|
Post by Blackdawg on May 20, 2018 19:23:47 GMT -6
There has been endless discussion and heated debate about this. Perhaps the answer is simple, an all analogue process is inherently superior to a digital form that slices sound up. No matter that on the surface we can't perceive these differences, on some level we do. Analyzing why for more than a few minutes is a waste of my time. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy the benefits of digital production. I can multitrack at home without a huge tape machine or rolls of tape that wear. I can recall my sessions in minutes, and I ultimately I can singlehandedly get a sound closer to the way I imagined it with all the editing options and plug-ins. Digital does not "slice audio". If fact, its much much much more accurate to what youre caputuring than any analog system.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 20, 2018 20:11:54 GMT -6
Digital is inherently an on and off process, analogue is continuous, or am I wrong? I'm not an electrical engineer or scientist. Perhaps Bob Olhsson might help me out here. Vinyl still sounds better to me.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on May 20, 2018 20:13:48 GMT -6
Digital is inherently an on and off process, analogue is continuous, or am I wrong? please watch the video.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 20, 2018 20:24:48 GMT -6
Analog tape is also on and off only at a random sample rate.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 20, 2018 20:27:36 GMT -6
Thanks Blackdawg, I did. It was enjoyable, and I sort of get it, but it feels incomplete to me. However "much more accuracy" digital may have, analogue still sounds better. If digital sounded better to me, I'd be quite happy about it. I have some SACD's that sound really good, but the vinyl still has an effect that the SACD's don't. I don't mean more distortion either, it makes me feel more connected to the emotions of the performance. When digital does that better than analogue, I'll put my turntable away.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on May 20, 2018 20:53:32 GMT -6
Thanks Blackdawg, I did. It was enjoyable, and I sort of get it, but it feels incomplete to me. However "much more accuracy" digital may have, analogue still sounds better. If digital sounded better to me, I'd be quite happy about it. I have some SACD's that sound really good, but the vinyl still has an effect that the SACD's don't. I don't mean more distortion either, it makes me feel more connected to the emotions of the performance. When digital does that better than analogue, I'll put my turntable away. See thats my point. Its a preference. Not nessicarly true that is is better, but we still seem to like it better. I mean, if i could afford it id own a Studer a810 machine because my god that thing is magic in certain ways. But as mentioned a few posts back, the trick is to impart the analog sound and feel before the digitalization. At least in my opinion. This is why analog summing, using outboard gear, and even specialty devices like the Silver bullet are nice. We have come so a custom to the downfalls of analog that we love it. Digital is just pure capture. Which is why a lot of people list it as "flat" or "dull" or "boring" or "lifeless". Something else to think about is that we had analog recording techniques for 70+ years to perfect it. Just think of where we will be in 70 years with digital technology. Should be cool!
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on May 20, 2018 21:00:57 GMT -6
Analog tape is also on and off only at a random sample rate. Bob, I assume you are referring to the bias frequency....hashing and chopping that signal up just like digital
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 20, 2018 21:20:42 GMT -6
I'm referring to the particles of oxide. The bias just sets the print point at a spot after the record head where the tape is most stable.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,169
|
Post by ericn on May 21, 2018 1:03:10 GMT -6
Thanks Blackdawg, I did. It was enjoyable, and I sort of get it, but it feels incomplete to me. However "much more accuracy" digital may have, analogue still sounds better. If digital sounded better to me, I'd be quite happy about it. I have some SACD's that sound really good, but the vinyl still has an effect that the SACD's don't. I don't mean more distortion either, it makes me feel more connected to the emotions of the performance. When digital does that better than analogue, I'll put my turntable away. Martin It’s not about more or less distortion it’s different distortion! The biggest problem is we have pretty much taken every playback system and compromised it for either playing time, compact size or price.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 21, 2018 7:38:29 GMT -6
Remember I mentioned earlier my friend who has perhaps the finest playback system that can be had, and records still sound better on it to me. So, until digital sounds better to me, I'll keep my records ;-)
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 21, 2018 10:09:45 GMT -6
There has been endless discussion and heated debate about this. Perhaps the answer is simple, an all analogue process is inherently superior to a digital form that slices sound up. No matter that on the surface we can't perceive these differences, on some level we do. Analyzing why for more than a few minutes is a waste of my time. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy the benefits of digital production. I can multitrack at home without a huge tape machine or rolls of tape that wear. I can recall my sessions in minutes, and I ultimately I can singlehandedly get a sound closer to the way I imagined it with all the editing options and plug-ins. Digital does not "slice audio". If fact, its much much much more accurate to what youre caputuring than any analog system. No, it is not. And PLEASE don't quote that moron Monty at me. Heard it, refuted it what seems like dozens of times on the usual places, tired of his ignorant, misinformed apologies for digital.
