Does analog move more air. . . ?

[Bobbsy]

And I have no idea if one was recorded digital or the other. I have to assume the first was recorded on tape.

Of course, in 1991 you'd also be catching the end of the age when there were a number of digital multitrack tape systems in use too....Sony DASH, Mitsubishi ProDigi and a few others were all released in the early/mid 80s.

I recall being impressed with the first digitally recorded, vinyl released albums that I bought in the early 80s. I think Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds" was the first I had but there may have been others I've forgotten.

 

[gecko zzed]

No, because it has become a somewhat religious debate with each side declaring that the one they like is 'better' and/or 'more accurate'.

Because of the above, this is what happened:

Well, yeah. . the scientific question turned into an old debate rather quickly

I was just curious to know why I'm left unmoved by today's CDs.

It may not be the media that's left you unmoved. It may be the material

 

[Victory Pete]

How do you listen to do your recordings in your car? If on cassette, how is the frequency response (-40dB at 19kHz) and flutter I measured possibly consistent with accurate-sounding cymbals? It can't be, and I doubt you bring a 1/2" machine along in your car.

So all you can do is listen to your accurately-recorded cymbals in your studio.

Which is probably also where your cymbals are . . .

Meatworld FTW!

I dont make "Audio" decisions nor opinions in my vehicles. I have many Tascam analog machines including 2 42's, a 42B, and a BR20. I can listen to 1/4" masters in my studio and in my house.
VP

 

[Victory Pete]

Well, yeah. . the scientific question turned into an old debate rather quickly. . .I really tried to stay out of that whole analog/digital, "better-sounding" argument. Science does not play favorites, or at least it shouldn't. . .

I was just curious to know why I'm left unmoved by today's CDs. . . You've all helped me find the answer. . .
It's because I wasn't born with digital hearing.

I read somewhere that Neil Young compared listening to Digital is like "looking at a beautiful scenery through a screen".

VP

 

[SteveM]

Of course, in 1991 you'd also be catching the end of the age when there were a number of digital multitrack tape systems in use too....Sony DASH, Mitsubishi ProDigi and a few others were all released in the early/mid 80s.

I recall being impressed with the first digitally recorded, vinyl released albums that I bought in the early 80s. I think Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds" was the first I had but there may have been others I've forgotten.

I don't have a problem with Brothers in Arms or Michael Jackson's stuff.

 

[leddy]

I bought a Charlie Haden quartet west album on vinyl. Popped it on my turntable, and something did not sound right. The ride cymbal was hurting my ears. Looked at the jacket. Recorded in 1986 using the Sony PCM system.

Anecdotal, I know. May have been other factors. I do think my brain somehow instantly identified that something was not typical about this vinyl.

 

[mshilarious]

I dont make "Audio" decisions nor opinions in my vehicles. I have many Tascam analog machines including 2 42's, a 42B, and a BR20. I can listen to 1/4" masters in my studio and in my house.
VP

I think you missed my point--you have cymbals in your studio, right? Which sounds better, hitting a cymbal or listening to a recording you made of yourself hitting a cymbal? Or, for that matter, direct monitoring yourself hitting a cymbal, no magnetic tape or digital converter involved? Because for me that's not even close.

Recordings are for when I'm not in the studio; in the studio I play instruments. So what the master medium sounds like almost doesn't matter if no practical playback media can faithfully represent that.

Fortunately, of course, a digital recording does an excellent job of fidelity to source, unlike the poor lowly cassette

I read somewhere that Neil Young compared listening to Digital is like "looking at a beautiful scenery through a screen".

I love Neil, seen him once I think (drugs, hard to remember), had ATGR on vinyl before I sold all that--but honestly he sounds fine on cassette, anything higher fidelity he sounds much worse

If it's all about being accurate then you shouldn't need any plug ins or eq

If you aren't making a pop or rock record I don't think you do. Well if you have time that is so you can work carefully. I am contemplating a recording that uses no EQ, no compression, no effects except for a really big hall's natural reverb but I might have trouble getting enough time in that space. Anyway, it would be impossible without digital because I need at least 16 tracks, probably 24, and I couldn't reasonably haul that kind of gear in and out of the space on a regular basis for brief one-hour recording stints--which is quite easy with a laptop.

 

[Victory Pete]

Recording is an art. I think everything sounds better recorded ( to Analog of course) than live. Everything always sounds so much better on playback. The live sound is not as exciting. After all you only have 2 ears on your head versus the dozen mics that are placed around the instruments.

