Does analog move more air. . . ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Track Rat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have Archies masters? I'd be interested in hearing the story if so!

I have some original '60s & '70s masters, but nothing particularly noteworthy, although interesting.
 
lonewhitefly said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally no fault.
But interesting the 'come here' angle.
When I come 'here it's the HomeRecording forum and talk about audio, recording the arts, science and perceptions of it. In this case in point (and in general) I click on 'new posts.
This one began with some really non logical assumptions being tossed around.
Well now, it does happen to be in the Analog' section. (I even noticed about a page or two ago.
So anyway, who's saying a bit of what where exactly? :cool:

(Condolences BTW if you can't seem to make sweet wonderful juicy 'brass and/or music 'cause of digi ..
[/ tongue in cheek
 
Farview said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's the first, and it makes a lot of sense, if you consider the complex wave forms from acoustic instruments. However, I also noted the second theory, which, agreed, can be had with higher sample rates, and I think I posted something a while back about a study on that subject. However, 192kHz recordings aren't a commercial option at the moment.

It may be interesting to compare a strictly analog electronic music piece recorded direct in (not mic'd) on analog vs digital as AFAIK, subtractive synthesized waveforms (e.g. vintage Moog/ARP/Korg ) are not as complex (I could be wrong about that though.)
 
mixsit said:
Totally no fault.
But interesting the 'come here' angle.
When I come 'here it's the HomeRecording forum and talk about audio, recording the arts, science and perceptions of it. In this case in point (and in general) I click on 'new posts.
This one began with some really non logical assumptions being tossed around.
Well now, it does happen to be in the Analog' section. (I even noticed about a page or two ago.
So anyway, who's saying a bit of what where exactly? :cool:

(Condolences BTW if you can't seem to make sweet wonderful juicy 'brass and/or music 'cause of digi ..
[/ tongue in cheek
Click to expand...

This is the only forum I know of where the contributors are generally current and active users of tape machines ... many who do not use digital equipment at all.

It just so happens is also probably the most well-behaved and respectful bunch of folks in any forum I've ever seen as well.

But analog vs. digital threads really have no place here ... Most have already decided (for whatever reason) that we prefer analog. Implying (or clearly stating) that digital is superior is kind of like going to a Beach Boys forum and saying the Beatles were better ...

Try joining the Ampex mailing list and making some of the statements that were made in this thread ... the poster would be banned !
 
Blue Jinn said:
It's the first, and it makes a lot of sense, if you consider the complex wave forms from acoustic instruments.
Click to expand...

Stipulating that then the effect must either exist acoustically or electronically.

In acoustics, or rather psychoacoustics, that is called a subharmonic (or in organ music, a resultant). It would exist not only with interactions of ultrasound and audible band tones, but also between audible tones. In either case, it can be simply measured by producing different left/right playback tones and recording the resulting acoustic signal. My prior experiments have led me to believe it's primarily a psychoacoustic and not acoustic phenomenon, but I am interested in more study in this area.

One could thus argue that it's important to preserve ultrasound for playback for psychoacoustic reasons. That can be done either with high-quality magnetic tape recorders or with double-speed digital sample rates (note that the oft-cited ultrasound study used high-resolution digital sampling).

It cannot be done with cassette because as I showed above cassettes are -40dB at 20kHz and thus worse above. I do not know what the "native" frequency response of vinyl is; its ability to reproduce ultrasound is going to be affected by RIAA equalization, which is not strictly uniform with respect to ultrasound.

Also as I mentioned above strict attention must be given to microphone and tweeter selection to enable accurate playback of ultrasound. This would be a great boon to me personally, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

If the interaction occurs electronically, we have a term for that also: intermodulation distortion (IMD), which analog circuit designers try very hard to eliminate because it sounds like poo. Just like digital aliasing, it produces tones that are not harmonically related to the source signal. It could be that tape has inherently higher IMD than the analog electronics feeding it; I would like to see some experiments on that but I don't seem to have any takers yet. Maybe I will have to bribe them . . .

It may be interesting to compare a strictly analog electronic music piece recorded direct in (not mic'd) on analog vs digital as AFAIK, subtractive synthesized waveforms (e.g. vintage Moog/ARP/Korg ) are not as complex (I could be wrong about that though.)
Click to expand...

That's effectively what I am trying to do with test signals. The idea that electronic systems react differently to complex waves vs. component sine waves is erroneous; not going to get into Fourier here but it can be verified experimentally. It is not enough to use single sine waves, sometimes we like to use two or three or four of them together, but when the waves gets too complex it just gets harder to analyze. The great thing is once you do enough signal analysis you realize how a complex wave will interact with a system based on your understanding and measurement of that system using component sine waves. I used that above in my hypothesis for the candle experiment.
 
lonewhitefly said:
It just so happens is also probably the most well-behaved and respectful bunch of folks in any forum I've ever seen as well.
Click to expand...

I really just like to imagine that you're all old gentlemen in dramatic mustaches, smoking jackets and grandfather chairs, sitting around a heavy-draped Victorian room at "the club" discussing, with tremendous respect, the current issues of Edwardian England and the trials and tribulations of analog recording. . .
 
