I'm not necessarily buying any argument that brings us back to the whole steps versus continuous line myth. I respect Mike and ATR, but I don't agree with that statement. I'm a mechanical engineer by education/profession. There are very specific reasons why electronics (or anything physical) that people design and build do and don't do certain things. The cause of the artifacts I'm talking about can be traced to analog circuitry, or digital circuitry, and its implementation. There's no voodoo involved. It's physics. As "engineers" I feel we should attempt to understand it.

Quint--while on a subjective and emotional level I may agree with your assessment of how analog tape handles spatial stuff and "realness", I don't want to admit that as a scientist/engineer until I can understand technically what is happening to those aspect of the audio when its converted.

Consider this: most tape decks still being used were made in the 80's. It's 2010. Let's say that's 25 years that analog technology has had to improve and evolve. Everyone always points to how many leaps and bounds are being made with digital technology, but seems to forget that analog is still improving and evolving as well. The capacitors and op amps you can buy today are heaps better than what was available in 1981. That's why I rip that stuff out and replace it! The new stuff definitely sounds better to my ears! All my tape decks are totally modified. They are way more hi-fi than stock. Another point of clarification: "analog tape" doesn't have to imply "vintage" or "wooly" sounding. That sound goes in the trash with the TL072's and the MCI 2001's. Actually I sell the 2001's to the guys with MCI consoles. heh

Regarding your observation of sample rates... you may want to consider that higher sample rates use more sonically benign filters that are less steep and introduce less "badness". That's a technical term. So it may be filter implementation you are hearing and not anything to do with resolution or the sample rate itself.

Brad

I did a google search for "analog vs. digital audio" and found 5,870,000 result. Oh wait... make that 5,870,001 with this thread. Thank god.

We can just as easily ask "why can't a modern tape deck record a digital source and still sound 'digital' ?"

If one were to insert a record head, some tape and a playback head into the chain coming from a CD player into an amp, would we expect it to be inaudible save for the delay? Or would we call it a CLASP?

all media are media. They mediate between us and reality. None of them are a substitute for reality and they each have their characters, pluses and minuses. Going from one media to the next adds the shortcomings of each.

Here's my proposal for a test: Get the best speakers on earth. Everyone is blindfolded. Play a digital recording of Wynton Marsalis, play a tape recording of Wynton Marsalis, then have Wynton Marsalis come into the room with his trumpet.

This test would not prove anything. People would still argue analog vs digital to the end of the internet, but at least we would have a little perspective on how far both forms audio recording and playback have to go in the "reality" department. Plus we get a free trumpet concert.

I think how 'real' a medium sounds depends on each person's individual preference for which aspects of reality are going to be glossed over and which ones will receive a lot of attention.

Yeah, I understand the limitations of what currently exists but that's no reason to not discuss what might be possible in the future. Changes have been made before and they can be made again.

That computer may not exist in consumer format right now but I promise that it will exist sometime in the future and that future is really not all that far away. Now whether that sampling capability will make a hill of beans in the future, in terms of this discussion, is a whole different thing. I'm just saying that eventually, if it's even an actual issue right now as things currently stand, sampling rate capabilities will become a non issue, or at least not anything worth arguing about.

Yes to all of the above. I was more or less agreeing with you. I'm hard pressed to not agree with the notion of Nyquist theorem. I mean it's just simple math.

You said tape comes back closer to the source than digital and I was just agreeing with you.

As for sample rate, I just use whatever sounds better to me but filters may really be all that the audible difference comes down to for me. I'm just providing fodder for discussion.

As for the "vintage" sound of tape, I agree, the use of tape totally does not implicitly mean that you are locked into a wooly or vintage sound. Do I happen to like some of that sound? Sure but I totally agree that it is a subjective, artistic decision and not an indictment on the inherent capabilities of tape. Tape can either be super colorful or super clean depending on how you use it and how your machine is setup.

All of these things do affect the performance of a tape deck. But regardless of whether the operator of the tape deck has all of these parameters covered, the question still stands: why can't I convert my tape tracks to digital and have it sound just like it does coming off the repro heads? Guys that use tape decks and convert to digital know exactly what I'm talking about. I know not every one of them cares why, but I'm going to guess there's at least a few of us out there that would like someone to figure it out.

Brad

Danny, please take a moment to read my first two posts in the thread. Thanks! This is not an analog vs. digital thread. This is an "analog to digital" thread.

Brad

there was a big push to increase bit rate when digital audio was growing in popularity. 16-24-32..

has the "push" stopped, or have we reached a tech peak of some kind?

