Why Analog?

[SteveM]

I wouldn't even bother opening it.

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by sweetbeats

One thing we haven't talked about is amplitude ceiling and how digital and analog mediums handle the "current" when it reaches that ceiling...herein lay vast differences between analog and digital...

Time for a nap.

OK lets talk about it.

Digital stays undistorted pretty well up to the 0 point and then just clips, much like an analog amp when it runs out of power rail voltage.

Analog tape more gradually enters distortion but eventually is just as badly distorted as digital. But analog tape overload can be a nice production effect if used wisely on some material.

But because digital has not the inherent noise of analog (any analog) recording means, you actually have much more headroom because you dont have to track nearly so hot to get above the added noise of analog.

Analog can only match this lack of noise with compander noise reduction circuitry which when well set up can be pretty transparent. But why resort to the complexities of NR when you have a recorder which doesnt even need it?

Besides, the common dbx NR pretty well negates the sometimes nice production effect of tape warmth because the non linear nature of the tape distortion (at higher levels) throws the dbx decoder into confusion.

If you want to use analog tape warmth you have to use either no NR (and live with the noise) or use Dolby which only tracks on the lower level stuff and leaves the high levels untouched.

Over to others.

Cheers Tim

[sweetbeats]

Maybe this will help to clarify my frustration with digital's "0 point": my primary instrument is percussion, and at least in my limited experience most percussive instruments have challenging transient peaks and analog (subjectively) handles them much more to my satisfaction than digital...unless I'm "printing" to digital using dynamics processing to try and manage those peaks (and if I were to shoot for average levels close to 0 the processing would have to be pretty aggressive which feels very limiting to me, no pun intended) I have to record well below 0 to avoid clipping and then I'm missing out on taking advantage of available bit depth and I'm closer to the noise floor of the rest of the system...tracking at 0 ~ +3 average levels compared to -10 is significant to me. I'm not trying to argue about what's better, I'm just bring an application issue to the table here that hasn't come up in this discussion that is a real-world issue for me in my neck of the woods.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

But why resort to the complexities of NR when you have a recorder which doesnt even need it?

That's the thing. Plenty of people have given you plenty of reasons for this preference .... yet you just don't want to hear them I guess.

[evm1024]

Let's do take a look point by point.

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

OK lets talk about it.

Digital stays undistorted pretty well up to the 0 point and then just clips, much like an analog amp when it runs out of power rail voltage.

I notice that you minimize digital clipping "just clips" and liken a 0dBFS signal to analogs soft clipping. Digital's hard clipping and in many cases unpredictable results at 0dBFS are "the same as in analog". NOT!

Please show us the waveforms and spectra of a +1dBFS digital system and an analog amp driven 1 dB past the supply rails limits.

Analog tape more gradually enters distortion but eventually is just as badly distorted as digital. But analog tape overload can be a nice production effect if used wisely on some material.

Some really key words here. "Gradually enters distortion" for analog. So as you overdrive analog it eventually distorts as BAD as digital does as soon as it hits 0dBFS. Ouch, can you say harsh. We need spectra. All distortions are not created equal as well. Not saying distortion is a good thing (Hah, fuzz box) but some distortion grates like a chalk board. Question for reader Digital or analog is like a chalk board? Oh, but let's skip over that.

Oh, one more thing overlooked. Digital has the least distortion at just under full scale. All bits are used to represent the signal. As the signal level get lower and lower, digital has fewer bits to work with and the quality of the reconstruction filters come more and more into play. Maximum distortion at minimum signal.

Analog tape on the other hand has minimum distortion at minimum signal. Read that again. It is only at high levels analog tape begins to distort significantly and because analog does not run out of bits at low levels we are not always driven to record at the maximum level. We get to pick our level without fear.

Simple math... at full scale digital CD have 16 bits. For every 6.02 dB down we lose a bit. This is why I would like to see (as a minimum) 24 bit floating point for a new standard. Then perhaps digital can live up to its potential Dan Lavry not withstanding.

But because digital has not the inherent noise of analog (any analog) recording means, you actually have much more headroom because you dont have to track nearly so hot to get above the added noise of analog.

Let's ignore that digital systems are analog systems with all the noise that goes with it up to the ADC and after the DAC....