VP

 

[mshilarious]

Recording is an art. I think everything sounds better recorded ( to analog of course) than live. Everything always sounds so much better on playback. The live sound is not as exciting. After all you only have 2 ears on your head versus the dozen mics that are placed around the instruments.

VP

I think you are delusional. Never heard a recording of an orchestra that sounded remotely like the real thing--and I have a couple hundred, both vinyl and CD. Never heard a jazz recording that sounded anywhere near as good as a good band in a good hall. Never heard a rock record that sounded like being on stage (listening to a PA, sure, those mostly sound like ass, recordings can do that). You ever heard a pipe organ recording sound like a pipe organ with a 32' rank? Ain't no physical way that is possible.

Yeah you can record with a dozen mics if you like (you're going to run out of tracks on your tape deck pretty fast though), but you can't move them while recording easily, and even if you did it generally wouldn't be a good thing. Besides, microphones introduce a large amount of distortion; there is no such thing as a microphone anywhere near as linear as a recording. The recording media are far better than the transducers.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Really? IMO Californication is much better album and the disc sounds better. I have both. BSSM has a couple of GREAT songs on it and the rest is crap. And I have no idea if one was recorded digital or the other. I have to assume the first was recorded on tape.







'''''''

Both albums were recorded onto tape. The first half of Californication has a huge mastering problem. Prime example of the loudness war. I'm too lazy to look it up, but you could probably find a site that compares the unmastered vs. mastered tracks of Californication. unmastered wins hands down.

 

[Farview]

Really? IMO Californication is much better album and the disc sounds better. I have both. BSSM has a couple of GREAT songs on it and the rest is crap. And I have no idea if one was recorded digital or the other. I have to assume the first was recorded on tape.
'''''''

The quality of the songs has no relevance in a conversation about digital vs. analog. The point about the two RHCP albums was to point out the difference in mastering style from one era to another.

 

[Victory Pete]

I think you are delusional. Never heard a recording of an orchestra that sounded remotely like the real thing--and I have a couple hundred, both vinyl and CD. Never heard a jazz recording that sounded anywhere near as good as a good band in a good hall. Never heard a rock record that sounded like being on stage (listening to a PA, sure, those mostly sound like ass, recordings can do that). You ever heard a pipe organ recording sound like a pipe organ with a 32' rank? Ain't no physical way that is possible.

Yeah you can record with a dozen mics if you like (you're going to run out of tracks on your tape deck pretty fast though), but you can't move them while recording easily, and even if you did it generally wouldn't be a good thing. Besides, microphones introduce a large amount of distortion; there is no such thing as a microphone anywhere near as linear as a recording. The recording media are far better than the transducers.

I am not "Delusional", I am an "Artist". I am not going to run out of tracks, I have 4 TSR-8's, an MS-16 and an MSR-24. I have a couple of Tascam synchronizers too if I need to link up some machines. BTW have you ever heard of mixing multiple microphones to any number of tracks using "Sub-groups"? Do you think the "Dark Side Of The Moon"( or "Sgt Pepper") sounds better in the "Abbey Roads" tracking rooms than it does on virgin Vinyl? I wonder who is "Delusional"?

VP

 

[Farview]

If it's all about being accurate then you shouldn't need any plug ins or eq. Which is bull because it's not about being accurate. It's making something that sounds pleasing. There's no doubt to me that my tape deck sounds waaaaaay better than my DAW.

The OP was asking if analog was more accurate, that was the question being discussed. If you are arguing which one sounds better, you might be right but you are answering a question that no one asked.

 

[Farview]

I read somewhere that Neil Young compared listening to Digital is like "looking at a beautiful scenery through a screen".

VP

Oh yea, that guy knows all about audio quality. [/sarcasm] That's an emotional response to a scientific question.

 

[Victory Pete]

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. . . 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. .

The OP was asking if analog was more accurate, that was the question being discussed. If you are arguing which one sounds better, you might be right but you are answering a question that no one asked.

If you look again you can see the word "Accurate" is absent from the OP post. Please stay on topic.

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

Oh yea, that guy knows all about audio quality. [/sarcasm] That's an emotional response to a scientific question.

Neil Young Message

VP

 

[AtoDeficient]

I think it's been stated several times, and in several ways, that "accuurate" and "good-sounding" are two different things. . .

The fact that analog simulation plug-ins exist answers the debate on "which sounds better". . I mean, thirty years after tape recording was developed, were people trying to find a way to make it sound like a wire recording? . . . Progress isn't usually a going backward process. . .

