Quantcast
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality - Page 27 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality
Old 31st October 2005 | Show parent
  #781
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Derr
Ive said all this before in different ways, but there are a couple things that are irrefutable in my book.
thumbsup Digital linearity cannot be duplicated with analog tape. I think modern digital recorders are much more accurate than any analog tape deck. Only at the extreme high frequencies does digital start to phase shift and have any problem, but this is above most of our hearing.
.

what is accuracy ? there is no standard measurement for perceived depth of
sonic experience
?

that's where digital just isn't there yet, the depth and the umpff.........



love the distressors,
they're on every day
thanks

- jack
Old 31st October 2005 | Show parent
  #782
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Doesn't Answer...

Mr. Derr,

You state that there are solutions to essentially emulate the pleasant effects of analogue recording. If these solutions really worked though than I would be able to hear them and declare at least some digitally recorded albums to be on par with analogue. Unfortunately for your case this is not true. For instance although I love Room for Squares by John Maer (John Alagia?) recorded digitally I still don't think it sonically compares to Crash by Dave Mathews (Produced by Steve Lillywhite) and recorded analogue or for instance Coldplay Parachutes sounds better than Coldplay X&Y...

Bart
Old 31st October 2005 | Show parent
  #783
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood
You state that there are solutions to essentially emulate the pleasant effects of analogue recording. If these solutions really worked though than I would be able to hear them and declare at least some digitally recorded albums to be on par with analogue. Unfortunately for your case this is not true.
Bart
i just want to hear the song, i don't want to be distracted by the
medium........85% of the time with digital, this happens in the first couple of bars
understandable when it's a truly indie low budget situation - thank god for
digital being there for vic chesnut's "west of rome" and jim white's
"wrong-eyed-jesus", but if someone has a real budget, $50,000 + and
that $1,000-$2,000 for tape is just too much, whoever is making that
decision should maybe be in another field..........(i have worked on records where
the total budget is less than $15,000 and still $1,000 goes to tape)



be well


- jack
Old 31st October 2005 | Show parent
  #784
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Derr
thumbsup Analog tends to flatten out transient peaks. This nonlinearity keeps all the spikes from snares, horns, vocals, guitars etc from being as large as they would be if not recorded to analog tape. This transient clipping smashes transients before our ears get them, preventing our ears from dealing with spikes 3 - 20 dB above the rest of a track. Ears have a protection mechanism that "compresses" transient or loud peaks. If analog tape gets them first, our ears do not have to deal with them so much. Repeated s***** snare drums can cause our ears to clamp down hundreds of times a song. This is what I think most people refer to as Digital Fatique. It IS a real phenomena. .
I'm truly glad that the Distressor's Daddy uses the ears as being the ultimate arbitor in this long-running debate. However, digital is still full of errors and anomalies, there's no such thing as a perfect filter, so part of the entire premise upon which the digital house-of-cards is built is faulty from the get-go. And then you have people's ears telling them there are problems with localisation of the transients and that there is the long-reported, but often denied, problem of "Digital Time Smear."

Then there are the shitty formats for digital and the shitty bit-depth issues along with thruput and communication delays resulting in latency making it extremely aggrivating for certain musicans to even monitor while tracking...The Goddamn problems with digital and its shitty sound are legendary...and they are all the result of the massive fraud perpetrated by those bastard Digital Math Scoundrels.

I say, "Send these bastards to prison." I'm quite certain the Law Lords will order the right amount of prison time for the Digital Math Scoundrels' fraud that injured the public, which injuries can be measured in monetary terms in the freakin' billions...

.
Old 31st October 2005 | Show parent
  #785
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I have argued repeatedly that a "multidisciplinary approach" by entire teams of qualified specialists is required to better understand the human beings response to sound.

In the following paper the researchers explain "the natural environment, such as tropical rain forests, usually contains sounds that are extremely rich in HFCs over 100 kHz. From an anthropogenetic point of view, the sensory system of human beings exposed to a natural environment would stand a good chance of developing some physiological sensitivity to HFCs."

We now have commercially available speakers that reach high frequencies in the 100kHz range and we also have microphones such as the new 100kHz Sanken mic.

In addition, in the following paper you'll see that the researchers point to the fact that "[i]t is widely known that the upper limit of the audible range of humans varies considerably." You'll also see other examples of high frequency gear as well as some citations to real audio equipment designers such as Rupert Neve.

For example, the paper points out that "artists and engineers working to produce acoustically perfect music for commercial purposes are convinced that the intentional manipulation of HFC above the audible range can positively affect the perception of sound quality (Neve 1992)."

And the researchers findings are summarised in their conclusions which state: "Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking [i]n HFC."

Given that 100kHz speaker systems and 100kHz mics are now upon us, it is worthwhile and now feasible to construct other test suites on the entire human system utilizing a "multidisciplinary scientific approach" along the lines of the following paper.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

See also:

http://www.drtmastering.com/blackmer.htm

Articles about the late David Blackmer, founder of Dbx and Earthworks:

Dbx 162SLfrom the late Dbx founder David Blackmer's original 'decilinear
VCA'. ...is a tad higher than that of the 160SL (50k(omega) instead of
20k (omega)), ...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec0...les/dbx162.htm - 35k - Cached -Similar pages

DBX 386 Dual Vacuum Tube Microphone Preamp with Digital Out ...
More than 25 years ago, a brilliant young engineer named David
Blackmer sat at his workbench trying to ... Impedance: 20k ohm
unbalanced, 40k ohm balanced

www.zzounds.com/item--DBX386 - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

And also see: CalTech's Professor James Boyk's measurements of cymbal and muted trumpet harmonics in the 104kHz range:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

See info on Sanken's new 100kHz mic:

Here's what Sanken says:

" CO-100K's feature
20Hz to 100kHz Microphone
For Professional Recording
Unique Diaphragm Design

"100kHz microphones do exist in the field of acoustic measurement but the Sanken CO-100k is the first such device for use in theprofessional recording world. Designed in conjunction with the NHK Science and Technical Research Laboratories, this microphone is Sanken's solution for those exceptional engineers who want to record a complete sonic picture from 20Hz to 100kHz.

"Sanken has already carried out a number of test recordings with the CO-100k using specialist hardware that can preserve such a wide bandwidth. These tests amply demonstrate the exceptional signal-to-noise ratio and the stunning frequency response of this microphone, and we are confident that it will gain a very warm welcome from those in the fields of classical and acoustic instrument recording, and from specialists in sound effect work.

"Within the conventional "audible frequency" band of 20Hz to 20kHz the performance is exemplary, with rich lows and a tasteful mid range -clearly different. But the CO-100k also gives us the opportunity to experience musical sounds far beyond that somewhat arbitrary upper frequency limit. This is a new step, a new adventure into the realms of musical detail and nuance that we have never been able to reach before.

"Specifications

"Transducer : DC bias condenser microphone

"Directivity : Omni

"Sensitivity : -35dB/Pa ( 17.8mV/Pa )

"Frequency Res : 20Hz to 100kHz

"Output impedance : 200 Ohms

"Equivalent Noise : less than 22dBA

"Max. Input : more than 137dB SPL(THD 1%)

"Powering : 48V phantom

"Weight : 150g

"Consumption current : less than 4mA"

http://mixonline.com/sanken-co100k-092705/

And here's some info on a Super Tweeter that goes to 100kHz:

Here's what they say:

"ES103 Series: Main Specifications

Frequency Range : 15kHz to 100 kHz (internal mechanical network)
Average sound-pressure level : 90 dB/W/m
Resonant frequency : 103 kHz
Rated impedance : 8 ohms
Maximum power : 50 W (pink noise)
Directivity : Straight Β± 45 degrees
Dimensions : 65 mm (diameter) x 110 mm (length) (2.6?diameter x 4.3?length)
Weight : 1.3kg/ 2.9lb(pcs)"

It still does not seem to be quite high enough for Professor Boyk's 104kHz cymbals but it's getting closer...

http://www.murata.com/speaker/spec/index.html
Old 31st October 2005 | Show parent
  #786
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So what does the above post mean?

What it means is that many designers of digital gear do not have a freakin' clue about "what is" and "what is not" important for a human being to experience pleasure in terms of the frequency spectrum. Why they even put out emasculated weakling chips that cannot even capture, let alone reproduce, those HFC's which have been scientifically shown to have a positive impact on the brain's pleasure centre.

For example, let's say you wanted to record and reporduce those cymbal harmonics that CalTech's Professor James Boyk measured with high-end test gear, you'd need faster and more robust chips that were clocking along at a minimum of 208Khz...But guess what? Yep, the Digital Math Scoundrels crappola silcon shit chips are too freaking slow and wimpy to do the damn job.

Not only that, with all the Goddamned truncation, dither, math errors, and multilation they put the signal thru to get to that shitty CD format...you wind up with that cold-as-ice digital sound that's like breaking glass or screeching your fingernails on an old blackboard...

How could these Digital Math Scoundrel shitheads with tin freakin' ears fix it?

New and more robust formats
More bit depth
Higher thruput and communication speed
And much faster sample rates...

That's a good start...

But until the Digital Math Scoundrels get their stupid noses out of their calculators and get some people around them with great ears to tell them the bloody truth, they will not do the right thing....they will continue to produce little Silly Con shit chips...

But for the time being, in the "Sound Quality Race," there is absolutely no question...none...nadda...

Analogue Rules
Old 1st November 2005 | Show parent
  #787
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
well, tape is pretty nuts too...

the inherent non-linearity of magnetic tape requires all manner of tricks from high frequency bias to EQ circuits simply to get the stuff to sound reasonable. it's no understatement to say that the "original" signal is tortured to within an inch of its life getting on and off tape.

having said that, ALL of my favorite rock albums were recorded analog. i'm too young to remember Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" when it came out, and I'm not a fan of PF, but that record sounds GOOD. i'm glad Nirvana was not recorded using Pro Tools. the more i listen to the recording techniques on "classic rock" records, the more impressed I am with the engineers and talent involved. really, these people were ON their game in a big way.

it does seem that the digital era correlates with a certain decline in form and originality - techo aside of course. it's hard to say what's causing what here, but I think there is an interesting relationship between art, psychology, and the tools of the trade.

of my favorite indie bands today, all are recording analog. i don't think these people are doing it to be Luddites. it could be about how we came to view a particular time in history when certain things were fresh to human ears. people have a memory for the iconic.

SO, how about recording the Clash's "London Calling" on Pro Tools? "Sorry Joe, I think we need to Amp Farm that guitar, it's a bit too, um..." Seems wrong.

Then Joe says "Oh yeah, that's much better mate."

RF
Old 1st November 2005 | Show parent
  #788
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
True

but if someone has a real budget, $50,000 + and
that $1,000-$2,000 for tape is just too much, whoever is making that
decision should maybe be in another field..........


That is so true. Too many clueluss people still making money pretending they know what they truly don't understand...

Bart
Old 2nd November 2005 | Show parent
  #789
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
the digital format is a nice medium to create!

it can be used to make sounds never heard before, it can be used to create interesting effects...

hail granular synthesis, hail phase vocoding, hail sampling !

i as a sonologist am very happy with the digital medium...

however, as a replacement or emulation for recording technology wich has its strong roots in the analog domain, it fails...

therefore;

ANALOG RULES !

i do however, hope i will live to see the day that we will all have gear with a sound quality that resembles analog or sounds even better, in a new era of digital audio equipment.

Old 4th November 2005 | Show parent
  #790
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
The aim of digital recording and reproduction is transparency, no more, no less. Transparency in the sense of the signal at the output of the DAC being as close as possible as the signal at the input of the ADC.

Edit: OK, I guess the word "accuracy" describes better what is the aim of digital.

In this sense, and in regards to recording and playback, current digital can do better and in fact routinely does better than analog. For example, always in this sense, moderately good 24/96 digital rec/playback is better in every respect than any analog rec/playback. And this is not opinion, this is an objective fact that can be easily subjected to objective tests and verified true.

On the other side, the aim of analog is many times not being transparent, just sounding good, and in this respect, it can sound better than digital. But this "better" sounding belongs more to the realms of the subjective opinion than to objective fact.

Now, in regards to Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem, and its flaws, etc, we first have to understand what we are talking about.

