Scarlatti, A.: Concerti grossi. I Musici.
Schubert: Trout Quintet. Brendel; Cleveland Qrt.
Strauss, R.: Also sprach Zarathustra. Boston SO, Ozawa.
Stravinsky: Firebird. Concertgebouw O, C. Davis.
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 4. Pittsburgh SO, Previn.
Wagner: Overtures (3). Concertgebouw O, De Waart.
Waldteufel: Waltzes. Vienna Volksoper O. Bauer-Theussl.
Boston Pops O: Digital Overtures. Williams.
Jose Carreras: Popular Italian Songs. English CO, Milner.
Jessye Norman: Popular Sacred Songs.
Vienna Ch Boys: Folksongs.
Vienna Volksoper O: Famous Waltzes. Bauer Theussl.
Pop
LONDON/DECCA INTERNATIONAL
Camel: The Single Factor.
Camel: The Snow Goose.
Mantovani: The Golden Hits.
Moody Blues: Days of Future Past.
Rolling Stones: Hot Rocks.
PHONOGRAM INTERNATIONAL (PHILIPS/MERCURY)
Aphrodite's Child: Greatest Hits
Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers: Night in Tunisia.
Boomtown Rats: V Deep.
Lindsey Buckingham: Law & Order.
J.J. Cale: Grasshopper.
Dire Straits: Communique.
Dire Straits: Dire Straits.
Dire Straits: Makin' Movies.
Dr. Hook: Players in the Dark.
Dutch Swing College Band: Digital Dixie.
Four Tops: Tonight.
Genesis: Abacab.
Genesis: And Then There Were Three.
Elton John: Jump Up! Elton John: The Fox.
Elton John: 21 at 33.
Kiss: Unmasked.
Paul Mauriat: Best of.
Steve Miller: Greatest Hits.
Steve Miller Band: Circle of Love.
Van Morrison: Beautiful Vision.
Van Morrison: Into the Music.
The Platters: Greatest Hits.
Eddie Babbitt: Step by Step.
Demis Roussos: Demis.
Rush: Moving Pictures.
Soft Cell: Nonstop Erotic Cabaret.
Status Quo: Never Too Late.
Status Quo: / + 9 + 8 + 2.
Status Quo: 12 Gold Bars.
Rod Stewart: Best of 10 cc: Greatest Hits.
10 cc: Ten out of Ten.
Thin Lizzy: Lizzy Killers.
POLYDOR INTERNATIONAL
Abba: Greatest Hits.
Abba Super Trouper.
Abba The Visitors.
Barclay James Harvest: Berlin-A Concert for the People.
BeeGees: BeeGees' Greatest.
BeeCees: Saturday Night Fever.
Eric Clapton: Timepieces.
Fame: Soundtrack.
Jean Michel Jarre: Equinoxe.
Jean Michel Jarre: Magnetic Fields.
Jean Michel Jarre: Oxygene.
Jon and Vangelis: Friends of Mr. Cairo.
Jon and Vangelis: Short Stories.
King Crimson: In the Court of the Crimson King.
James Last: Classics.
James Last: Romantische Triiume.
James Last: Tanz mal Tango.
Rainbow: Best of.
Rainbow: Straight Between the Eyes.
Rosy Music: Avalon.
Rosy Music: Flesh and Blood.
Roxy Music: Manifesto.
Vangelis: Chariots of Fire.
Visage: Anvil.
Visage: Visage.
The Who: Tommy.
--------------------
-------
(High Fidelity, Jan. 1983)
Also see: