Does analog move more air. . . ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrowsofFritz said:
So it looks, little by little, we are reaching conclusions in this thread.

1 - We have concluded that we CAN listen to digital all day, (depending on how the album was mastered is a big part)

2 - We have concluded that analog sounds more "pleasing" which does not translate to accuracy.

3 - We have (almost) concluded that digital is more accurate. mshilarious has graciously proposed a test that I'm for.
Click to expand...

Sorry. i take issue with #1 as I stated in my post. I cant listen to it all day. I think there is something to digital fatigue.

This discussion mirrors the age old debate (argument?) of which is better a Ford or a Chevy. It is a subjective taste for sure. I grew up in the day of analog, getting educated in their operation and repair in middle school. I got out of it for a fairly good gap in time. That gap straddled the transition to digital, so when I became re-interested in recording I started with digital (Mac Tascam us1800). I dont know I just didnt like it. I then set about getting analog gear to do the same stuff, only old school LOL. Once I got it up and running I suddleny realized that one of the things that was so different is the esoterics of it all. I may be the only one that feels this way, but while not affect the end product at all I missed the smell of (tape and tubes) the visuals of it, reels tuning, analog meters dancing, anything that is lit or lights up isnt an LED. I dont know, the "experience" is more fun for me. Plus it sounds better! J/K
 
The first post may not have mentioned cassette, but he subsequently talked about cassette, using it in all his examples of what he thought sounded wonderful about analog vs digital.

For an example, years ago I was listening to a Pat Benatar Greatest Hits that I happened to have on cassette and CD
Click to expand...
and later
THAT is what I'm getting at, that CDs just get louder, while cassette or vinyl get louder AND shake and rattle and move . . . stuff.
Click to expand...
and
. . . To go back to my Pat Benatar comment, playing the cassette is a far more enjoyable experience. . .It's consuming. .
Click to expand...

He mentions accuracy here
I so agree. . And there has to be something in that.. . The math, the facts, . . It just seems that "digital accuracy" is a lie, in that it moves the numbers, when music is numbers, but it doesn't move the air when music is air.
Click to expand...
That was all just on the first page of the thread.
 
mdainsd said:
Sorry. i take issue with #1 as I stated in my post. I cant listen to it all day. I think there is something to digital fatigue.

This discussion mirrors the age old debate (argument?) of which is better a Ford or a Chevy. It is a subjective taste for sure. I grew up in the day of analog, getting educated in their operation and repair in middle school. I got out of it for a fairly good gap in time. That gap straddled the transition to digital, so when I became re-interested in recording I started with digital (Mac Tascam us1800). I dont know I just didnt like it. I then set about getting analog gear to do the same stuff, only old school LOL. Once I got it up and running I suddleny realized that one of the things that was so different is the esoterics of it all. I may be the only one that feels this way, but while not affect the end product at all I missed the smell of (tape and tubes) the visuals of it, reels tuning, analog meters dancing, anything that is lit or lights up isnt an LED. I dont know, the "experience" is more fun for me. Plus it sounds better! J/K
Click to expand...

I hear ya!

VP
 
mdainsd said:
Sorry. i take issue with #1 as I stated in my post. I cant listen to it all day. I think there is something to digital fatigue.

This discussion mirrors the age old debate (argument?) of which is better a Ford or a Chevy. It is a subjective taste for sure. I grew up in the day of analog, getting educated in their operation and repair in middle school. I got out of it for a fairly good gap in time. That gap straddled the transition to digital, so when I became re-interested in recording I started with digital (Mac Tascam us1800). I dont know I just didnt like it. I then set about getting analog gear to do the same stuff, only old school LOL. Once I got it up and running I suddleny realized that one of the things that was so different is the esoterics of it all. I may be the only one that feels this way, but while not affect the end product at all I missed the smell of (tape and tubes) the visuals of it, reels tuning, analog meters dancing, anything that is lit or lights up isnt an LED. I dont know, the "experience" is more fun for me. Plus it sounds better! J/K
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's subjective.

Whenever somebody says that there is "digital fatigue" without mentioning personal taste is just a little peeve of mine. I can definitely listen to digital all day, depending on if the album is smashed or not.
 
Victory Pete said:
Once again, please reread the OP, no mention of Cassette.

VP
Click to expand...

Sure he did, many times ("OP" = original poster, not necessarily original post). Also, even in the first post it's pretty clear that tape means cassette:

When older albums were "remastered for CD" did they dither-down, or eq out the "fullness of sound"? . . . Because my vinyl and tapes sound so much better than any CD I own
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be asking if his own homebrew recordings were remastered for CD, that doesn't make any sense. So it's clear he is talking about commercial release tapes, which means cassette . . . or 8-track I guess, or the handful of stuff that was released on 1/4". Which do you think it was?

