Does analog move more air. . . ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
well ....... strictly speaking it can't just be assumed that digital is the perfect reproduction of what the source was.
If that were true then the music produced by all D/A converters would sound the exact same and they don't.
Some converters sound much better than others.
I've even read of converters that were so poorly designed that they would reproduce wrong pitches!!! :eek:

So it's just not as cut and dried as people want it to be.
 
Tim Gillett said:
In the case of recording you get a much more faithful result by converting the analog signal to digital, recording that, playing it back and converting it back to analog. Yes it's more complicated than straight analog but whether the process is more complicated or not is not the point. It works better. It's truer. The result should be the end of the argument, and for the vast majority of users it is. But not for some down here...
Click to expand...

I know you are speaking of just the *recording* (digital conversion step inside the converter's electronics) but there are many arguments about this converter is better than that converter, and yeah, it may not be the actual *digital* conversion that imparts some flavor, and it's most likely the analog filtering...but still, when people judge a converter it's the whole package.
Mind you, I'm not one of the digital haters... :) ...I've settled into a very nice hybrid setup, and I don't really have a lot of bad things to say about digital, I just prefer the sound of tracking and mixing in analog, OTB...though the DAW absolutely kills for edits and comps.

But here's the thing...and this may be getting away from the more simplistic consideration of just the digital conversion step....for many folks who use digital it's MUCH more than just about a conversion step from analog. It's the use of a particular DAW, and lord knows, there have been many comments about one DAW having a better "audio engine" (aka digital algorithm process) than another DAW. It's also the use of dozens and dozens of digital plug-ins that each add or take away and have their own algorithm process (some bad some good). Plus, there's the summing and conversion back out to analog for listening, which is a bit different than the recording/tracking process...and again, not all DAWs and converters do that the same way.
So...when you talk about digital and say "Essentially, it neither adds nor takes away"...that is not a realistic view, though again, I know you are talking about just the *conversion step*, but it really can NOT be looked at apart from the rest of the converter's design or the rest of the digital processes most people use.

I look at digital in the same way as I would look at another microphone, or another preamp, or a different analog console. In the analog world, most every piece has some flavor to it...and IMO, digital is no different, and that's really my point, digital is not bad or good, no more than console A or console B....rather it's just another flavor, and yes, taken as a whole, digital processes DO impart flavors on the original sound when you get to the end result of your production.
Also, while for some it may be the case...for me, *accuracy* is not necessarily the main focus of recording. In most cases with any type of production regardless of format and medium used...the final result is rarely just an attempt at an accurate "capture" of what went down in the studio, and instead it's an adjusted and tuned *representation* and an attempt at a bigger picture...than just a documentation of the original.
Not much different than an impressionist painting would be, though photography has it's beauty too, but it's also a *conversion*...and that's what digital is a *conversion* from the original, and so is analog for that matter.
 
miroslav said:
So...when you talk about digital and say "Essentially, it neither adds nor takes away"...that is not a realistic view, though again, I know you are talking about just the *conversion step*, but it really can NOT be looked at apart from the rest of the converter's design or the rest of the digital processes most people use.

.
Click to expand...
^^^^ this ^^^^ since you can not get any sound without the conversion to analog at some point ...... you have to consider the entire process including the converters.
 
Victory Pete said:
I have a candle, okay so the air moves back and forth a little bit, big deal, But the reason we hear sound is not because of this tiny movement, it is the alternating change in air pressure. Yes I do know what I am talking about.

VP
Click to expand...

The big deal is that sound pressure is a movement of air. You said repeatedly that sound does not move air. I proved in a very simple experiment that it does. You had a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sound, just like you have many other fundamental misunderstandings about physics.

Ref: all of the threads where muttley totally embarassed you on mechanics. Or even your studio building thread! I am staying out of that one, but if you want some useful advise regarding why your TL is poor at LF, it's at least partially because some of your construction methods have created a resonant system. Ignore me if you like, but I don't have the same problem in my studio (pick a frequency and I will measure the TL outside my studio for you). This is because I listened to people that know what they are talking about, like Rod Gervais, before I had my room built.

So because you have these fundamental errors in your understanding but you refuse to acknowledge them, you post in an authoritative manner that misleads newbs who don't know better. That is the big deal.
 
mshilarious said:
The big deal is that sound pressure is a movement of air. You said repeatedly that sound does not move air. I proved in a very simple experiment that it does. You had a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sound, just like you have many other fundamental misunderstandings about physics.

Ref: all of the threads where muttley totally embarassed you on mechanics. Or even your studio building thread! I am staying out of that one, but if you want some useful advise regarding why your TL is poor at LF, it's at least partially because some of your construction methods have created a resonant system. Ignore me if you like, but I don't have the same problem in my studio (pick a frequency and I will measure the TL outside my studio for you). This is because I listened to people that know what they are talking about, like Rod Gervais, before I had my room built.

