Does analog move more air. . . ?

[lonewhitefly]

I remind you that it was you and VP that first starting talking down digital, not me talking down tape. My first statement was quite "fair and balanced" Reread page 1. Read my first post, VP's first post, your first post. Reread where OP asked for a "scientific study".

I'm not even sure if I should respond to this, as it's so wrong ...

Once again, the irony in your statements is outstanding.

Let's re-read page 1 together, as you suggested:

let's look at some quotes from you from page 1:

I don't understand the comment that vinyl sounds better at least with respect to high frequency information--it's noisy and distorted and not in a good way.

Digital generally can do a much better job of low-frequency accuracy

Can vinyl "move air" with the cannon blasts the way digital can? I don't think so, the needle would go shooting off into the air! What is the frequency response of tape at say 3Hz? Cause I can get a mic with response that low, and I can record that digitally

quotes from me from page 1:

not true.

(in response to: "I'm not sure what you're asking. Digital can pretty much sound exactly like analog.")

and:

All sound coming through speakers is ultimately analog (speakers are analog) ... I suspect you might think more air is moving because vinyl records usually have more low-end than CDs ... this is not something inherent to the medium, but rather due to mastering decisions and processing limitations. And if you're listening to primarly records pressed from the '50s-'80s, then they probably have more evidence of tape head-bump (low end boost).

my take on 'vinyl sounds better' is ...

A master tape sounds much better than a CD dub of the master. period. I don't think there's any comparison.

A master tape sounds much better than a vinyl dub of the master. (again, no comparison)

A CD of the master tape sounds superficially more accurate (i.e. no audible 'flaws') than a vinyl from the tape, but the vinyl sounds more present and realistic.

What's more, this is the Analog forum ... where 'talking down digital' is quite acceptable. The basic point is that you're coming into the Analog forum and touting digital's superiority ... I'm talking about context. Please disregard this statement as you have every other logical statement anyone has made thus far.

 

[lonewhitefly]

And I still have my Tascam 424mkII, which I bought in 1997 and used regularly until about 2003, when I bought a better recorder for mobile use, an Alesis HD24. I don't do mobile multitrack recording anymore so I sold the HD24, but the 424 I have kept because it isn't really worth selling. Besides, I never finished transferring all of my old tapes. Someday.

So I pretty much know from six years of using it that the 424 isn't anywhere near as good sounding as the digital stuff I have now, which is why I don't use the 424 anymore.

I mean the specs are right here on this site!

https://homerecording.com/tas424specs.html

1% THD and 0.05% flutter, 40Hz to 16kHz frequency response +/-3dB at 3.75ips; dynamic range of 55dB (without NR which I never liked the sound).

The converters I am using--which are six years old now--I just measured D/A/D at .001% THD, 0.00006% jitter, freq. response is +/-0.3dB from 5Hz to 40kHz (at 96kHz), dynamic range (20kHz bandwidth, unweighted) is 115dB.

Beck talks about how digital stuff just gets obsolete, which he takes as nonfunctional. That's not true, plenty of old digital stuff works fine (my computer is c. 2005, soundcard is c. 2003, I prefer a version of Wavelab from 2004 and the good ol' UAD-1 from 2002), people just trade up for newer stuff. So the old digital becomes basically worthless . . . exactly the same thing that happens to old tape recorders. I paid I think $600 for the Tascam in 1997. It's worth about $75 now. Old digital is about the same; 10%-20% of original value after ten years, beyond that only if it has collector value which a fair amount of stuff does, oddly enough. People get attached to things, like the soundcard I originally used, the DS2416. Great card with great capabilities that were never fully realized, then it got abandoned. Kinda sad, but I moved on.

I paid $600 for that in 2000 . . . today they are also worth $75 and they still have their following.

Let me get this straight ... your experience with analog is limited to a 4-track cassette recorder?

Game over, case closed.

 

[mshilarious]

I have a 424MKIII, How can you base your opinions on that machine. It is a great little machine but the 1/2" and 1" 15ips machines are absolutely in an entirely different planet, galaxy and universe.

VP

I agree with you, and I've said that several times on this thread. However, I must warn you, you have just committed analog heresy. It goes without question here that any tape recorder, no matter how bad, is better than any digital converter, no matter how good

So, show me how good your reel machines are Thus far, I have based my opinion of 1/2" to 2" machines on:

- the AAD/ADD commercial CDs I own, which sound fine compared with DDD CDs;

- the measurements taken by professionals, such as those I linked regarding frequency response;

- the physical description of how they work, such as from that Drawmer site;

- well-conducted listening experiments, such as described/linked by Ty Ford and Bobbsy, which show that top-quality tape and digital recorders are not easily distinguished--at least if the tape recorders are operating in their linear range, as a classical recording engineer would tend to do;

- somewhat-less-well conducted listening experiments that analyze tape emulation algorithms. Sound on Sound did one recently. That is a mixed bag because most of these experiments aren't very well conducted, so I haven't gleaned too much from them other than the basic conclusion that an algorithm is required to make a linear-range digital recording sound less distinguishable from tape driven past its linear operating range. That is fairly obvious I think . . .

So I already have a hypothesis that reel tape recorders will demonstrate a range of technical performance that varies from Porta up to top-line Studer, Ampeg, etc.

I would like to see an experiment that confirms that for distortion and flutter the way that site did for frequency response.

That's all I've been asking for in the last week. It's all I want for Christmas, really

Along the way I've had to endure the usual baseless speculation about all of the purported flaws that digital must have in order for it not to sound as good as analog. When I easily disprove all of them through measurement, then the measurement tools are questioned. This happens again and again here over the course of years. It's a bit pitiful, really, but I ignore it.