A theorem is not a theory, nor is a physical law, nor something that somebody has observed to happen. A theorem is just a mathematical truth, just as true as 2+2=4. Just take a look to another simpler theorem such as the Pythagorean theorem. It's a fact, it can be mathematically proved to be true, and can't be proved wrong. From a mathematical point of sense it has no flaws. If someone thinks a theorem is wrong, it's probably because he doesn't understand its underlying principles. Of course, all of this applies to Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem.

Now, real world and mathematics are different things. Digital audio isn't perfect, but not because of its underlying mathematical principles, but because of real world constraints: real-world signals, real world filters, real world bitdepths, and real world electronics.

Despite digital not being perfect, the fact that it can still be better than analog holds, in the sense I explained at the beginning.
Old 4th November 2005 | Show parent
  #791
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by KikeG
On the other side, the aim of analog is many times not being transparent, just sounding good, and in this respect, it can sound better than digital. But this "better" sounding belongs more to the realms of the subjective opinion than to objective fact.
while it is all subjective, i don't know if the word is transparent.......when thinking
of audio, i think of sounds in a room, i don't think of a calibration tool like
an audio precision box. i think digital might well be transparent when looking
at a graph of its representation of frequencies.........i don't think the real world
sounds digital........

i think the real world sounds closer to analog, as analog has depth........
however acurately digital can record a full spectrum of frequencies, it does not
do so with depth...........but in a flat 2d kind of way......


more simply put, tape sounds better, maybe it will be different in five
years...........



be well


- jack
Old 4th November 2005 | Show parent
  #792
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
while it is all subjective, i don't know if the word is transparent...
Well, the world is not more transparent or opaque, it's just as is. Transparency, or accuracy, is something some would want to achieve, meaning that the listening experiece be as close as possible to the real experience. Digital is just better at recording and playing the electric signal after the mics or before the speakers. This part is just one at the chain, and probably not the most important one (mics/speakers/room would quite probably be more).

The fact that the world is analog doesn't imply that analog recording and playback are better... things aren't that simple. Analog recording has its limitations, digital has its limitations. However good digital has less limitations than the best analog (always in regards to recording and playback).
Old 4th November 2005 | Show parent
  #793
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by KikeG
The fact that the world is analog doesn't imply that analog recording and playback are better... things aren't that simple. Analog recording has its limitations, digital has its limitations. However good digital has less limitations than the best analog (always in regards to recording and playback).

unless you have to listen to it................




- jack
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #794
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Emmmm, I think some will take exception with the unsubstantiated claim that analogue is incapable of producing a transparent recording...In fact, some would argue that their ears tell them that analogue can produce a much more realistic sound stage than digital can ever deliver...

They quite rightly point out that while digital may "look good" on paper, when digital is put into practice in the real analogue world, digital introduces math errors and innumerable anomalies which result in that cheap shit digital sound that is most often described as "chilly, cold, lifeless, and dead."

And who is responsible for taking the life out of the sound?

Yes! It's those God damned Digital Math Scoundrels at the freakin' Silly Con chip makers.
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #795
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I've often noted that in all the Sample Rate Debates it seems that the high frequencies get all the ink and press coverage but the low-end seems to be relegated to an "abandoned orphan status."

I think it would be a great idea if the future database of human responses conducted by teams of multidisciplinary experts included scientific findings on how the low-end can change human's pulse and heart rates and how it appears on brain scans.

Specifically, would proper samples which included national origin, gender, or age show any differences? For example, young women seem to have better "ears" than older white men when subjected to HFC's, but would women of different national origins and age groups also show significant differences in brain and body reactions when subjected to the low-end frequencies?

Future test suites of the lows might use such low-end technology as that produced by these companies:

Checkout their Rotary Subwoofer for example.

http://www.eminent-tech.com/main.html

And there is also the ServoDrive product line.

http://www.servodrive.com/
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #796
Lives for gear
 
Harley-OIART's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
digital introduces math errors and innumerable anomalies which result in that cheap shit digital sound that is most often described as "chilly, cold, lifeless, and dead."

And who is responsible for taking the life out of the sound?

Yes! It's those God damned Digital Math Scoundrels at the freakin' Silly Con chip makers.
You might as well change the topic to "Quantization Errors V. Tape Speed - Which is more Annoying?"