This is so misleading and not just for Tim. This may be one of the major reasons for CD's harshness. A rethinking is required. Digital has no headroom. Digital is a top down recording scheme. Max signal, minimum distortion, most bits used. Back off a few bits, oh say 3, to get some headroom and you get -18 dBFS for "0 VU". Now you are playing back mapped into 13 bits - count on the reconstruction filters to predict how the analog output of your DAC should be. 2^13=8192

The point being is that you have to track hot in digital to get the full potential. And everyone does. 96 dB signal to noise ratio is math not reality.

Plus, when tracking hot in digital you can still exceed 0dBFS even when all your "numbers" are less that full scale. Reconstruction filters have overshoot as a requirement. Take a look here: http://www.cadenzarecording.com/pape...distortion.pdf

Analog can only match this lack of noise with compander noise reduction circuitry which when well set up can be pretty transparent. But why resort to the complexities of NR when you have a recorder which doesnt even need it?

Let's see complexity - companding or digital. Right Tim, digital is much less complex than a DBX compander.

Test - take a complex source (music) record it with the peaks 30 dB under the max (0dBFS and 0VU) on a digital and tape system. Now play it back with that 30 dB made up in the amp gain.

Besides, the common dbx NR pretty well negates the sometimes nice production effect of tape warmth because the non linear nature of the tape distortion (at higher levels) throws the dbx decoder into confusion.


If you want to use analog tape warmth you have to use either no NR (and live with the noise) or use Dolby which only tracks on the lower level stuff and leaves the high levels untouched.

I see that you understand some of the tradeoffs that are available to tape. But why cast this as a negative... unless you are biased?

Over to others.

Cheers Tim

So Tim, I've always wondered whats your agenda? What are you trying to prove? Why post and what results do you want to see?

Regards, Ethan

PS back to the question I asked. Have you thought about my comment "humans know what to do". Any thoughts on that?

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

....

(with)....digital..you actually have much more headroom ...Cheers Tim

oh boy,
it's just getting better and better ...

[Dr ZEE]

waveforms of.... "an analog amp driven 1 dB past the supply rails limits."
huh, Ethan, I've got some of those somewhere in my "archive", including videos. Those a beautiful

also, I don't like using term "supply rail" in that respect, but that is a detail that somewhat can be ignored, I guess...

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

waveforms of.... "an analog amp driven 1 dB past the supply rails limits."
huh, Ethan, I've got some of those somewhere in my "archive", including videos. Those a beautiful

also, I don't like using term "supply rail" in that respect, but that is a detail that somewhat can be ignored, I guess...

I completely agree with you here. I just kept it simple. Some analog devices clip at the supply rails and others at some lesser voltage. Whole analog systems clip somewhere less and soft clip at that.

Like I say I was not trying to be exhaustively precise in my use of words and rather left it up to the thoughtful reader to understand the limits of those words.

Regards, Ethan

Now if only the horse would drink....

[Dr ZEE]

"past the supply rails limits" is much better than "analog amp ... runs out of power rail voltage" heh heh...
Don't mean to pick on words, at all, it's just sometimes drives me nutS, especially when a statement is a full of passion and being presented as a ray of enlightenment pointed toward the darkest corners of The House of "Ignorance"
************
Choose your words carefully!, that's what True Kings do

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

I would have preferred: "Can't they all just get digital and leave all the good stuff for me?"

They've abandoned the tape decks. Now if we could just get them all to move on to digital mixing consoles.
We would be very wealthy people.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by evm1024

...if only the horse would drink....

Ethan? Have YOU "created" that (specific) phrase or is it borrowed?
I can't tell you how much I dig that one
Googled it and it took me straight back over here ...heh heh

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by SteveM

They've abandoned the tape decks....

Yeah, I know what you mean, but it's not 100% so, not even close.
Well, it's not a serious part of "discussion" though ...(did I just say "discussion" ??? )

Originally Posted by SteveM

....wealthy people...

Hey, Hey! Choose your words carefully, Spartan!

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Yeah, I know what you mean, but it's not 100% so, not even close.
Well, it's not a serious part of "discussion" though ...(did I just say "discussion" ??? )


Hey, Hey! Choose your words carefully, Spartan!

Well Mike, if it were 100% WE wouldn't have them either!

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Ethan? Have YOU "created" that (specific) phrase or is it borrowed?
I can't tell you how much I dig that one
Googled it and it took me straight back over here ...heh heh

The original phrase is quite old of course.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/y...-to-water.html

I guess I did originate this specific phrase "if only the horse would drink".


