Digital vs. Analog: Tell Us Something We Haven't Heard

[Beck]

For all the wordage I'm not seeing any technical arguments from digital advocates... only declarations of a religious nature.

I see attacks in the form of propaganda, resembling the 3rd grade level of political ads on TV. But they fall short of enlightening the reader. All we learn in the end is that so and so doesn’t like so and so and thinks he’s full of it.

If one’s goal is just to check in now and then with a lie repeated, well then I suppose you will have some success with newer members.

People that don’t understand the technology aren’t learning anything and people that do have a broad grasp of recording technology in general are bored to death (speaking personally).

In the three years I’ve participated in this particular forum absolutely no one arguing for the superiority of digital recording has actually presented technically sound, logical argumentation. Nothing has been said that I haven’t already heard 20 years ago. The arguments consist mostly of digital myths started and propagated by an industry that has everything riding on the universal acceptance of their wares.

So, I would like to see what people really know.

Putting old grudges and misunderstandings aside… what do you know, and would you care to share it with the forum for the enlightenment and benefit of all those here that share a love of music and recording?

I would like to see a thread that remains civil, while at the same time allowing for each person’s unique and colorful way of communicating.

Show us what you got.

Tim

[Farview]

In order to have a debate, you will have to define what constitutes 'better'.
As soon as you do that, there won't be much to say.

[ofajen]

Originally Posted by Beck

For all the wordage I'm not seeing any technical arguments from Tim G, MCI2424, et all... only declarations of a religious nature.

I see attacks in the form of propaganda, resembling the 3rd grade level of political ads on TV. But they fall short of enlightening the reader. All we learn in the end is that so and so doesn’t like so and so and thinks he’s full of it.

Putting old grudges and misunderstandings aside… what do you know, and would you care to share it with the forum for the enlightenment and benefit of all those here that share a love of music and recording?

No, I will not engage in such a discussion. For one thing, what each of us thinks about these issues, at least to me, isn't very important. More important is whether we accomplish what we want with the gear we use.

Honestly, and purely from my perspective, of course, the declarations of a religious nature, attacks and propaganda that I noticed most came from you, Tim B, and from Dr. Zee, though the quasi-religious attachment to a preference for analog tape gear is commonplace on this list, as we should well expect, and I can respect that. I feel no freedom whatsoever to say what I think in this forum on this kind of issue without inevitably having my ideas rejected and ridiculed. Don't worry, I don't lose sleep over that. After all, it is "Analog Only" and if folks want to come here and share their passion and preference for analog gear, I'm all for it.

But, if I said what I really thought, I would anticipate, based upon past comments, that you would ridicule and dismiss what I have to suggest with even less acknowledgement or serious consideration than the previous times when I've offered ideas for discussion. That's why I don't post much on such threads and have no plans to do so in the future. So, I'll keep my silly notions and lack of understanding to myself and we'll all be happier.

Cheers,

Otto

[FALKEN]

Man I am trying to get some help fixing my machine. I even posted pictures. My threads keep dying. I even try to help answer other peoples questions when I can. I don't know what I said at what point but it seems nobody wants to help me. I'm sorry you're bored and feel like drudging up this debate for like the millionth time. if you're bored maybe you can help me with my relays and caps?

[Beck]

Originally Posted by ofajen

No, I will not engage in such a discussion. For one thing, what each of us thinks about these issues, at least to me, isn't very important. More important is whether we accomplish what we want with the gear we use.

Honestly, and purely from my perspective, of course, the declarations of a religious nature, attacks and propaganda that I noticed most came from you, Tim B, and from Dr. Zee, though the quasi-religious attachment to a preference for analog tape gear is commonplace on this list, as we should well expect, and I can respect that. I feel no freedom whatsoever to say what I think in this forum on this kind of issue without inevitably having my ideas rejected and ridiculed. Don't worry, I don't lose sleep over that. After all, it is "Analog Only" and if folks want to come here and share their passion and preference for analog gear, I'm all for it.

But, if I said what I really thought, I would anticipate, based upon past comments, that you would ridicule and dismiss what I have to suggest with even less acknowledgement or serious consideration than the previous times when I've offered ideas for discussion. That's why I don't post much on such threads and have no plans to do so in the future. So, I'll keep my silly notions and lack of understanding to myself and we'll all be happier.

Cheers,

Otto

This thread is here to allow members to skip the personal gripes and get to the technical meat of the subject. It’s not that we won’t continue to have personal conflicts, but I would like to see a free exchange of real information we can use.

Your argument may be seen as weak, and you may be called on it.

You may not like my perspective, but my opinions on the subject are based on my own real experience, not some religious fad. I went back to analog with no social influence from anyone, long before this forum existed.

As a genealogist and social science major I hold myself to a high standard of accuracy when it comes to survey methods and references. I of all people have no interest whatsoever in what “the majority” is doing. I follow no one… I never have in any area of life.

I provide much more than mere opinion here. I only ask those that insist on frequenting an analog forum to provoke debate would do the same.

I don’t blame you for feeling put out after coming here with your best shot only to learn that what you have said is considered by myself and others to be nothing more than urban legend. It is you that must give and take… be willing to allow others to speak freely about your contributions to the forum. It will be critiqued and may even be dismissed as simplistic and uninformed. You should then be prepared to defend it, while demonstrating a depth of understanding and using sound reasoning.

Sure, being human, we can’t help but react when we get our toes stepped on. So people should present sound argumentation or nothing at all. And I don’t mean present an opinion we all agree with; I mean present evidence with resources other than rumor and anecdotes to back it up.

There are some that have no interest in this debate at any level. That’s fine. However, for those that swoop down here to stir the debate, time and time again, it’s time to put up or shut up.

The members of this forum didn’t start the digital vs. analog debate that has been raging since long before I was a member. Digital missionaries just can’t seem to stay away. They started the debate, but they have yet to make a case.

Yeah, this is an analog forum. IMO, the onus is on the hecklers to support their attacks with substance. Staements like "you're an idiot" and "you don't know what you're talking about" have no substance.

You won't be engaging me in debate as I am mostly sitting this one out. I know what I know... I want to see what others know.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

Man I am trying to get some help fixing my machine. I even posted pictures. My threads keep dying. I even try to help answer other peoples questions when I can. I don't know what I said at what point but it seems nobody wants to help me. I'm sorry you're bored and feel like drudging up this debate for like the millionth time. if you're bored maybe you can help me with my relays and caps?

No my friend, I'm not bored in general with the forum. I'm just bored with the level of the analog vs. digital debate, as I've heard it all for decades now. This thread is in response to the fact that the debate continues to crop up in other threads whether we want it to or not.

I want to see those that insist we don’t know what we’re talking about demonstrate that they do know what they’re talking about. I’m interested if given a clearing-house thread for what people really know, if anyone can rephrase, revise, or otherwise manage to rise above the heat to shed some light.

The debate continues without progress in several other threads… as usual. This thread simply has a title and a purpose.

I thought we had the relay thing solved. If not you should bump that thread again.

[Dr ZEE]

Tim Beck! Remember what I've said about spit in your face at the end? Yeah, Speaking of real life experiences and getting bored. huh.
carry on.
***************
p.s. based on real life experience coming from being involved in A vs. D "debates" I've concluded that for some "participants" there is no reason. A statement, a thought, an idea, a conclusion, a fact that is based on your personal experience does not have any weight for them nor any intellectual value if it does not confirm their gear-shopping-catalog mentality or does not match a line in a ProSound Equipment Review Publication.
Respect? What's respect? Forget about it.
So, I say: give them what they ask for - The WAR , that is.
/WAR!

[fraserhutch]

I just do not care what you think, just as you do not care what I think, and I find this religious war an incredible waste of time and energy. So that's why I am not entering the debate.

I have to wonder what your agenda is. You seem to intentionally dredge up this debate periodically.

[RawDepth]

I too, tend to not believe questionable things until I have seen reliable evidence. For quite some time I wasn't really leaning toward either one, (digital or analog,) as being better, but instead I was undecided due to lack of understanding. And as you have pointed out, I also found that most of the debates here seemed to just go in circles.

I decided one day to conduct my own experiment, albeit I didn't have the best equipment in the world to work with. I set up a method of A/B'ing a recorded track to compare digital to analog in a way that was as fair and unbiased as I could possibly provide.

To the best of my knowledge, the weight of the analog argument seems to be mostly about the leniency and warmth of EQing. (Although much ado has also been made about the quality of effects, dynamic range, attack response, and even tape saturation, to name only a few.) I wanted to stick primary with EQ in the interest of my own basic comprehension. Perhaps I will experiment with those other qualities another time.

I wanted to compare various EQ settings made on a digital mixer to those made on an analog mixer. I loaded up a vocal track in the computer DAW and I created two independent signal paths. Path 1 routed the signal from the DAW multitrack, through the software mixer, out to a DAC, then to control room monitors. Path 2 routed the signal from the same DAW multitrack, (bypassing the software mixer,) out to a DAC, through an analog mixer, then to control room monitors. Because each path had its own digital output from the DAW to the DAC's, I was able to A/B them using my soundcard routing tool.

I set both the software mixer and analog mixer to 100% normal/flat. I looked up the frequency centers and Q width for the analog mixer EQ section, (since it was fixed.) I then set the digital mixer EQ centers and Q width to match as closely as possible. I do realize that if the EQ filter types differed between the two mixers, it may not be a fair contest but, I wanted to keep matters as elementary as possible. In other words, I didn't want to write a god-damn thesis on it, I simply wanted to discover the most general differences between digital and analog for my own satisfaction.

I first ran an A/B check on the vocal track with both mixers flat to determine any differences. The difference was so minute that I could not discern whether there was a real difference or whether I was imagining one. After about two or three dozen comparisons, I decided they were close enough for me. I proceeded with the testing.

I made a 3dB boost on the low EQ knob, (80Hz) on both mixers and A/B'ed for a close listen. They were so identical there was nothing to report. I boosted it 3dB higher and compared again. Other than the meters on the digital mixer starting to show greater strength than the analog, they were still pretty close. It wasn't until I pushed them to +9 and beyond that I stated to hear slightly more distortion in the digital version.

I did the same kind of comparisons with the Lo-Mid (250), Hi-Mid (3K), and Hi (12K) frequencies. In all cases, the digital mixer distorted well before the analog did. The digital was quicker and more apt to turn harsh and ugly.

As previously declared by the Analog Community, I convinced myself that the analog mixer was indeed more forgiving, elastic, and perhaps kinder to the recorded track.

This doesn't necessarily prove that analog is better. It may serve to ease the task of finding that sweet spot when EQing some tracks. But on the other hand, my digital mixer has more flexibility to change center frequencies, Q, and maybe even filter type. (A better analog mixer could even up that score too.) I also find the digital DAW more productive for things like editing, browsing through effects plugins, or comparing punch-in takes.

I hope this cleared it up. (Clear as mud, right?)

I like both for different reasons. I use both for different reasons. They are both better for different reasons.

RawDepth

[Beck]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

I have to wonder what your agenda is. You seem to intentionally dredge up this debate periodically.

As I said, we analog advocates are on the defensive even in our own forum... we aren't dredging it up. This all started by members here answering attacks in the typical style of HR.com. I observed this before I even had an account in 2003. So, it's quite the opposite of what you say. And the issue hasn’t gone away… it’s spread in bits and pieces in other threads.

I’m not one to stick my head in the sand and pretend something doesn’t exists. The debate exists whether it has its own thread and title or not.

My agenda is simple... the usual trolls and hecklers will have nothing to offer in a forum with these parameters because they have no technical background.

Two things may happen... both of them being good.

1) The issue will die once and for all and we live happily ever after
2) We will hear some new voices and learn something… preferably on the level of those by evm1024

[FALKEN]

what trolls and hecklers are you referring to? I haven't noticed any? I check the board at least once a day and rarely let a thread slip by. I just dont know what you mean? by the way I bumped my thread a couple times in the last few days. its like the fifth one down.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Farview

In order to have a debate, you will have to define what constitutes 'better'.
As soon as you do that, there won't be much to say.

True, but I'm not even looking for which is "better" just voices of experience and wisdom... voices from people other than those that come here as digital missionaries, only to have to learn from me or another member of the analog forum how A/D converters work, since they didn't even know that much. How ironic is that?

[Beck]

Good info by RawDepth, post #9.

[cjacek]

Definitely an excellent contribution by RawDepth .... However, I personally do not think anymore that it's possible to make accurate A/B'ing without having original source signals at hand, which also means a non-digitized analog tape, vinyl, cassette etc .... When an analog signal is digitized, it is basically sampled and broken down into many small fragments, for the lack of a better term. Stuff basically dissappears from the original analog recording when it is transferred / recorded to digital. More or less so depending on the type of digital technology .. but no matter what it is, digital, by its very nature, captures signals very much unlike analog and in a non-linear fashion.