AtoDeficient said:
I really just like to imagine that you're all old gentlemen in dramatic mustaches, smoking jackets and grandfather chairs, sitting around a heavy-draped Victorian room at "the club" discussing, with tremendous respect, the current issues of Edwardian England and the trials and tribulations of analog recording. . .
Click to expand...

indeed.
 
gecko zzed said:
The temple of analog



But only to celebrate the virtues of analog.

Heretical digital talk is not tolerated.
Click to expand...

if only it were this straightforward ...

maybe you should try going to an online forum of Ron Paul supporters and provide them with the 'facts' and data that support why Rick Santorum is a better candidate.

It's called 'button-pushing'. It's just straight-up rude. We're talking about preferences and opinions. Most here made up their mind long ago and that's why this forum exists. I'm not going to go into the 'Computer Music' or 'Software' sections and start telling people why analog is better.
 
Last edited:
Thread according to LWF:

Q. "Does analog move more air?"

A. "Yes. Yes it does. It's way better."

[/end thread]

We still, at this point, don't know if analog "moves more air", because we don't have agreement on how to conduct the experiment. I have described a mechanism on how analog could have greater driver excursion--depending on the type of driver--based upon the lowpass function of the cassette playback medium, but nobody seemed too interested in that.

I've been doing a different interesting experiment based on BlueJinn's post though, I will post results when it is done.
 
mshilarious said:
Thread according to LWF:

Q. "Does analog move more air?"

A. "Yes. Yes it does. It's way better."

[/end thread]
Click to expand...

hmm ...

Since you're all about accuracy, my friend, perhaps you should go back to page one and read my response to the inital question:

lonewhitefly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't believe analog inherently moves more air than digital, nor do I believe it is relevant to analog being better than digital. But analog is certainly much better than digital.
 
Blue Jinn said:
It's the first, and it makes a lot of sense, if you consider the complex wave forms from acoustic instruments. However, I also noted the second theory, which, agreed, can be had with higher sample rates, and I think I posted something a while back about a study on that subject. However, 192kHz recordings aren't a commercial option at the moment.
Click to expand...
Like I said, if the ultrasound created the sub-harmonics in the space it was recorded in, those sub-harmonics would be captured by the mic and recorded, even if the ultrasound was not recorded. The same would go for ultrasound from different tracks being mixed together and then filtered out, as long as the interaction happened before the filtering, the sub-harmonics would still be recorded and played back.
 
This thread is almost like someone saying...

"When I turned on the lava lamp, the audio sounded much warmer and had a more 3D-quality than with the lamp off."

:D

The real funny thing is, I bet for a lot of folks, that little bit of intangible "vibe" WOULD make a difference, and I certainly don't think it's something to ignore.
I mean...if something makes you feel better or makes you THINK you feel better or that something sounds better...
...hey, it's good enough to go with IMHO! :cool:
 
lonewhitefly said:
hmm ...

I don't believe analog inherently moves more air than digital, nor do I believe it is relevant to analog being better than digital. But analog is certainly much better than digital.
Click to expand...

Aren't you interested in learning why? Because if we stop this thread now . . .
 
Farview said:
Like I said, if the ultrasound created the sub-harmonics in the space it was recorded in, those sub-harmonics would be captured by the mic and recorded, even if the ultrasound was not recorded. The same would go for ultrasound from different tracks being mixed together and then filtered out, as long as the interaction happened before the filtering, the sub-harmonics would still be recorded and played back.
Click to expand...

This assumes the microphone (and, indeed, the rest of the electronic chain) can process ultrasound frequencies. This isn't always true and would have to be checked in any experiment.

As an aside, I find it interesting that proponents of analogue are rather split between those who believe digital is inferior because it has too much HF information ("the cymbals sound too clear") and those who think it has too little ("there's nothing above 22,050 Hz").

Surely it can't be both!
 
Bobbsy said:
This assumes the microphone (and, indeed, the rest of the electronic chain) can process ultrasound frequencies. This isn't always true and would have to be checked in any experiment.

As an aside, I find it interesting that proponents of analogue are rather split between those who believe digital is inferior because it has too much HF information ("the cymbals sound too clear") and those who think it has too little ("there's nothing above 22,050 Hz").

Surely it can't be both!
Click to expand...

It can! Just this afternoon I was listening to a CD in the car with great tunes but not great production, very smiley EQ that sounded harsh which I countered with the car's tone controls, but tonight I restored the tone to flat and enjoyed that more! Ears are fickle!
 
Here is a last bit for tonight, this is a single crash hit (Zildjian 16" K Dark Thin) recorded with a 6mm capsule omni mic (fully capable of ultrasound, but not calibrated above 20kHz) at 24/96--tough to analyze, so I selected 31 of its harmonics from 36Hz to 30kHz (as high as my tone generator goes) and did a half-ass version of additive synthesis--not too bad, a real synth would have to add a shaped noise signal, but that is what makes it tough to analyze. I'll post that .wav up to my FTP tomorrow if anybody wants to play with it.
 

Attachments

  • crash.GIF
    crash.GIF
    50.4 KB · Views: 50
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top