So because you have these fundamental errors in your understanding but you refuse to acknowledge them, you post in an authoritative manner that misleads newbs who don't know better. That is the big deal.
Click to expand...

There is no moving air in my ear when I am listening to music, period. You are so arrogantly wrong about my understanding of physics and other topics. You are belligerent, that is why you are constantly arguing. Muttley never "Embarrassed" my on anything, where is your "Master" now? You know nothing about my studio, its acoustics, construction, ergonomoics or otherwise. Your "Reprimanding" posts are just "Riddled"(not in a funny way) with pretentiousness and pompousness that I think many Newbies will see right through your facade of fallacy.
 
Victory Pete said:
There is no moving air in my ear when I am listening to music....
Click to expand...

VP....dude, you're wrong on this one.

While there certainly isn't a rush of air caused by sound like you get with wind...the fact is, air molecules are driven into a chain reaction with each air molecule bumping/moving into the next one...and that motion propagates the sound wave.

If air motion had nothing to do with it, you could have sound in a vacuum...but there is NO sound without air to move/propagate the sound wave.

The term "move air" is being taken too broadly...but yes, sound moves air.
Also, I think some folks are refering to how a speaker will push air when it is driven by loud signals, which is yet another thing.
 
Lt. Bob said:
well ....... strictly speaking it can't just be assumed that digital is the perfect reproduction of what the source was.
If that were true then the music produced by all D/A converters would sound the exact same and they don't.
Some converters sound much better than others.
I've even read of converters that were so poorly designed that they would reproduce wrong pitches!!! :eek:

So it's just not as cut and dried as people want it to be.
Click to expand...

Lt Bob,
Of course you're right that it depends on the converters which is only saying you get what you pay for. But these days, good converters have become so cheap and so tiny that it's not an issue anymore. Only a fool would put up with an inferior converter when there are excellent ones out there for (relatively) peanuts. In practice it is that cut and dried, unless the home recordist is a complete idiot. And that's the case not just because I want it to be (though I'm happy that it is) but because it's now a fact.

Regards Tim
 
miroslav said:
I know you are speaking of just the *recording* (digital conversion step inside the converter's electronics) but there are many arguments about this converter is better than that converter, and yeah, it may not be the actual *digital* conversion that imparts some flavor, and it's most likely the analog filtering...but still, when people judge a converter it's the whole package.
Mind you, I'm not one of the digital haters... :) ...I've settled into a very nice hybrid setup, and I don't really have a lot of bad things to say about digital, I just prefer the sound of tracking and mixing in analog, OTB...though the DAW absolutely kills for edits and comps.

But here's the thing...and this may be getting away from the more simplistic consideration of just the digital conversion step....for many folks who use digital it's MUCH more than just about a conversion step from analog. It's the use of a particular DAW, and lord knows, there have been many comments about one DAW having a better "audio engine" (aka digital algorithm process) than another DAW. It's also the use of dozens and dozens of digital plug-ins that each add or take away and have their own algorithm process (some bad some good). Plus, there's the summing and conversion back out to analog for listening, which is a bit different than the recording/tracking process...and again, not all DAWs and converters do that the same way.
So...when you talk about digital and say "Essentially, it neither adds nor takes away"...that is not a realistic view, though again, I know you are talking about just the *conversion step*, but it really can NOT be looked at apart from the rest of the converter's design or the rest of the digital processes most people use.

I look at digital in the same way as I would look at another microphone, or another preamp, or a different analog console. In the analog world, most every piece has some flavor to it...and IMO, digital is no different, and that's really my point, digital is not bad or good, no more than console A or console B....rather it's just another flavor, and yes, taken as a whole, digital processes DO impart flavors on the original sound when you get to the end result of your production.
Also, while for some it may be the case...for me, *accuracy* is not necessarily the main focus of recording. In most cases with any type of production regardless of format and medium used...the final result is rarely just an attempt at an accurate "capture" of what went down in the studio, and instead it's an adjusted and tuned *representation* and an attempt at a bigger picture...than just a documentation of the original.
Not much different than an impressionist painting would be, though photography has it's beauty too, but it's also a *conversion*...and that's what digital is a *conversion* from the original, and so is analog for that matter.
Click to expand...

I didnt mean "just the recording". I meant digital recording and playback. That should have been clear when I spoke of the steps of encoding and decoding still sounding more true than the best analog recording , even though digital encode and decode is a more complex process electronically.

You brought in variables of different DAW's and all the various FX and processes they use but that wasnt the initial assertion, which was that basic digital reproduction of audio "leaves something out" which is quite audible and that our only task is to speculate on what "that something" left out is. Essentially digital does not "leave something out" but retains everything. If you want to creatively "leave something out" or "add something" in post, you are free to do so.

