There are (at least) two different meanings of "analog sounding" being used at various points in the thread.

One meaning is "sounding most similar to analog recording technologies". And since those are mostly magnetic tape or DTD media, that introduce various artefacts, that leads to the conclusion that converters that mimic some of the "sound" and "color" associated with analog recorders are the most "analog sounding".

The other meaning is "sounding most similar to the source". Also translated as "transparent" and/or "least colored". Which would (oddly) apply even in cases where the source is entirely digitally generated, where proponents of this second meaning would argue that converters that faithfully reproduce the "digital sound" (whatever that may be) of the digital source are the "most analog sounding". Despite this seeming irreconcilable contradiction, "sounding most like the source" is my own preference. FWLTW.

Meanwhile, maybe I missed it --- I've seen a lot of back and forth, a lot of people talking past one another and a lot of personal (and even idiosyncratic) preferences expressed. But if there was any general agreement about what "analog sounding" means in the context of A/D/A converters, I'm afraid it eluded me.

Relax Plush, I wasnt aiming at you or anyone, just seemed like the thread was getting off track a bit. My profile has been that way since 05 as you can see. This is my hobby, I work in healthcare for a living and do music as a hobby if that matters, does that make me less of someone who can comment on things?

Good point DarkSky, cant argue with that outlook

The logical fallacies right here are "straw man" and "moving the goalpost".

"Digital bashing"? No. Digital as a storage medium is perfect. That's why we use it all the time. Problems arise when conversion and/or processing takes place because of real-world (physical) limitations. Either purely within the digital domain (e.g. aliasing because of limited bandwidth) or in the context of conversion. All of this is well-known and you can find lot's of published scientific papers on it. The only one argueing - against evidence and scientific consensus - that perfect nulls with real time conversion or SRC are achieved in practice are you.

Your opinions and writings should certainly be expressed here.
We need many points of view to understand the whole.

At the same time, one can tell that you are a hobbyist.

Truth be told, most pros can't be bothered with achieving maximum sound quality, because the market doesn't care for that and pros need to make money.

Please don't categorize me in that "not achieving maximum sound quality" group.

It has been my life long pursuit.

And I do not think that your blanket assertion is correct, either.

I have made a living from music my entire adult life. I am now nearly 50.

I've had songs on the radio that I've written, produced and mixed , I've done music for tv ads ...bla bla

And yep I do spend allot of time looking , trying, listening for the best gear ( for me ) and to get the best sound I can when say recording vocals, mixing and even in the box with say plugins like acustisca

I've had a ton of mics here, mic press , monitors, compressors, vintage this and that.... its been expensive ..and incredibly fun...

But after a while, its , use what you have and make them sound the best you can. As the tools we have now are excellent.

For anyone interested in actual learning - this is an excellent thread on how digital conversion works - he covers the theorem, reconstruction filter, oversampling and the myth of pre ringing filters - all presented with excellent graphics and some animation:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...stified.33516/

If this stuff is new to you, bookmark the thread and study it in small chunks - you’re not going to completely “get it” in one reading - also, you may have to consult other data to better understand some of the math he assumes you understand

Most of what you need to know is in the first three posts.

Cheers from the Lydian corner

I agree, especially so now that we live in a time where maximum audio quality is available and affordable, and knowledge about monitoring solutions, I.e., room acoustics, is free and easy to find.

An anonymous account someone uses to avoid detection. Which is fine, there's just no way to appeal to one's own authority from a burner with any credibility. I'm on a burner now, but I won't claim any professional authority on it, I'll just speak facts and they can fall where they may.

Some of these threads feel like Skrillex is hiding out on a burner account in a thread about micing jazz ensembles, rudely and condescendingly trying to convince everyone that's he's indeed a pro even though he's intentionally hiding out, and that in his expert opinion recording a jazz ensemble is something exceptionally easy and basic to do, that all you have to do is mic things up with maybe a little EQ and there's hardly any actual engineering.

Its a bit absurd. Burners are a way to try to claim "expert" way outside one's lane with no proof or displays of work to back anything up, and generally lead to rude behavior, people can act very unprofessionally with any professional reputation consequence.