While a Digital System will always continue to have some degree of Aliasing and Quantization Error (not to mention dropped bits), An Analog system by comparision can introduce a whole other degree of problems if it is not designed with the utmost care. (Cheap Components that are far from Audio Grade, Bad Designs, Inexact Alignment of Multitrack Tape, Bad Powersupply, VCA's, Worn Pots, etc etc...) The list is endless.

It is a moot point to be arguing which format is better because you are comparing an Electrical Voltage : Data. It is apples to oranges. Since A tape stock contains domains polarized by the voltage across the record head does that not involve some degree of quantization error by its very nature? It Comes down to whatever works for the given situation, and whatever the end user prefers. Strictly a Preference, and whatever works best to reach the goal (Recorded playback that sounds "Good") is the right tool for the job.

The ONLY important analog signal is the one before it hits the amp/speakers. This is why Vinyl vs. CD is still very much alive.

Think about it, and Enough already with the "Digital Math Scoundrels".

Warmest Regards,
-Scott
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #797
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Emmm, "Digital Math Scoundrel" is a very fitting moniker for these bastards who have suceeded in conning people into trash sound quality and wasting their money on obsolete gear which is severely lacking in sound quality.

Here's an example of the Digital Math Scoundrel's handiwork. The following quote is lifted from another forum.

"I've been listening (on headphones) to the audio quality of a few DVD films (I could mention titles, but it's irrelevant, AFAIK). I constantly hear compression artifacts similar, or identical to the hash associated with mp3 encoded audio.

"Now I know DVD picture and audio are compressed, and require it to get past the bottlenecks of multi-channel with picture, but I was under the impression that fidelity isn't compromised. I assume this is a lie, and the audio seems to be nothing more than mp3 quality. This low quality makes for a distracting listen to these otherwise fantastic movies; WTF? Production costs of making films, hi-res. 96k audio - for what? To sound like your kid's iPod playlist?

"Maybe I've just had a couple of bad DVD's, but 3 out of 3 sounded pretty poor through headphones. BTW - compression artifacts are WAY less noticeable thru speakers - you have to listen quite intently to notice it..."

========
Translation: The Digital Math Scoundrels are totally responsible for digital's shitty sound quality...It's an established scientific fact that all Digital Math Scoundrels have a genetic defect which gives them impaired hearing so these freakin' prickheads can't hear how bad the shitty little Silly Con shit chips they make really sound and explains why all their Silly Con shit chips sound like ass.

Punish these bastards...get the class action attorneys to sue the f*ck out of the Digital Math Scoundrels.
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #798
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
http://www.soundsonline.com/sophtml/...?sku=EW-155PRO

Go here, scroll down and listen to some of these 24 bit demo's just released last night from East West.....and tell me what you think. Download a couple of the wav files.... heh
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #799
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
They quite rightly point out that while digital may "look good" on paper, when digital is put into practice in the real analogue world, digital introduces math errors and innumerable anomalies which result in that cheap shit digital sound that is most often described as "chilly, cold, lifeless, and dead."
Could you elaborate about those math errors and anomalies inherent to digital? I mean, could you be more specific about those, and their relevance in, say, digital 24/96?

I'm not talking about lossy audio compression used in DVDs or MP3s, that's a whole different issue. I'm talking about linear PCM, or in other words, sampling applied to real world audio.
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #800
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
unless you have to listen to it................
I was talking about digital being more transparent or accurate than analog. I mean digital changing the signal less than analog in regards to recording and playback. It's true that this property of digital will sound worse for some, but that would be attributed to analog changing more the signal, but in a way that is actually pleasant to the ear. This is what is known as euphonic distortion.
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #801
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by KikeG
This is what is known as euphonic distortion.

while your knowledge of the dictionary is impressive, it will do nothing for
the sound of the audio.........

analog sounds better by an enormous margin.........


be well,



- jack
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #802
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
analog sounds better by an enormous margin.........
I don't say the opposite. I'm just trying to explain what is the difference between digital and analog. Edit: Better said, I wanted to to clear up some possible misconceptions about digital.
Old 5th November 2005 | Show parent
  #803
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Bottom Line

We'll that's really the bottom line then isn't it? If one format consistently sounds better than the other then the talk of one format being more accurate or transparent or precise really doesn't count for anything. Just a few albums to think about, no math involved : )

Would you rather have had Dark Side of the Moon recorded digital or analogue?

