Does analog move more air. . . ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AtoDeficient

New member
I'm wondering if there has ever been a scientific study on whether analog recordings actually, literally move more air than a digital recording . . . That is, push a wider range of sound waves out of your speakers. . .(This isn't another A vs.D debate, I'm looking for facts here, and we all know analog sounds) better, but does the science and math prove that it sounds better? . . .

When older albums were "remastered for CD" did they dither-down, or eq out the "fullness of sound"? . .

I'm not a sound engineer. . I'm actually an un-sound engineer:facepalm:. . . Does digital record "thinner"? . .. Does tape "add" a fullness?

Why am I asking ? . . . Because my vinyl and tapes sound so much better than any CD I own, and my speakers, any of them, and I have alot of them (it's an obsession) seem to actually move more air when playing back in an analog format, than a CD. . .

Am I making any sense? . . . Any sense ay all? . . . Anybody? . .

If this was covered in another thread, I apologize. .. I wouldn't know how to search for it. .
 
I'm not sure what you're asking. Digital can pretty much sound exactly like analog. Is it that you like the characteristics of vinyl? The crackles and the needle going around in a groove?
 
There is really no such thing as an "infinite resolution state"; the original analog signal, long before it hits any recording medium is limited in bandwidth and dynamic range, primarily by noise but also amplifier gain and bandwidth, not to mention transducer limitations. The recording media then impose their own limitations of bandwidth, distortion, and noise on top of that, although the careful engineer will condition the signal to minimize practical limitations.

Both media have their share of inaccuracies; to answer your question plainly, it depends on the sample rate in question. At 44.1kHz, you have practically no information above 20kHz; analog will have "some", but it won't be particularly accurate, certainly compared with higher digital sample rates.

I would doubt there is any useful information above 40kHz in either format (using a digital sample rate of 96kHz), and certainly the performance limitations of tweeters would mean that you probably don't want to attempt playback of >>20kHz information on most systems anyway (many tweeters have rather interesting ultrasonic resonances that don't bear any relation to their input signal), and other tweeters have impulse response too poor to represent the input signal accurately. So if you dig ultrasound, shop for supertweeters carefully.

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. Vinyl needs RIAA equalization (which is 20dB at 20kHz, but then rolled off above) to sound acceptable. Magnetic tape will naturally rolloff at a low order above some level, depending on its calibration, which is not a huge deal because no one really cares that much about ultrasound to worry about -18dB at 40kHz or whatever. Noise starts to become a problem as well.

Does anybody really think vinyl sounds better than its magnetic tape master source?

Digital generally can do a much better job of low-frequency accuracy--it's not a problem for a CD to record down to DC, for example; vinyl certainly can't do that and magnetic tape must rolloff at some point, again based on tape/calibration. My converters will output DC if I ask them . . . which I don't recommend, woofers don't like that . . . :eek:
 
I could accept that a 2" machine running at 15" to 30" a second with high end mic preamps can "sound" better than a Protools system but at the home Pro-sumer level there's a point of deminishing returns. But that analog "sound" is a distortion that the tape imparts. It's not more accurate than digital. Digital is just a storage medium. The recordings you make are more how you utilize the front end of the system. Just my opinion.
 
What I'm trying to get at is, and I'm not sure how to clarify, so please bear with me, . . .

I hear and feel a fullness and depth and a complete range of frequencies from tape and vinyl sources that I don't hear from CDs, and it seems to me that if I really am hearing it, and not imagining it, then the speakers are also reproducing a wider, fuller range of frequencies. . .

I understand that a high digital sample rate should be a truer representation of the source material. . . But it seems to me that something, somewhere in the digital process, whether it happens in the mastering studio or what, I don't know, it seems to my ears, and my brain and my body, that digital media doesn't reproduce the whole range of frequencies, but "just enough" to satisfy the average listener, etc. .

For an example, years ago I was listening to a Pat Benatar Greatest Hits that I happened to have on cassette and CD. . The difference between the two was HUGE. HUGE> . . . My room was rocking with the tape going. But it was just loud music on CD. . . But why?

And yes, the harshness, and the brittle highs that digital reproduces should really be unacceptable, but somehow it has become acceptable. . .
 
There is really no such thing as an "infinite resolution state"; the original analog signal, long before it hits any recording medium is limited in bandwidth and dynamic range, primarily by noise but also amplifier gain and bandwidth, not to mention transducer limitations. The recording media then impose their own limitations of bandwidth, distortion, and noise on top of that, although the careful engineer will condition the signal to minimize practical limitations.