I don't. But the overwhelming majority of pros these days are involved in work quite different from yours. Sound quality per se doesn't matter much when you are doing pop music people consume on smartphone speakers or crappy headphones. It's much more about vibe, loudness and usually just fixing stuff...

However, where to put the microphones is not commonly known.

Don't over simplify. It is not easy.

I knew all this stuff in 1988 after the AES Toronto Digital Conference. Dr. Roger Lagadec explained all this and more.

Your referred website proprietor and many posters are 16 bit/ 44.1kHz. apologists.
I think you are as well.

You can “think” whatever you want, but I haven’t used 16/44 for years, my television and film clients require 24/48

Did the op ever find his magic mushrooms ad/da converter chip with whipped Studer 824 topping?

As an aside, I can't quite articulate it, but I'm finding red guitar picks are better than blue.

In my humble opinion many 80's and 90's digital multitrack albums sound so much more analog than albums done today. Analog sound is more about how you do it than it's about the gear, fortunately.

For sure!

Didn't you know there is a hiarachy here? People who do engineering for a living are the top echilon ..

... everyone else is below and opinions are not worth as much, no matter how good our ears are, the length of our experience, no matter how bad the professional is (Plush by all means is good at what he does..) yet manages to get paid .. they are still more worthy on Gearspace

haha .

There's also a sub hiarchy with session musicians and people musicians who got a lucky break decades ago who are at the top and all other musicians and musically creative people below that ... no matter how good or experience they are.

Money is everything. If you can rangle getting paid ... that means you're better.

Or .. it could be about ego, I'm not sure?

Converters from the 80s and 90s were technically different from today's delta sigma high order modulation converters with steep digital filters.

How many albums out today are made with tons of hardware and no ITB processing? And with people listening to a signal directly and not behind aforementioned modern converters?

I went to great lenghts to do all the processing (aside from things like level changes and slow noise gates and such) OTB and use converters with no ds and no steep filters. Do that and you get that "analog" sound.

The ACOUSENCE 191 is the best a/ d converter in the world.

Acquire ACOUSENCE today.

Sorry guys, but my Vintage/Out of Production...
Original Presonus Audiobox isn't currently for sale.

In the meantime...
Let's strike up the Chorus (don't bore us!)
"You're Nobody Without A Neve". *
Chris
*Must give credit to Plush on that one.

how could it possibly sound "totally" different. let's hear examples

Perhaps this shooting may interest you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8romc2ctIQ

Converters are not supposed to sound analog. Analog means - distortion and poor frequency response, as well as high noise and poor dynamic range.

Converters are supposed to have undetectable distortion and flat frequency response with low noise and wide dynamic range.

Burl is the only exception. Tracking bass into my UTA GB tracker into the Burl BAD4M is with transformer off is noticeably more pleasant (as in sounding analog?) to me, than any other converter I’ve used before. Could very well be placebo

the third meaning, (and probably the most popular here at Gearspace) is "I like it". If you like it, it's more analog

viz:

Of course, this kind of presupposes that everyone's definition of pleasantness is exactly the same and in every circumstance. It also implies that nobody on Earth finds a 'digital' sound pleasant. If a converter makes the bass more "pleasant" - and therefore more analog - to one person will that same converter also make a classical violin "more pleasant" to someone else? Every time?

Where does this end? If I find a specific plugin to be "more pleasant" than a specific hardware unit, does that mean the plugin is "more analog" than the metal box with wires and tubes inside it? A thread looking for a 'consensus' on matters of taste is doomed from the start.

It may have already been stated, but I think the old apogee Rosetta sounds very analog for lack of a better word for it,

Taking my old Mackie Blackjack out for a spin this weekend.

It gotz....
CIRRUS LOGIC converters. *
"Look out old Mackie is back!"
Chris
*On the other hand, limited to 24/48.
(Chessparov duly hides his head in shame )

A sounds the most bright (RME? )

C sounds a bit odd....

interesting shoot out