My contention is that if you take a pair of km56's, space them nicely, and place them in a sweet room 10' back from a cello player, amp them up with a pair of MSS10's or M196SE's, then mult those signals into a Burl and a [tape deck of choice], the Burl recording will sound more like the live source than the tape decks.

Something to note is that, much like it's digital brethren, an analog deck is *equally* unable to accurately reproduce an analog recording. It will introduce hiss and noise and distortions and compressive artifacts and an eq curve that is, if you've been extremely anal and have a flat deck, +/- .5db across the spectrum. Being .5db up at 250 and .5db down at 4k is one of many reasons why tape sounds so good to people, but accurate it is not.

We can debate the merits of the changes wrought by a generational copy on the respective media, but it is indisputable that neither format can produce a transparent and exact replica of an analog source. I say this because I read in the OP an implication that this inability is somehow a shortcoming or flaw in digital media, when I see it as a shortcoming of all media. Copies are copies, and unless they're bit-for-bit transfers, they're not completely accurate.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Bit rate only increases dynamic range. At 24 bit we get a theoretical 144 dB dynamic range which already far exceeds any mic signal you will likely record. So although there are 32 bit converters coming out, they will likely still be run at 24 bits in practice because you aren't really getting anything extra at 32.

I think the flaws of digital are not that we need bigger bit depths or sample rates, but rather we need better analog circuits surrounding our ADC/DAC chips and/or more effective ADC/DAC chips.

Maybe that is practically possible. Maybe it is not. Even the best IC opamps of today are not perfect, and if every converter channel needs one in and out plus capacitors, you are going to get coloration already from that. I am also not sure how much coloration an ADC/DAC chip imparts all on its own, but I doubt in practice they are flawless as well.

thank you for the great info.

No capture medium is perfect. You will get no disagreement from me on that matter. I think what Brad is trying to illustrate is that, color aside, tape is inherently more "true". Of course that is a topic that is completely open for discussion and one that I increasingly don't have a side of the fence with which to sit on.

As for the Burl, I've never used or heard it before so maybe it would negate this argument in my mind if I ever got my hands on it. And just to play devil's advocate, that Burl's surely coloring things quite a bit too so it may sound really good but, even with the Burl, it comes down to the listener's interpretation of what sounds MORE like the source in a comparison of this sorts.

Me personally, I tend to fall into two camps. One, I love color and like that tape allows for that, if used in that manner. Two, I also like the flexibility of digital and use it all the time and don't think it sounds bad at all. I'm not an audio purist, as I do like color, but I'm fine with using digital all the time. This is more of an academic thing for me. I'm just enjoying the discussion and always looking for ways to improve what I'm capturing digitally.

John Atkinson already did this at stereophile..

Real VS Recorded Sound

in terms of "reality" they are all compromised(of course he and most other 'technical' types would say the digital captures are "less" compromised). Therefore it is best to judge them on their own merits, and not compare them to a live event.

this is what i was getting at in my first post.

well put UBK.

indeed.

never heard the burl..................

I think if there is any expectation of perfection from digital capture and playback, it is because that is what the digital propagandists have been advertising for years.

Also, the individuals who design this stuff 24/7 and would know why it's not possible to, for example, get a converter to null its own loopback (whether due to analog imperfections, ADC/DAC chip imperfections, or both), aren't in the market of talking up the practical flaws of their format or products.

So we're left to speculate.

Nice test. I tell you this friend. You ever played a vocal acapella take on your PT HD system if you have one. And you were in the next room, thinking it was a real person talking? Not a DAW? I had that happen to me many times. I recorded myself and some other people talking while setting up mics on my DAW. A friend plays it back while I am in the other room.

At the moment, I seriously perceived it as real people talking not the daw playing back. That blew my mind and it FREAKED me out! I could not believe that I thought it was actual people talking. That experience brought a few thoughts to me...

1. Digital is really good
2. My system, gear and monitors are really good.
3. Can I do that with my music? Make it sound like a real live band playing?

I like all mediums. They are the canvas, the paper, in music for me. To me digital is much more real to a live source than analog. Analog sounds great and its musical. Its more of a TONE thing than a REALISTIC VIRTUAL thing. And I still own a tape machine. Because I like good musical tone. But you can tell its a recording. But we should have a different medium besides analog, digital and vinyl. There must be more to come. I think the next goal should be to make a medium that sounds so realistic. (hahhah, now I know where Radio Shack got their product name) that you and I would think it was real. Capturing audio like the human brain and ears. 3D. That would be the best recording medium in my mind. And the only people that will really like it, are the people who have a good musical ear and can hear good pitch! Digital reveals the truth. And lots of folks don't like that. I find it as a challenge and that it makes me have a better ear. And most of all, forces me to make better music pitch wise, rhythm and timing wise, etc, etc.