Anyway, I want to know how your tape recorders perform; are you willing to test them or not?

Other people have; some test pretty well on freq. response . . . others, not so much . . . but I would also like to know type and magnitude of distortion by frequency, as well as flutter. Crosstalk would be interesting to know, I did test that but I didn't post it earlier.

Grist for the mill:

Response Curves of Analog Recorders
 
I just went through my music collection. . . I kept all the vinyl because I like album cover art, but I threw away all the CDs and cassettes. . .

I'm going to continue writing and recording music, but I'm never going to listen to music again.
 
Last I checked, this was the 'Analog Only' forum. I thought this was one of the few safe havens on the internet. I don't even recognize some of these people posting in this thread.

Clearly, analog is better than digital in every way. Game over! I dare anyone to challenge that statement when it is so obviously and indisputably correct!
 
lonewhitefly said:
Last I checked, this was the 'Analog Only' forum. I thought this was one of the few safe havens on the internet. I don't even recognize some of these people posting in this thread.

Clearly, analog is better than digital in every way. Game over! I dare anyone to challenge that statement when it is so obviously and indisputably correct!
Click to expand...

"Words of Wisdom"!

VP
 
My sincere apologies to anyone and everyone. . . I really didn't intend to start an argument. . . I had an honest curiousity, and I was trying to keep it light and friendly. . .

In my brief time here I've regained my pride in my humble analog rig. . . I've even decided to stay as analog as humanly possible in a digital world, and I have all of you to thank for that.
 
lonewhitefly said:
Last I checked, this was the 'Analog Only' forum. I thought this was one of the few safe havens on the internet. I don't even recognize some of these people posting in this thread.

Clearly, analog is better than digital in every way. Game over! I dare anyone to challenge that statement when it is so obviously and indisputably correct!
Click to expand...

LOL!

:laughings:
 
lonewhitefly said:
Last I checked, this was the 'Analog Only' forum. I thought this was one of the few safe havens on the internet. I don't even recognize some of these people posting in this thread.
Click to expand...

I am pretty much solely responsible for the board reorder that promoted the Analog forum up to the top from the deep dark recesses towards the bottom where it formerly inhabited. You can thank me later :p
 
. . And if I had known this thread would've had such staying power, I would have checked my spelling/grammar when I titled it. . . Does analog MOVES more air ? . . . I'm sorry about that, too. . .
 
I still think (i think it was) Beck was on to something re: harmonic content in analog recordings, that the higher freq information that is present (albeit subject to roll off) in analog, and is not present in CD (44.1kHz) has a physical impact, both on the person's senses (feel -- I've found some science on this higher sample rate digital recordings were used) and in the interplay between wave forms, that create more complex wave forms. Like I said before, I got my physics degree out of a crackerjack box, but the concept makes sense.
 
Assuming that those frequencies were present during the recording and mixing process, the effect of them would still make it to the CD even if the harmonics themselves have been filtered out.

I suppose it depends on which version of that line of thinking you are referring to.

One version states that the ultrasonic frequencies create interference in the frequencies that we can hear and that somehow that comb filtering effect makes things sound 'better' or more 'real'. This is the one I'm referring to.

The other states that even though we don't actually hear ultrasonic frequencies, we do feel them. But that sort of thing can be taken care of easily with higher sample rates. There isn't anyone who claims that we can hear or feel anything above 40k.
 
It's strang that this kind of conversation has devolved into religiuos dogma (those morons open the small end of the egg and any right minded person knows you ALWAYS should open the large end!!). Hey I wish I had a 2" 16 track and a 1/2" machine to listen to my Archies records on but I got a feeling (a feeling deep inside, oh yeah) that there ain't gonna be tape to be had in a few very short years.
 
RMGI has just moved production to France. There are rumours Quantegy is going to start producing 456 again. Tape and Vinyl are very much alive!

VP
 
AtoDeficient said:
My sincere apologies to anyone and everyone. . . I really didn't intend to start an argument. . . I had an honest curiousity, and I was trying to keep it light and friendly. . .

In my brief time here I've regained my pride in my humble analog rig. . . I've even decided to stay as analog as humanly possible in a digital world, and I have all of you to thank for that.
Click to expand...

TOTALLY not your fault! We should be able to discuss analog and digital concerns here ... but when people seem to come in here just to argue the virtues of digital, it seems a little backwards ... Other forums are certainly available for that madness.
 
Im constantly stocking up on Ampex 499 2" stock. I have hundreds of hours of it now. Proably more than I'll ever get through. There is so much of it that I pick and choose, preffering one pass and I dont even look at anything withe a splice in it. Best value is 14" reels, been getting sealed nos for less than fifty bucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top