Thje truth is that a good analog system has useable response up to 50-60kHz, which no commercial digital format can come even remotely close to. Yes, it's true that it's not within +/- 3dB, it's quite rolled off, BUT THE DETAIL IS THERE if you have a system that can reproduce it, and it DOES make a difference to our perception of music, as proven by studies of brain activity when listening to extended response playback compared to bandwidth limited playback. It's not something that we're consciously aware of in a way that we can (usually) pick out in a blind test (many things are not), but the machines don't lie - it makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 21, 2018 10:12:08 GMT -6
Digital is inherently an on and off process, analogue is continuous, or am I wrong? please watch the video. I've watched that video a number of times - it's really old news and, like much sdtuff on the internet, it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 21, 2018 10:38:04 GMT -6
Thanks Blackdawg, I did. It was enjoyable, and I sort of get it, but it feels incomplete to me. However "much more accuracy" digital may have, analogue still sounds better. If digital sounded better to me, I'd be quite happy about it. I have some SACD's that sound really good, but the vinyl still has an effect that the SACD's don't. I don't mean more distortion either, it makes me feel more connected to the emotions of the performance. When digital does that better than analogue, I'll put my turntable away. See thats my point. Its a preference. Not nessicarly true that is is better, but we still seem to like it better. We like it better because it IS better. Digital is getting closer with 96/32 float but it's still not 100% and 96k is still not a delivery format.
I have an A800 MKIII.
My Studer does a great job of that.
Analog summing and processing cannot undo the damage done by initial digital capture. That being said analog summing does help due to flaws in the digital summing process, and analog processing is superior to digital processing in most areas with the exception of time-based effects. Also, digital capture at 96/32 float does catch a lot of the so-called "superflous" detail thart lesser digital formats dfiscard as "unimportant". NOTHING is truly unimportant. It's just inconvenient for certain interests that are heavily invested in flawed digital standards.
No. Typical digital is NOT "pure capture", it is bandwidth limited capture. It's flat, dull, boring, and lifeless by comparison because all detail above 20kHz is discarded by the Nyquest filters. Quality analog tape does not have this limitation. Vinyl is a compromise - it is rolled off on the highs and lows (who needs subsonics anyway, unless you have an Eminent Technology Thigpen subwoofer* - www.soundandvision.com/content/eminent-technology-trw-17-rotary-subwoofer ), but it's not a brick wall filter on the highs - which it is in digital systems.
Yes. Digital is yet an undeveloped technology. That's one of the things that particularly rankles me about mouthpieces like Monty, trying to sell a barely nascent technology as "perfect".
Unfortunately I won't be around in 70 years.
* - yes, it's real - I've heard it in person.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on May 21, 2018 10:46:52 GMT -6
Digital does not "slice audio". If fact, its much much much more accurate to what youre caputuring than any analog system. No, it is not. And PLEASE don't quote that moron Monty at me. Heard it, refuted it what seems like dozens of times on the usual places, tired of his ignorant, misinformed apologies for digital.
Thje truth is that a good analog system has useable response up to 50-60kHz, which no commercial digital format can come even remotely close to. Yes, it's true that it's not within +/- 3dB, it's quite rolled off, BUT THE DETAIL IS THERE if you have a system that can reproduce it, and it DOES make a difference to our perception of music, as proven by studies of brain activity when listening to extended response playback compared to bandwidth limited playback. It's not something that we're consciously aware of in a way that we can (usually) pick out in a blind test (many things are not), but the machines don't lie - it makes a difference.
you're...kinding me right? You actually think that digital systems can't hit 50-60kHz? 192k sample rate give a response of up to 88.1kHz..that's how it works. Then you look at DXD formats which is what I work in a lot which has a frequency response of 192kHz when recorded at 384k. It makes a huge perception change. I recorded simultaneously in 32/96k and 32/384kDXD. You can switch between the two systems and it is a big difference. Which is why we do it like that. You say the video is wrong, would you mind explaining what about it is wrong? Im not saying I agree that we all should just record everything in 16/44.1k. But the math is true. So what is wrong with it exactly??