Regards, Ethan

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by SteveM

if it were 100% WE wouldn't have them either!

Huh! My math sucks. ...LOL
Good one!

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by evm1024

I guess I did originate this specific phrase "if only the horse would drink".


Regards, Ethan

RIGHT!!!! That's what I'm talking about ..."this specific one"
May I try my version, which is a bit (or a lot ) more "encoded", here:
"Molly said: "No."

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by sweetbeats

Maybe this will help to clarify my frustration with digital's "0 point": my primary instrument is percussion, and at least in my limited experience most percussive instruments have challenging transient peaks and analog (subjectively) handles them much more to my satisfaction than digital...unless I'm "printing" to digital using dynamics processing to try and manage those peaks (and if I were to shoot for average levels close to 0 the processing would have to be pretty aggressive which feels very limiting to me, no pun intended) I have to record well below 0 to avoid clipping and then I'm missing out on taking advantage of available bit depth and I'm closer to the noise floor of the rest of the system...tracking at 0 ~ +3 average levels compared to -10 is significant to me. I'm not trying to argue about what's better, I'm just bring an application issue to the table here that hasn't come up in this discussion that is a real-world issue for me in my neck of the woods.

]

Maybe analog tape handles the transients better for you because you like the way it modifies percussive sounds. Many people still do, including those with top digital recording gear. Earlier this year I serviced a 1/2" 8 track machine for a guy with a very well equipped home studio. He prefers to track his drum kit to analog tape.
At 24 bits ( today a common level for even home digital recording) the digital quantisation noise is well below the best analog converter noise and so is inaudible.
Again, no need to record as hot as with analog. But again if you prefer the hot analog tape sound with drums, you're in good company. Many do.

Cheers Tim

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

That's the thing. Plenty of people have given you plenty of reasons for this preference .... yet you just don't want to hear them I guess.

The point in my post you highlighted was about noise. I said, quite correctly, that analog tape adds significant noise unless you use NR.

Some people still use analog tape for all sorts of reasons, and yes, many of those reasons, some serious, some perhaps trivial, have been listed here.
I dont question that. Again, I was trying to correct misinformation about digital.

In any case, if your reason for still using analog tape is due to wrong information about digital, no one's going to come to your home and order you to stop using analog. It's a free country.

Cheers Tim

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

... trying to correct misinformation about digital.

Cheers Tim

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

... (with)....digital..you actually have much more headroom ...

Cheers Tim

Bravo! Bravo! Bravissiomo!

*******************

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

... Maybe analog tape handles the transients better for you because you like the way it modifies percussive sounds.

Cory (Sweetbeats) said what he said, grrrrrrrrr !!!!!
Here's what he said:
1. most percussive instruments have challenging transient peaks
2. analog (subjectively) handles transient peaks much more to my satisfaction than digital...
He is talking about "HANDLING transient peaks!!!!!!!"
There's no freaking "SOUND" per say past the microphone.
Acoustic Transient (as component of an acoustic sound) > MICROPHONE > Voltage Spike (as component of AC electrical signal).
Roughly speaking, In the "system" as a compnent of AC electrical signal (NOT the SOUND!) they (transient peaks, that is) prety much are nothing more and nothing less than voltage spikes, and they have to be dealt with - HANDLED that is. It has nothing to do with "modification of sound" by analog tape.

oh, boy....

[Dr ZEE]

BTW, the EAR dealing with transients all the time and does it very well. If it was not, then all you would hear from a low energy source - clicks and scratches and from a high enregy source you would not hear a thing, but rather feel needle sharp pain.

[Tim Gillett]

[QUOTE=evm1024;3248743]

Test - take a complex source (music) record it with the peaks 30 dB under the max (0dBFS and 0VU) on a digital and tape system. Now play it back with that 30 dB made up in the amp gain.

[QUOTE]

Ethan, I wont try and comment on all you said but since you are focussing in on real world results and only on signal to noise/distortion issues here, the above seems a good test as you say.

What is the standard of the analog recorder, the digital recorder?

For analog, what sort of tape, at what flux level for 0VU, which track width, which tape speed? NR or not? Which type of NR?

For digital, which bit rate? Which converters?

Cheers Tim