Both media have their share of inaccuracies; to answer your question plainly, it depends on the sample rate in question. At 44.1kHz, you have practically no information above 20kHz; analog will have "some", but it won't be particularly accurate, certainly compared with higher digital sample rates.

I would doubt there is any useful information above 40kHz in either format (using a digital sample rate of 96kHz), and certainly the performance limitations of tweeters would mean that you probably don't want to attempt playback of >>20kHz information on most systems anyway (many tweeters have rather interesting ultrasonic resonances that don't bear any relation to their input signal), and other tweeters have impulse response too poor to represent the input signal accurately. So if you dig ultrasound, shop for supertweeters carefully.

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. Vinyl needs RIAA equalization (which is 20dB at 20kHz, but then rolled off above) to sound acceptable. Magnetic tape will naturally rolloff at a low order above some level, depending on its calibration, which is not a huge deal because no one really cares that much about ultrasound to worry about -18dB at 40kHz or whatever. Noise starts to become a problem as well.

Does anybody really think vinyl sounds better than its magnetic tape master source?

Digital generally can do a much better job of low-frequency accuracy--it's not a problem for a CD to record down to DC, for example; vinyl certainly can't do that and magnetic tape must rolloff at some point, again based on tape/calibration. My converters will output DC if I ask them . . . which I don't recommend, woofers don't like that . . . :eek:

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.
 
I hear and feel a fullness and depth and a complete range of frequencies from tape and vinyl sources that I don't hear from CDs, and it seems to me that if I really am hearing it, and not imagining it, then the speakers are also reproducing a wider, fuller range of frequencies. . .

And yes, the harshness, and the brittle highs that digital reproduces should really be unacceptable, but somehow it has become acceptable. . .

I don't hear that; I hear a much more limited frequency response from vinyl. The big thing with CDs at the time when they were shiny and new was that all of the sudden there were high frequencies! And no noise reduction was required! And low frequencies could be reproduced accurately as well!

Yeah, vinyl had that tubby warm low-mid thing going on; I don't like it. I want a classical recording to sound like an orchestra in a good hall, not a fuzzed-up limited dynamic range version of the same. Of course digital recording can't manage that either, but that's a transducer problem, not a recording medium problem.

I mean you could take a good 24/96 digital recorder to a performance of the 1812 with cannon and capture the dynamic range as heard in the audience. Nevermind that it's impossible to playback . . . unless you have a MIDI-controlled cannon or something . . . 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 . . . I think the Fs of my woofer is about 27Hz though, so I better buy a bigger sub . . . :eek:
 
I I mean you could take a good 24/96 digital recorder to a performance of the 1812 with cannon and capture the dynamic range as heard in the audience. Nevermind that it's impossible to playback . . . unless you have a MIDI-controlled cannon or something . . . 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 . . . I think the Fs of my woofer is about 27Hz though, so I better buy a bigger sub . . . :eek:


Ok, so then the frequencies that digital captures is almost limitless on the recording end. . . So I have to assume that the "loss" that I hear from digital media, the thinness, the shallow, non-room-filling sound must be a by-product of the digital mastering process. . . compression / over-compression?. .
 
Hmmm. I don't have that problem at all.


I've never recorded digitally, so I don't have any experience there. . . But like I've said somewhere else before, I like the first Nickelback CD, but unfortunately I can't listen to it at all. . . I'm hoping they re-release a version that doesn't hurt my head and insult me as a consumer. . .

And apart from being offensive to my ears physically, it doesn't matter how much you turn it up, it doesn't shake the room, it just gets louder. . 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.
 
And apart from being offensive to my ears physically, it doesn't matter how much you turn it up, it doesn't shake the room, it just gets louder. . 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.

I think it's a great question. Something for sure is when recording digitally, you need to get a lot of air in there somehow or it sounds too flat and claustrophobic. . At least to my ears, that's what I'm discovering.
 