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 21, 2018 11:05:59 GMT -6
No, it is not. And PLEASE don't quote that moron Monty at me. Heard it, refuted it what seems like dozens of times on the usual places, tired of his ignorant, misinformed apologies for digital.
Thje truth is that a good analog system has useable response up to 50-60kHz, which no commercial digital format can come even remotely close to. Yes, it's true that it's not within +/- 3dB, it's quite rolled off, BUT THE DETAIL IS THERE if you have a system that can reproduce it, and it DOES make a difference to our perception of music, as proven by studies of brain activity when listening to extended response playback compared to bandwidth limited playback. It's not something that we're consciously aware of in a way that we can (usually) pick out in a blind test (many things are not), but the machines don't lie - it makes a difference.
you're...kinding me right? You actually think that digital systems can't hit 50-60kHz? 192k sample rate give a response of up to 88.1kHz..that's how it works. Then you look at DXD formats which is what I work in a lot which has a frequency response of 192kHz when recorded at 384k. It makes a huge perception change. I recorded simultaneously in 32/96k and 32/384kDXD. You can switch between the two systems and it is a big difference. Which is why we do it like that. You say the video is wrong, would you mind explaining what about it is wrong? Im not saying I agree that we all should just record everything in 16/44.1k. But the math is true. So what is wrong with it exactly?? We're talking about DELIVERY FORMATS. Show me a 192k delivery format - or a 96k delivery format, now that Pono is dead.
I never said it wasn't possible - just that what we have now doesn't cut it.
BTW I currently record at 15 ips analog and dump it to 96/32 float. Mixing and processing is analog, recorded back to digital.
Doing the odd "punch in" on the digital master is more or less indistiguishable from the original analog based/digitally transferred track in the context of the mix combined with 15-23 other originally analog tracks. So things are getting closer.
I'd be doing the mixdown to DSD but I don't have a recorder yet.
Of course, with the current delivery formats nobody's likely to ever hear the master quality anyway.....
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 21, 2018 14:36:36 GMT -6
Actually many analog recorders such as Ampex are also bandwidth-limited. The thing is that pro analog machines have much higher quality analog circuits and power supplies than all but the very highest-end $2000/channel digital gear and that digital gear has higher latency than what most people would consider practical without using a recording console. Comparing a $100,000.00 analog multitrack to a $10,000 digital rig is still comparing apples to oranges. There is what digital could be and then there is the cheap stuff we are mostly stuck with today.
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on May 21, 2018 15:47:23 GMT -6
Digital is a way better reproduction system. There is no if's or but's the science has been done. You could record your records thru a half decent digital convertor and in a blind test not be able to tell the difference. If you can find one watch an old analog TV thru a VHS then switch over to a Blu ray HD tv bet you can see a difference The same is true for audio its just we seem to like the imparted noise in audio. Same was true for film for a while there where some produces that wanted the "film" look thank goodness that trend has ended. I think vinyl gives us a tactile experience we get to hold and see the groves and ridges, a cover to look at, read and watch the needle spin I don't think its about the sound alone its the whole experience. You cannot get that from your iphone. That and the Smashed nature of most digital recordings.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on May 22, 2018 6:07:20 GMT -6
I'm just jumping in to say the studies John's referring to are about the Hypersonic Effect. They've never been able to replicate those experiments as the methodology is so flawed that to say it's been debunked is being generous. Not even sure if that was ever published in an international peer reviewed journal. Anyway it's simply never been proven that our auditory system can accept information at that high a frequency - and it's very simple to do it: Brain's mirror audio, so by playing a tone to the listener you could probe or scan the auditory cortex. If the person is hearing it, it should be there. Except it wont be.
To go wayyyy back to the original point, I've no idea what mixing to make something sound like vinyl is. Especially since the inside and outside of a vinyl record sound different anyway - the inside has less headroom, less treble and more distortion. Mix it so it sounds good, worry about the medium afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 22, 2018 8:14:06 GMT -6
I described how everybody recorded and mixed for vinyl. The early CDs sounded like crap because many were made from "eq master" tapes several generations down from the original masters, or worse, transferred before the early gear the label had rented had a chance to warm up. Later CDs were made from the right tapes but then compressed, clipped or crushed to push the level up.