VIRTUAL MUSIC!!! MAN!

Just like live music. That would be the sound I would want to have someday! There was a guy back in 2000 in Los Angeles that came by to all the studios trying to sell this new technology he created. He gave me a disc copy of the recording he created. He had some sort of 3D microphone set up. On a huge tripod. It was some sort of new 3D digital recording system and he recorded my band while playing live at a show. Gave me the copy. Asked me if it sounded real like live music as if you were hearing it with your own ears... Well, it definitely did not sound like a typical studio stereo recording on a CD. It was somewhat more 3 Dimensional, OMNI like.... And I dug it. The width was crazy! The guy was trying to come up with something innovative and new. We need more guys like that! I don't know what happened to him though.

thumbsup



What is the maximum dynamic range of human hearing? Scientist , Doctors say The dynamic range of human hearing is roughly 140 dB. Its that what we should limit ourselves at? I say no. I would love to hear and work with 32bit or 64bit more. I SAY Push the envelope!!! Lets get to the world of Aliens and Dogs. You never know what can come out of it musically!


When I first heard 24bit from 16bit or 12bit... I was blown away!





+2 thumbsup

You make a very interesting observation there and it's definitely worth noting. I will say that I've warmed up to digital sound here as of late (the last year or so) as I've gotten better at getting the sounds I want on the tracking side and as I've gotten better at using digital in general and using it for what it's best at. I'm still totally an OTB guy though and don't see that changing anytime soon. That's a whole other discussion though.

Brad - my take in simple form :


Digital is more "accurate" than analog.


Analog "enhances" the subject matter in a manner that is pleasing for many of us. In a way that our ears are used to hearing. Honestly, I think it's that simple.

After 25 years of spinning reels, I can HONESTLY tell you that I never felt that analog was an accurate representation of what was coming off the console. I'll say it again, after checking between input, playback, input, playback, ad nauseum, I made choices in EQ and compression that netted me what I wanted to hear, but it took work on the front end. Tape did not just "play back" what I put into it.

Much in the same way that a mic pre is only a "representation" of what the mic is pointed at, tape or digital are only a representation thereof. Currently, there is nothing that purely represents the "analog" - ie: before mic/pre/conversion or tape - soundfield.

I know you dig tape. That's cool. But it's NOT more representative of the source than digital. At least not in my perception. If you don't believe me: flip back and forth on your deck between input and tape. If analog tape is a perfect representation, they should sound identical. But it doesn't. It's just not the same, and for 20+ years of spinning tape, that bugged the $#@$ out of me. To me, digital does a better job of that - for better or worse. Digital is not a perfect fingerprint either, but I find it closer to the original than tape.

With 25+ years of analog tape under my belt, all the best,

bp

PS - I SWEAR I am not going to get into this again.....damn you Bradley..... heh heh

Well I don't want to open a can a worms but...... based on quantum mechanics, real life and subsequently the universe are not in fact continuous. Hence 'quantum' or where the word quantize (or 'how much') comes from. I'm obviously a chump so don't take me the wrong way that I'm trying to come off as someone who is intelligent or knows anything about quantum mechanics (or anything for that matter), but that theory in part suggests everything in the universe is basically a discreet slice much like a bit or a digit if you will. Whether it is in reality a particle or a moment of space time or energy it is just a slice and/or a piece of a larger slice of something else, but at its root node still discreet. Therefore everything in the universe is quantized since it is already discreet.

What does this have to do with analog vs digital? Ask Max Planck but lucky for us analog guys, quantum mechanics is only a theory............ otherwise it would disprove everything I've believed my whole audio life as it relates to analog vs digital audio and that analog is better, and continuous as you say. Since I too have always been taught and visualized that analog was continuous as you have stated. But based on this quantum stuff, could analog just possibly be a continuous snapshot of something that is actually quantized? based on the laws of the universe?