Someone else on this forum opined (and I'm assuming it was an opinion -- but seems plausible) that analog contains more sound information then digital. For a CD there is a brick wall at 22kHz or so, and no information above that, and also losing whatever infinitesimal bit (sorry no pun intended) of information between samples. Analog has all the information and only rolls off above 18-20kHz, eventually down to the noise floor of the gear. You don't hear the frequencies above 20kHz, but the opinion was they interact with the frequencies you do hear, creating there again more complex waveforms resulting in the subjectively "fuller" sound. Those waveforms aren't present in CD recordings, so they aren't there to interact. I don't know if there is any science to back that up, I got my physics degree out of a Cracker Jack box, but conceptually it makes sense to me. Or, it could just be good BS that supports my position in an analog/digital flame war....:D

Perhaps also, the higher frequencies interact with the room and your body as well, with the same 'fuller' effect. I did read an article regarding that aspect, this was digital recording, but at a significantly higher sample rate than CD, so you did have those higher frequencies. And there was some body effects noted.

If it is CD sound we're talking about, "DVD" sound (96kHz to 192kHz sampling rate) is another matter. "mshilarious" makes a good point, that you'd get a better representation of the 1812 Overture with high sample rate digital than with a LP record because of the incredible dynamic range of that piece.
 
I don't hear that; I hear a much more limited frequency response from vinyl. The big thing with CDs at the time when they were shiny and new was that all of the sudden there were high frequencies! And no noise reduction was required! And low frequencies could be reproduced accurately as well!

Yeah, vinyl had that tubby warm low-mid thing going on; I don't like it. I want a classical recording to sound like an orchestra in a good hall, not a fuzzed-up limited dynamic range version of the same. Of course digital recording can't manage that either, but that's a transducer problem, not a recording medium problem.

I mean you could take a good 24/96 digital recorder to a performance of the 1812 with cannon and capture the dynamic range as heard in the audience. Nevermind that it's impossible to playback . . . unless you have a MIDI-controlled cannon or something . . . 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 . . . I think the Fs of my woofer is about 27Hz though, so I better buy a bigger sub . . . :eek:

come on man, this is the analog forum !
 
It depends what we are talking about.

If we are talking about CD's vs. Vinyl and Tape (which I think we are now that I re-read this thread), your right. Not true.

If we are talking about mixing, very true.

Not true in either instance. Regardless of what the plug-in peddlers tell you, you can't truly and accurately model an analog device.

There are a variety of behaviors that are not only not fully understood but very difficult (if not impossible) to measure either (such as scrape flutter -- the exact frequencies of the distortion depend upon an unpredictable combination of physical interactions).

Scrape flutter is just one example.

So, if you can't predict how it is going to sound and behave (after 50 years of trying), and you cannot measure exactly what changes are occuring in the sound, what makes you think you can emulate it?

What you can emulate is the specific sound and behavior of a specific 'performance' or a specific set of 'performances' of the deck(s), tape(s), etc. ... that is all.

Additionally, digital can only emulate artifacts, it will never replicate continuous sound as analog can.

Digital cannot become analog; it is self-limiting.
 
Last edited:
Digital reproduction is an appoximation of the original signal, by definition. Does one move more air than the other? I sure dont know. I know that I prefer the sound of analog, in particular tape. I can listen to analog as long as I want, but digital gives me a raging headache in just a couple oh hours (digital fatigue).
 
If it is CD sound we're talking about, "DVD" sound (96kHz to 192kHz sampling rate) is another matter. "mshilarious" makes a good point, that you'd get a better representation of the 1812 Overture with high sample rate digital than with a LP record because of the incredible dynamic range of that piece.

I see, but by sampling rate you're talking about is that you're recording, capturing, with accurate and true fidelity. . . I understand the front end. . . I guess it's the back end that seems to disappoint then. . . The mixed-down, mastered playback. . . To go back to my Pat Benatar comment, playing the cassette is a far more enjoyable experience. . .It's consuming. . with pressure you can feel, while the CD is the music- - and not much else. . . As if someone decided that there was enough frequency information being relayed to the listener to get the point across. . . Like the CD is "standard model", while the tape version is the "deluxe model" . .

I'm trying to side-step the "which sounds better" argument, but "WHY do analog sounds seems to move more air?". . .if analog sounds fuller because it's a lower-fidelity medium, I'm perfectly fine there even if analog recording or playback were less accurate. . .

Perhaps real and accurate sounds just move less air, and I've just gotten used to listening to analog quality. . Or perhaps it's like being in a room with a drummer- - in person, the drums are harsh, and annoying to the ear, while in the control room, just as loud, but mixed and processed, the sound can move you. . . I really don' know. . .

I'm just trying to understand why I'm "moved" by analog recording/playback formats, while CDs, even those of analog recordings, don't seem to move me or anything else in the room near as much. . .

Thanks for your patience with my limited understandings. . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top