Would you rather have had Sargent Peppers recorded digital or analogue?

Would you rather have had Exodus (Bob Marley) recorded digital or analogue?

I'm guessing if you have good ears and good taste in general you'll see a definite pattern in your answers...

Bart
Old 6th November 2005 | Show parent
  #804
Gear Head
 
BCNU's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
while your knowledge of the dictionary is impressive, it will nothing for
the sound of the audio.........
do you mean kidney failure?
Old 6th November 2005 | Show parent
  #805
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
You can record in digital.
You can edit in digital.

It works and sounds pretty decent with good good converters and proper clocking.
Even 16 bit/24 bit records pretty good.
You crash cymbals will be harsh though.
Vocal sibilance will be exagerrated.

Digital EQ is OK, but it isn't the same or anywhere like good analog.

You CANNOT mix, compress or process anything without a degredation.

No one doing serious work mixes, EQs or compresses using plug ins and in the box mixing.
There is no comparison in quality and if you have the choice you'll go analog.

Sure... there are some pop songs like that idiotic Cher, robot voice "Do You Believe in Love" and I suppose Christina Agricultura and Britney Sears and such that were mixed in the box.
If that's what you are shooting for... fine... not me.
Don't tell me that they made lot's of money either.
Their earning potential had nothing to do with the sound quality.
This is why they are recorded like they are.
The quality factor isn't important.
Only the tinniest fraction of any of us engineering, mixing or producing music will ever benefit financially from anything like those releases.
99% of us are doing "vanity" albums that really never make any money.

AND.....

No joke Johhny B about DVDs.
I used to install VERY high dollar home theaters (good $$$ there) and I installed all kinds of expensive audio stuff to play back that shitty MP3 audio!
And.. DVDs have such pixilated video that it's a joke!
Still, it's just goofy movies.
If you want to see it look nice you have to go to a decent theatre.
Hopefully one without skrewed up audio.

Digital anything is just a way to market and develop products efficiently.

Digital audio is lke an extension of the old TASCAM days when they offered their "semi pro" recorders and mixers that were all -10 RCA jacks and narrow tape formats.
Pros knew that it wasn't the real stuff, but a lot of neophytes got to record multitrack.
Same with digital stuff.

What's better?
A few wealthy recordists with 40K analog multitracks and $100K plus consoles or THOUSANDS of pikers with computers?

This doesn't make it SOUND BETTER!

Danny Brown
Old 6th November 2005 | Show parent
  #806
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbubba
You CANNOT mix, compress or process anything without a degredation.
I have to disagree here (unless I misunderstood you). When mixing, processing or compressing in digital, it is easy to keep the degradation at levels way below any converter noise floor. Analog will cause more degradation, but may sound better, but not because it causes less degradation.
Old 7th November 2005 | Show parent
  #807
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
And I have to dissagree with you as well because the "degredation" in analog is what gives the individual pieces their character and flavor.
It is why we use them in the first place.
Like you said... the degredation "may" sound better in analog.
It does and it's what makes things sound good.

Like I said before:

There are no analog devices that emulate digital devices.
There are only digital versions of analog devices.

Why?
Once developed, it is WAY easier and cheaper to sell software.
A company can make a lot of money selling digital facsimiles of analog gear once the cost of writing software is recouped.
A company selling high end analog gear can only hope to sell a few high quality analog pieces.
It's marketing and catering to the masses instead of building esoteric pieces for a few.
Economics plain and simple.

This is why companies that sell digital stuff can't really tell you anything about how the software works.
They can only talk about what it does and how you make it do stuff.
They can't tell you HOW it does it!
I have tried for years to get specific answers from them, too!
Most likely they paid someone to write the software and they just market it.
Most even have OEM manufacting companies build their interfaces and hardware overseas.
Do you think that MOTU or DigiDesign has a factory with people soldering and building hardware boxes?
Nope!

Most digital products are built for the masses.
This is why things become obsolete so quickly, too.
Everyone has this stuff, so they gotta' give them a reason to need to buy more newer stuff!
Sure it is an improvement over last year's model, but other than recording and editing it is a compromize!