One thing I didn't mention is singers who knew how to "work" a microphone which drastically reduces the need for vocal compression. Wally Heider told me he recorded Sinatra at the Sands with no compression at all but with a second safety track at a lower level. Singers needed this skill in order to be heard on stage before compressors and feedback reduction measures became common in the '70s.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on May 22, 2018 18:28:47 GMT -6
Here I am, Mr. Quotes...
"The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium."
-Rudy Van Gelder 1995
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,169
|
Post by ericn on May 22, 2018 19:45:19 GMT -6
I described how everybody recorded and mixed for vinyl. The early CDs sounded like crap because many were made from "eq master" tapes several generations down from the original masters, or worse, transferred before the early gear the label had rented had a chance to warm up. Later CDs were made from the right tapes but then compressed, clipped or crushed to push the level up. One thing I didn't mention is singers who knew how to "work" a microphone which drastically reduces the need for vocal compression. Wally Heider told me he recorded Sinatra at the Sands with no compression at all but with a second safety track at a lower level. Singers needed this skill in order to be heard on stage before compressors and feedback reduction measures became common in the '70s. Hey I have done the lower level safety trick many times with digital, and here I thought I was some kind of genius, well maybe I am as defined by the Apple store.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,169
|
Post by ericn on May 22, 2018 19:49:38 GMT -6
Here I am, Mr. Quotes... "The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium." -Rudy Van Gelder 1995 Part of the problem here is the sound of tape and Vinyl get mixed together as analog. When digital first came along people raved because they heard things they didn’t hear before that got excepted as better, when it should have been thought of as different. I’ll say it again but a an alignment and cleaning of either Ampex makes a defrag on my RAdAR seam painless.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 22, 2018 19:54:22 GMT -6
Digital does not "slice audio". If fact, its much much much more accurate to what youre caputuring than any analog system. No, it is not. And PLEASE don't quote that moron Monty at me. Heard it, refuted it what seems like dozens of times on the usual places, tired of his ignorant, misinformed apologies for digital. Thje truth is that a good analog system has useable response up to 50-60kHz, which no commercial digital format can come even remotely close to. Yes, it's true that it's not within +/- 3dB, it's quite rolled off, BUT THE DETAIL IS THERE if you have a system that can reproduce it, and it DOES make a difference to our perception of music, as proven by studies of brain activity when listening to extended response playback compared to bandwidth limited playback. It's not something that we're consciously aware of in a way that we can (usually) pick out in a blind test (many things are not), but the machines don't lie - it makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 23, 2018 0:04:35 GMT -6
I'm just jumping in to say the studies John's referring to are about the Hypersonic Effect. They've never been able to replicate those experiments as the methodology is so flawed that to say it's been debunked is being generous. Not even sure if that was ever published in an international peer reviewed journal. Anyway it's simply never been proven that our auditory system can accept information at that high a frequency - and it's very simple to do it: Brain's mirror audio, so by playing a tone to the listener you could probe or scan the auditory cortex. If the person is hearing it, it should be there. Except it wont be. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as "debunked". There was a published study some time ago that some people called into question and has claimed by those on one side of the question as "debunked". That's not what I referred to. What I referred to was a much more recent documentary on one of the science/educational channels with actual video of the MRI (IIRC) screens during the experiments. Unless somebody was deliberately faking the video the difference was obvious and striking. I seriously doubt the video was faked.
That's essentially what my original point was. Nobody ever "mixed to sound like vinyl." One of the main reasons people love those records is simply that they were well performed, recorded, mixed, and mastered.
And that a lot of that has to deal with the application of lore that is often discounted, ignored, or pooh-poohed as "not modern."
I don't recall ever meeting someone who was enamored of the sound of a worn out record, which seems to be what some people and plugin makers seem to refer to as "sounds like vinyl".
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on May 24, 2018 15:10:32 GMT -6
MRI activity is a strong correlator if its in the correct place but the issue is will it be a distortion product or the actual tone in question? The methodology is everything
I think we most always agree on the engineering and performance side, John
|
|