Speaking strictly from personal experience, whenever I dubbed my vinyl and analog tapes to CD and even DVD, I felt that although it seemed all the sounds were faithfully captured by the digital, I could have sworn that the "life", so apparent in my analog media, went out the window when listening back to the CD and DVD dubs. This does not surprise me anymore, especially that I now know how digital works at capturing signals.

I then tried something, which could be construed by many as pretty silly ... I dubbed an LP to a typical, good cassette recorder and did the very same to CD and DVD. It was easily apparent that the CD and DVD had a superior dynamic range, frequency response etc ....... HOWEVER, I'd be damned if the cassette didn't capture the "soul" of the LP better than the digital media.

As I mentioned before, in previous posts, that there's more to this than S/N ratio and 20 - 20,000 freq respose .. much more .... Analog works for me, as a sound source and because of its linearity, it doesn't throw anything away ... and I can hear the difference. There is soul in analog and there is less of it in digital. My 2 cents worth .....

Btw, I had not grown up with analog, far from it... and it is just fairly recently that I strayed away from digital music, started the transformation back in 1999 / 2000.

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by RawDepth

I too, tend to not believe questionable things until I have seen reliable evidence. For quite some time I wasn't really leaning toward either one, (digital or analog,) as being better, but instead I was undecided due to lack of understanding. And as you have pointed out, I also found that most of the debates here seemed to just go in circles.

I decided one day to conduct my own experiment, albeit I didn't have the best equipment in the world to work with. I set up a method of A/B'ing a recorded track to compare digital to analog in a way that was as fair and unbiased as I could possibly provide.

To the best of my knowledge, the weight of the analog argument seems to be mostly about the leniency and warmth of EQing. (Although much ado has also been made about the quality of effects, dynamic range, attack response, and even tape saturation, to name only a few.) I wanted to stick primary with EQ in the interest of my own basic comprehension. Perhaps I will experiment with those other qualities another time.

I wanted to compare various EQ settings made on a digital mixer to those made on an analog mixer. I loaded up a vocal track in the computer DAW and I created two independent signal paths. Path 1 routed the signal from the DAW multitrack, through the software mixer, out to a DAC, then to control room monitors. Path 2 routed the signal from the same DAW multitrack, (bypassing the software mixer,) out to a DAC, through an analog mixer, then to control room monitors. Because each path had its own digital output from the DAW to the DAC's, I was able to A/B them using my soundcard routing tool.

I set both the software mixer and analog mixer to 100% normal/flat. I looked up the frequency centers and Q width for the analog mixer EQ section, (since it was fixed.) I then set the digital mixer EQ centers and Q width to match as closely as possible. I do realize that if the EQ filter types differed between the two mixers, it may not be a fair contest but, I wanted to keep matters as elementary as possible. In other words, I didn't want to write a god-damn thesis on it, I simply wanted to discover the most general differences between digital and analog for my own satisfaction.

I first ran an A/B check on the vocal track with both mixers flat to determine any differences. The difference was so minute that I could not discern whether there was a real difference or whether I was imagining one. After about two or three dozen comparisons, I decided they were close enough for me. I proceeded with the testing.

I made a 3dB boost on the low EQ knob, (80Hz) on both mixers and A/B'ed for a close listen. They were so identical there was nothing to report. I boosted it 3dB higher and compared again. Other than the meters on the digital mixer starting to show greater strength than the analog, they were still pretty close. It wasn't until I pushed them to +9 and beyond that I stated to hear slightly more distortion in the digital version.

I did the same kind of comparisons with the Lo-Mid (250), Hi-Mid (3K), and Hi (12K) frequencies. In all cases, the digital mixer distorted well before the analog did. The digital was quicker and more apt to turn harsh and ugly.

As previously declared by the Analog Community, I convinced myself that the analog mixer was indeed more forgiving, elastic, and perhaps kinder to the recorded track.

This doesn't necessarily prove that analog is better. It may serve to ease the task of finding that sweet spot when EQing some tracks. But on the other hand, my digital mixer has more flexibility to change center frequencies, Q, and maybe even filter type. (A better analog mixer could even up that score too.) I also find the digital DAW more productive for things like editing, browsing through effects plugins, or comparing punch-in takes.

I hope this cleared it up. (Clear as mud, right?)

I like both for different reasons. I use both for different reasons. They are both better for different reasons.