But if I wanted to listen to birds chirping, a distant wind-chime, and leaves rustling in a light breeze, I would probably prefer the digital recording. For music in general, I prefer the analog recording processes of thirty years ago, before the digital processes sucked the life out of music. I prefer the analog process and all its "faults", because it moves me. . . It seems to put more life into the music, even if that "life" is just an artifact, it is also a preference, and I believe that "life" could be measured as it leaves a speaker. . That's all I have to say.

 

[mshilarious]

I am not "Delusional", I am an "Artist". I am not going to run out of tracks, I have 4 TSR-8's, an MS-16 and an MSR-24. I have a couple of Tascam synchronizers too if I need to link up some machines. BTW have you ever heard of mixing multiple microphones to any number of tracks using "Sub-groups"? Do you think the "Dark Side Of The Moon"( or "Sgt Pepper") sounds better in the "Abbey Roads" tracking rooms than it does on virgin Vinyl? I wonder who is "Delusional"?

VP

Well, you've pretty much said it right there, people who want to emulate approximately 15 years of rock recordings like tape, most other people don't . . . I will tell you one thing, the end of "A Day in the Life" doesn't sound anywhere near as good as a live orchestra playing the same part; if the rock musicians have the same amount of talent (which many do), then the whole shebang can be done live and it sounds much better than Memorex (or Tascam). Sorry.

If you look again you can see the word "Accurate" is absent from the OP post. Please stay on topic.

Wrong, OP asked an objective, comparative question about analog vs. digital that is verifiable via experimentation. It did need some interpretation; I take "moves more air" as "accurate LF response". That is somewhat open to conjecture, but whatever the definition, it's not a subjective artistic question.

I propose the following experiment: using a calibrated, flat-response measurement microphone, a 1kHz test tone is recorded direct to digital and also direct to cassette (OP mentioned cassette, not 2", not 1/4") with digital level set at -12dBFS RMS and tape at 0dBVU; a close-miced kick drum is recorded at the same matched level such that the peak of the kick drum be the same level as the 1kHz tone. Playback of the two sources is again direct from source, with the volume of 1kHz test tone matched between sources, and initially set to represent a similar SPL as would be experienced at the same distance from the kick drum (as measured with a fast-response C-weighted SPL meter).

A candle shall be placed 10cm from the middle (measured along its radius) of a 25cm diameter low-distortion woofer, with a ruler placed to the side of the candle, and a camera on the other side, such that the deflection of the candle may be recorded. There shall be no material deflection of the candle from any ambient air movement. If the candle is extinguished by the kick drum from either tape or digital source, then the experiment will be repeated with volume reduced in 3dB steps until the candle is not extinguished by either source; the results up until that point shall also be noted.

The resulting deflection from the kick drum hit shall be measured and compared.

Sound good? Will that settle this debate? If so, I'll take care of it

thirty years after tape recording was developed, were people trying to find a way to make it sound like a wire recording?

I don't use tape emulators, sorry, they don't interest me. I use a touch of generic EQ and a little bit of a compression algo I wrote that can also do a bit of saturation if I want--but that emulates transformers and single-ended tube circuits, not tape. And I have real transformers and tubes laying around if I really wanted to build the analog circuits, but I don't use the emulation that much so there is no real need for the real thing either. If I'm doing a rock recording I use a bit of UAD plate, I do like that. I use a guitar effects simulator because I don't use amps anymore, although someday I might rebuild the amp I built, right now it sits in the shed unused and unloved There are lots of things that simulators can do that are very hard to impossible with amps anyway . . . Bass I've always recorded direct with no effects, I think they used to do that back in the '60s too . . . but I really wish I had a standup . . . touch of compression, maybe 2-3dB, and bass is done.

Otherwise, it's microphones and acoustic instruments, that gets the job done.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

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.

 

[Farview]

If you look again you can see the word "Accurate" is absent from the OP post. Please stay on topic.

VP

But he does say:

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

The answer is no, at least not because of the medium. Digital can capture more dynamic range than analog, that's provable. Even CD digital can capture and play back higher frequencies than cassette. So what he is experiencing certainly isn't a lack of fidelity on the digital side of things.

Can one analog recording move more air than another digital recording, sure. But that has more to do with the decisions made by who ever mixed it than it does the recording medium. Comparing Pat Benatar to Nickelback doesn't tell you anything about the different mediums used. Even the RHCP example isn't that great because they weren't recorded at the same time, in the same place, by the same people (engineer, producer, etc...) So that isn't a great comparison either.