You talk about "flavours" as a visual artist talks about palette of colours and shades. But the fact is a good, mid priced AD/DA converter adds virtually no flavour. The very best analog recorder always adds "flavour", though in careful hands it may not be audible.

Sure, strict "accuracy" is not necessarily the main focus of the recording. Did I say it was? But there are people here who by choice always track to analog tape regardless of the flavour they are wanting to achieve.

A recorder which adds no appreciable "flavour" is just doing its job well as a recorder. If you always want the same sorts of "flavours" to every recording you make, then perhaps analog tape is best for you. I would find that limiting from a creative point of view.

Tim
 
miroslav said:
VP....dude, you're wrong on this one.

While there certainly isn't a rush of air caused by sound like you get with wind...the fact is, air molecules are driven into a chain reaction with each air molecule bumping/moving into the next one...and that motion propagates the sound wave.

If air motion had nothing to do with it, you could have sound in a vacuum...but there is NO sound without air to move/propagate the sound wave.

The term "move air" is being taken too broadly...but yes, sound moves air.
Also, I think some folks are refering to how a speaker will push air when it is driven by loud signals, which is yet another thing.
Click to expand...

Sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
CrowsofFritz said:
In order for you to hear the sound, the sound has to travel through a medium. Are you listening to music underwater? I wouldn't think so. :D
Click to expand...

Of course it needs a medium, the sound pressure waves "propagate" through this medium. The medium stays where it is.
http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/sound-waves.html

Taken from the above link
"Note that air molecules do not actually travel from the loudspeaker to the ear (that would be wind). Each individual molecule only moves a small distance as it vibrates, but it causes the adjacent molecules to vibrate in a rippling effect all the way to the ear."


The molecules are vibrating back and forth, but it is a very small amount.



VP
 
Victory Pete said:
There is no moving air in my ear when I am listening to music, period.
Click to expand...

Find me an audiologist or physicist that agrees with that.

You know nothing about my studio, its acoustics, construction, ergonomoics or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Sure I do:

VP said:
Yes, they are carpet samples you can get from a carpet store.

The walls are 14" thick, I get almost 30db's of sound reduction, that is quite a bit. The window is 4 panes of 1/4" glass, I didnt want to get involved with angling the glass so I figured I would be safe with 4 panes.

It is hard to stop the bass frequencies from going through anything. I told him I was in the process of insulating and it should be improving soon. His wife said "it isn't working" as she handed me a pile of cash!
Click to expand...

OK, 30dB of TL is *terrible*, so I suspect you have measured that incorrectly. That's a stock interior uninsulated 4" stud wall TL.

See the table here under "partition type", with 14" decoupled walls you have >60dB *if* you built it correctly:

Sound transmission class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next, throwing extra panes at a problem is usually the wrong solution; two thick panes can be better than four thinner panes, but it also depends on the spacing of the panes. You would be better with two pairs of tightly spaced panes with a wider cavity between. If you have roughly equal spaced multiple panes, that's where you can create a resonant structure that makes TL worse at some frequency. From your photos they look equally spaced; that is suboptimal.

Carpet samples are not good for room treatment because they do not have a wide absorption bandwidth. You get a room that is dead at HF but still with significant peaks and nulls in the LF response. Also, it appears from the pictures you have oriented your mix position across the short rather than long axis of the room, which reduces the delay time of the reflection off the back wall to your mix position. That is suboptimal unless said wall has excellent absorption and diffusion characteristics . . which carpet doesn't. You control room looks very small; you'll need serious broadband absorption for a reasonable room response. I would recommend 4" thick rigid fiberglass panels across all corners, ceiling to floor and also ceiling to wall, with added panels spaced 4" off the wall to the left and right of your mix position and also on the back wall. If you find you need to brighten that a bit, you can use facing on some of the panels so you still get the LF absorption.

Insulation is a weak material for improving TL; you need to rely on a proper decoupling structure with *mass*, and lots of it, hanging on those studs to absorb the energy being transmitted by all of that moving air!

But of course you believe the air isn't moving, so you probably won't listen to any of this advice . . .
 
Tim Gillett said:
But the fact is a good, mid priced AD/DA converter adds virtually no flavour.
Click to expand...

There are many AD/DA convereters...and many good ones.
Yet they don't all sound the same.
Why is that?

The rest of my point was/is that you really can't just talk about the "conversion" process when talking about digital audio in most cases today. You need to talk about the entire process, so at the END of that process is what we really want to look at, and yes, various DAW audio engines and the variety of plug-in algorithms out there DO have different flavors.

So you are in fact adding something (or taking it away) by your choices in the digital process.

If you want to just look at it as a straight from mic to A/D to D/A to listener process...that would be different, but when is that the case...?
Again, this is not about any negative views WRT digital audio...just sayin' that it's simply another flavor in the overall production process. AFA which is more "accurate" an A/D converter or an analog tape deck...I would agree the most times the A/D would win, though that's simply looking at just one slice of the production process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top