I personally have denounced the theory of quantum mechanics just as I have denounced Satan and have repeatedly tried to denounced Digital recording. Since I love analog

I thought you were rolling ADAT's? No?

i agree with you
i am hoping that new converters will eventually help as it is very practical
to be able to take the sounds off of tape and give them to people
as digital files.

for the stuff i am most passionate about, i want as close to 100% analog
signal chain.
i print everything to either 2" 16 track or 2" 8 track (other engineers track digital here at my studio. i do not)
sometimes even the slaved tracks 15-30 on another reel will be very, very
different after being put in pro tools and locked with the master 2" reel.....
i bought and sold another A827 in the last few years in a brief moment
of analog multi-machine dreams that had to be postponed for the moment.
i would prefer two machines to the sound of the pro tools tracks on some things......
maybe some new converters will help change that.

the best recording i have heard in a long time was in london by a young
engineer lewis of the band "kitty daisy and lewis" and he had recorded a jazz
combo with a mono 1955 rca mixer and an ampex 1/4" mono 350 tape recorder. 4 rca 44 mics. great band and room . he played me an acetate.
amazing. huge. mono. old altec speaker.


be well

- jack

nooooo, that was a joke. MTR90 here, I do have 2192 and a RADAR project so I can keep up with the times. I really don't hate digital per se, since I love virtual instruments and stuff. I just miss the analog 15ips drums sounds when I use digital. I like digital for vocals though.They both have their place, I think it just depends on what you do?

This is true, and imo quite unfortunate. It's also true of almost any manufacturer or designer in general, but that's another discussion.

We're in the age of transparency, by which I meant the truth always seems to come out, eventually. It'd be refreshing to see converter makers talking about the respective flaws in their designs as well as the flaws of a/d/a conversion in general.

I also have to say I've never heard the JCF Latte, nor have I heard the latest offerings from DAD and several other European makers, so I feel compelled to acknowledge that my own experience with converters is quite limited in terms of what's out there.

I'll ask this of Brad as well as anyone else who feels digital comes up short: how many high end a/d and d/a units have you tried? Anything at 192? 192 is where the Burl really shines, but I can't hack the disk usage on my iMac so 88.2 is where I stay.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Thanks for you post Donnx. I'm watching that video now. thumbsup I'm not speculating on whether or not you can get analog to sound like digital or digital to sound like analog in the sense of music production. That's an entirely different discussion that usually ends up becoming very emotional for a lot of people. For the sake of this discussion I'm only interested in digital's ability to accurately archive an analog recording. So for this thread the assumption is that the record has already been made using tape. I want to now transfer to digital without changing what I've created. If getting a man on the moon is possible, then this too is possible.

thanks,
Brad

the first time this happened to me, I was using Analog gear. heh

but the key to the experience 'is the next room'.

What do you like about 192 better? I'm a fan of higher sample rates as well. Just curious?

Greg,

I think before I can respond to your points you need to bring your Burl and some KM56's and your tube pres of choice to California and we totally need to do this test using my Studer! I'm dead serious. At AES...let's make it happen. I have the Radar too. Maybe we can record a band mixed live to 2-tracks on all three formats. Get someone to film the thing.

I'm not too concerned for the sake of this thread whether or not the analog capture was an accurate reproduction of the live acoustic source. If I've captured the signal in way that pleases my ears (even if it's altered subtlely in ways you describe), I want to know what the mechanism is in the A/D converter that causes the sound to change. See, the thing is that it's well understood how tape decks alter the sound fed into their inputs. A lot of time has afforded us the ability to really understand what magnetic media does to sound. I don't think collectively we fully understand what A/D conversion does to sound to the same extent. Because if we did, then we'd be able to make the next step in advancing the technology and then making it affordable.

I'm not really trying to illustrate that tape is inherently true. I'm simply asking how we improve digital conversion to minimize it's shortcomings as an archival medium for analog sources.

Brad

Perhaps you have not heard Lavry Gold, DB technologies. I believe they capture almost 97% of quality.

The reason why you loose quality and spacial information is because of opAmps used in preamp stage at converters [they have tons of transistors and diodes]

I'll be the first to admit I'm a victim of that propaganda. I would love for a converter designer to chime in and really discuss the flaws of the format and elaborate on the limitations and possibilities. That's what I'm really after. I don't want to speculate.

I know Teddy Ray has often cited some really esoteric and high end converters that may be capable of improved capture. It's not financially possible for me to own any of those units, but it surely would be interesting to hear how well some of those really high end units can capture an analog source in comparison to what I know.

Brad

Bill,

For me this isn't about what's more accurate as a production medium. Let's set that aside along with my current preference for tape as a recording medium (which has almost more to do with workflow really). This is simply about being able to digitize my analog recordings and having the digital playback not be different in a way that bugs me. So if anything I'm buying into the assumption that digital is more accurate. Although I'm realizing that state of the art of PCM conversion is currently not accurate enough to do 1:1 transfer.

I have to say, Bill, I have a deck sitting in my studio right now and when I flip back and forth between input and repro I find it extremely difficult to tell the difference. I can't do it repeatably. I worked really hard to modify it so it will do that. You really need to hear it to believe it. Come up some time and you'll see I'm not talking out my ass. It's really that good.

Brad