No... I've owned and used digital recording/editing devices since around 1989. Well, earlier if you include DAT and PCM PCM601s and such.
I used a WaveFrame starting in 1990 and I've recorded multitrack on many versions of ProTools, SONY 3324 DASH, ADATs and used software/hardware by Opcode, Korg, DigiDesign, MOTU... on and on. I thought they sounded good, but he results are not as good. I have a thirtyfive year library of recording to prove it, too.

Digital has it's strengths, but don't tell me that it sounds better.

Basically it is cheaper than analog, so everyone can get access to it.

Truthfully, most practicing engineers have not been around long enough to experience good analog. Not too many guys recording music have ever worked with 2" analog 16 track. I recall the days when engineers didn't like the sound of analog 24 track! It was considered a compromise since the track width was so small. This is why there is no NAB standard for 24 track EQ. There is oly the "AES Proposal"

Everyone thought that IC based consoles were the shit, too.
They wern't and they are boat anchors today!
Just like last year's ProTools rig.

If you trust your ears and not your pocketbook you'll come to the same conclusion.

Then again, people hate to admit that what they bought sucks.
I hated to admit it, but I highly regret selling some pieces of analog gear thinking that I could replace them with digital stuff!
I had to learn the hard way myself!

Danny Brown
Old 7th November 2005 | Show parent
  #808
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbubba
And I have to dissagree with you as well because the "degredation" in analog is what gives the individual pieces their character and flavor.
Where did I say otherwise?
Old 7th November 2005 | Show parent
  #809
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood
We'll that's really the bottom line then isn't it? If one format consistently sounds better than the other then the talk of one format being more accurate or transparent or precise really doesn't count for anything.
One bottom line I can think of is that digital won't sound better no matter how much it is perfected towards higher accuracy. No higher sample rates, bitdepths, dynamic range or stable clocks are going to make it sound more analog.

Quote:
Just a few albums to think about, no math involved : )
...
Would you rather have had Sargent Peppers recorded digital or analogue?
...
I think that, at least in this case, this album sounds good *despite* the old analog technology used. I don't think we should use 1965's recording technology in order to make good sounding music, don't you?
Old 7th November 2005 | Show parent
  #810
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I'm not so sure "the date" of the tech is *always* all that important. In some cases it could be a bit like vintage wine, in that, the older it gets---the more value it has. Take valve or "tube" technnology for example, the tubes have not changed technology in a completely radical way and yet some of the older tube gear is more valuable than ever!

The now fake-sounding ("fake shake") models and emulations of real deal analogue gear *could* get better in the future if you have much faster processors and more robust software algo's, much faster and higher sample rates, and deeper bit-depths...say using 32- to 64-bit words throughout the entire system...Some people believe they need greater than 80-bit floating point math in their DSP to get their software eq's to behave properly...They also need to get overall computer system "thruput" and performance to go to much higher levels in order to elminate or reduce "latency" which drives many musicians crazy when trying to track while monitoring. Communication protocols will need to be beefed up, and then there's the record and playback formats like CD and MPfreakin3 which really suck ass.

There's a shit load of room for digital to "improve" but it will take years to get "there."

I'm tired of being lied to by the Digital Math Scoundrels, I'm sick of the Digital Math Scoundrels con jobs, I'm tired of wasting money on obsolete digital gear even if an ignorant client wants it...Digital is full of frustration and heart-ache...And it all sounds like ass when compared to great analogue.

About the only thing digital is good for is "demo quality" home recordings where a person can work out their ideas in their bedroom, but it still sounds like a demo when compared to great analogue. Digital sound quality is not now, and may never be, good enough for professional releases that will stand the "test of time" like analogue recordings have proven they can do routinely for the last 50 years!

The current choice is rather simple:

If you want professional high quality sound that will stand that "test of time," you either have to purchase some good analogue gear or hire a properly equipped analogue studio.

Why?

Because after 25 years of massive failures, the Digital Math Scoundrels have not got it "right," instead, these criminals lie, con people, and use outright fraud to sell their little Silly Con shit chips.
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 78622
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1551623
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 191045
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016

Forum Jump
Forum Jump