Why so low?

Elizabeth is correct. I've looked at the sound waveforms of their Prokofiev "Romeo and Juliet" recording, using a computer program, and the difference in volume between the loudest notes and the softest notes is around 55 db! That corresponds to about 316000 times as much power being required for the loudest notes as for the softest notes.

Many popular recordings, in contrast, are compressed to the point where that difference, in db, is in single digits. Presumably one of the reasons that is done is that it will make those recordings sound as loud as possible when listened to on car radios.

I suspect that an additional reason for the relatively low average volume on the Sheffields is that since the direct-to-disk process does not allow any post-processing or editing, recording levels were adjusted to provide more margin, relative to anticipated peak levels, than would normally be used with other recording techniques.

Regards,
-- Al

09-26-12: Rpfef
I haven't heard cd transfers of these records so I have no idea if their aliveness and thrilling tonal accuracy survives the big domain switch. Has anyone out there heard both?

I have two of the Sheffields in both formats, the Prokofiev "Romeo and Juliet," and the Sheffield Track Record. Both are combined with other releases in the CD versions.

I'll introduce my comments by saying that I have no ideological biases concerning analog vs. digital. I enjoy both formats.

The Track Record, which Harry Pearson famously described at the time of the Direct-to-Disk LP release as "absolutely the best sounding rock record ever made," I found to be very disappointing in the CD version. While reasonably good sounding in comparison to most rock recordings, in comparison to the D-to-D original it sounded dark, sluggish, closed in, and significantly compromised in definition. I suspect that a major contributor to that was, as indicated in the liner notes, that the digital master was created by playing back the LP using a Shure V15 Type V cartridge.

The Prokofiev fared somewhat better in the transfer to CD. In this case the liner notes do not indicate what source medium was used (LP, backup analog tape, etc.), or what equipment was used to play it. While the CD version sacrifices a lot of the magic of the D-to-D original, which IMO your post accurately described, it remains a very impressive recording. In comparison with the LP, I would characterize the CD as suffering a general loss of definition, but to a degree that allows it to remain highly recommendable. I'll add a couple of caveats, though, that are applicable to both formats. Those whose systems tend toward brightness, or that generate significant odd harmonic distortion, or that tend to homogenize massed string sound, will probably find the brightness of its string sound to be bothersome. Also, the dry (but I believe accurately captured) ambience will be a bit disconcerting to some.

Given those caveats, with respect to sonics I consider the D-to-D LP version of the Prokofiev to be an astonishing recording, and the CD to be simply excellent. And both formats IMO present a certainly serviceable performance of highly appealing music.

Best regards,
-- Al