Of course next the "ear" is held as the arbiter of all that is good and true, but only those ears which already agree with that poster's opinion. I believe you were guilty of that fallacy early on. Ears that think digital generally sounds better, or that analog and digital can basically sound the same if we want them to are discarded in a fit of cognitive dissonance.

The digital partisan counter is that analog is the fatally flawed medium, but I don't think that's necessarily true either, although it may be true at the low end. I would just like to know how good analog really can be from a measurement standpoint.

If only there was someone capable of a measurement . . . if only . . .

 

[mshilarious]

What's more, this is the Analog forum ... where 'talking down digital' is quite acceptable. The basic point is that you're coming into the Analog forum and touting digital's superiority ... I'm talking about context. Please disregard this statement as you have every other logical statement anyone has made thus far.

Yeah, you see, I kinda was responsible for the rewrite of the TOS on this site . . . and there pretty much is nothing in the TOS that forbid people from defending digital conversion on the Analog forum. Sorry.

 

[mshilarious]

Let me get this straight ... your experience with analog is limited to a 4-track cassette recorder?

Game over, case closed.

OK, stud boy, bribery time.


$100 for anybody who can run a 24/96 test file I specify through a converter loop and whatever recorder it is that you own. You and VP are not eligible.

 

[lonewhitefly]

Yeah, you see, I kinda was responsible for the rewrite of the TOS on this site . . . and there pretty much is nothing in the TOS that forbid people from defending digital conversion on the Analog forum. Sorry.

ok.

I'm just talking about basic human respect, not rule-breaking.

 

[lonewhitefly]

OK, stud boy, bribery time.


$100 for anybody who can run a 24/96 test file I specify through a converter loop and whatever recorder it is that you own. You and VP are not eligible.

Even though I am not technically eligible to perform this test, I went ahead and did it myself, and you are right ... the digital totally blew analog out of the water.

Mr. Hilarious, you can go ahead and sent me a PM and I will let you know the email address you can send the $100 to. Paypal is fine but I prefer a Chase bank account transfer if you happen to have a Chase account.

Glad we finally came to the end of this discussion.

 

[mshilarious]

You need to read the last sentence again

 

[SteveM]

I can tell MS is starting to get "tipsy" lol It must be my keen hearing.

 

[mshilarious]

Nah, haven't started drinking yet tonight . . . actually have a bit of a cold, so I might lay off

 

[Victory Pete]

Analogue artists defying the digital age | Culture | The Observer

VP

 

[Track Rat]

Die thread, die!!!!!

 

[Bobbsy]

Well that's enough for me!

If Naomi Kashiwagi says so, I'm getting rid of my DAW and even my collection of vinyl. It's all 78rpm records for me from now on!

 

[Lt. Bob]

Actually in vinyl ( I bet you already know this) the very best sounding ones are at 45rpm. Some of the current audiophile labels put albums on 3 or 4 LP-sized discs that run at 45rpm.
I don't have any but reviews I've read on them are pretty complimentary.
The faster speed helps extend frequency range and various things like that.
I bet 78's would sound even better but you'd get into too many discs for a given work.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Analogue artists defying the digital age | Culture | The Observer

VP

yeah ...... that's not doing your argument any good.

All that is is a bunch of artists that like the incongruity of using older technology to create art.
No one in there is claiming superior performance ...... it's just unusual and thus, sets their art apart.

 

[Victory Pete]

yeah ...... that's not doing your argument any good.

All that is is a bunch of artists that like the incongruity of using older technology to create art.
No one in there is claiming superior performance ...... it's just unuausal and thus, sets their art apart.

It is not hurting it either.
VP

 

[Lt. Bob]

It is not hurting it either.
VP

true ....... it has little impact either way.

 

[Victory Pete]

true ....... it has little impact either way.

Just curious, how do you know how or who it may be impacting?

VP

 

[Lt. Bob]

Just curious, how do you know how or who it may be impacting?

VP

Pretty easy ..... I've been reading the thread. The people you're trying to convince want measurements and that article provides none.

Further ..... your general argument is concerning areas in which some people feel analog provides superior sound and that article doesn't address that whatsoever. So how could it impact an argument it doesn't address? You may as well have linked to an article about kobe beef ...... that would be about as relevant to the discussion as that thing you linked to.

Lastly .... learn to read ....... I didn't say a single word about it impacting any person.
I said it has little impact on the argument taking place and it doesn't since it doesn't address the areas ya'll are arguing about at all.

I've actually weighed in on this thread in support of the idea that analog can be better in some ways.

If you want me to simply join in the throng of people pointing out that you almost never show any actual knowledge of anything and just cut and paste stuff you clearly don't understand then I will.
I would have thought you'd prefer to have some amount of support but that's your call.
But no more of your dumb arguments please.

 

[Victory Pete]

true ....... it has little impact either way.

Just curious, how do you know how or who it may be impacting?

VP

Pretty easy ..... I've been reading the thread. The people you're trying to convince want measurements and that article provides none.

Further ..... your general argument is concerning areas in which some people feel analog provides superior sound and that article doesn't address that whatsoever. So how could it impact an argument it doesn't address? You may as well have linked to an article about kobe beef ...... that would be about as relevant to the discussion as that thing you linked to.

Lastly .... learn to read ....... I didn't say a single word about it impacting any person.
I said it has little impact on the argument taking place and it doesn't since it doesn't address the areas ya'll are arguing about at all.

I've actually weighed in on this thread in support of the idea that analog can be better in some ways.

If you want me to simply join in the throng of people pointing out that you almost never show any actual knowledge of anything and just cut and paste stuff you clearly don't understand then I will.
I would have thought you'd prefer to have some amount of support but that's your call.
But no more of your dumb arguments please.

Okay so you dont know how any of my or other members posts and links are impacting anyones outlook on the topic at hand.

VP