RawDepth

Raw Depth, do you know what clipping is? It happens in analog amps and mixers and in digital files. You need to set your test up so that neither system clips at any point, right through their signal chains, for the entire duration of your test. Otherwise when you do your eq boost test, if one system clips it will sound harsh while the other will sound fine.

Your saying that one sounded harsh before the other when you boosted an eq setting sounds very much like clipping. If the analog had clipped earlier it would have been the harsh one. Otherwise why should the harshness have only happened when boosting the signal?

I've spent my life working mainly in analog audio, mostly on the equipment side, and avoiding clipping is just part of the work. But the same applies to digital, and now even more so if you dont have the forgiving soft limiting of analog tape to make you sometimes look better than you really are.


I'd be interested to hear the results if you do your test again, this time starting at lower overall levels to avoid any chance of overload. If you are expecting to boost any portion of the spectrum by say 10db you must factor that into the baseline level by reducing it at least 10db below its overload point.

In my digital recording, if I need to boost a frequency in a file I often do a "get peak level" search to see how much digital headroom I have. If there's not enough, I reduce the level of the whole file so I have plently of room for eq boost.

Cheers Tim G

[Dr ZEE]

on the subject of "what constitutes 'better' ". That's easy. The Better is what a recording artist chooses out of two or few experienced options.
How is it being accomplished?
Post No.9 is a good example. That's how.

I decided one day to conduct my own experiment...

That is what recording artists do all the time (both: knowingly and unknowingly).
Thumb Up to RawDepth.
just one note:

...albeit I didn't have the best equipment in the world to work with.

And neither anyone in the world does (many think they do, though ).
Also for a recording artist - the best equipment is what he/she got.
*********
p.s.

what ... agenda is

Agenda is - KILL'EM ALL!

/WAR

[the cool one]

Digital becomes analog when it leaves the speakers.

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by the cool one

Digital becomes analog when it leaves the speakers.

Actually when it leaves the D/A converters

[RawDepth]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

Raw Depth, do you know what clipping is? It happens in analog amps and mixers and in digital files. You need to set your test up so that neither system clips at any point, right through their signal chains, for the entire duration of your test. Otherwise when you do your eq boost test, if one system clips it will sound harsh while the other will sound fine.

Your saying that one sounded harsh before the other when you boosted an eq setting sounds very much like clipping. If the analog had clipped earlier it would have been the harsh one. Otherwise why should the harshness have only happened when boosting the signal?

I've spent my life working mainly in analog audio, mostly on the equipment side, and avoiding clipping is just part of the work. But the same applies to digital, and now even more so if you dont have the forgiving soft limiting of analog tape to make you sometimes look better than you really are.


I'd be interested to hear the results if you do your test again, this time starting at lower overall levels to avoid any chance of overload. If you are expecting to boost any portion of the spectrum by say 10db you must factor that into the baseline level by reducing it at least 10db below its overload point.

In my digital recording, if I need to boost a frequency in a file I often do a "get peak level" search to see how much digital headroom I have. If there's not enough, I reduce the level of the whole file so I have plently of room for eq boost.

Cheers Tim G

Oh yes, I am well aware of what clipping is. I too have been in the live PA business for over twenty years. I have done both FOH and monitor world many many times. One of the hardest lessons to learn is about proper gain structure. Some guys never learn it.

I do understand your point but, I don’t know if it is necessary. I had all faders on unity. Are you saying one mixer had an advantage over the other? And besides, wasn’t that exactly the whole point? My experiment only showed that one of the mixers had more apparent headroom before audible clipping occurred. Perhaps the analog circuitry provided some kind of absorption or cushion to mask it. I don’t know, but if it did, isn’t that a good thing?

As a side bar note:
I am no expert at recording but, if you find you need to boost any frequency by more than 10db, shouldn’t that be a red flag that poor choices were made during tracking? I hope it never comes to that.

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by the cool one

Digital becomes analog when it leaves the speakers.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but whatever was put into digital, in the first place, through A/D converters, goes through a series of transformations (I call it degredation) and when pumped out, through D/A converters, it still consists of the same. That it comes out as Analog is only a means for us to hear the original but digitally transformed signal. You're still listening to a series of "snapshots" of the original linear analog signal.

I truly believe that it's the stuff that is left out, out of non-linear recordings, that is responsible for the life & soul of analog only pressings. Digital, to me, is just a sketch, an approximation. It's utilitarian at best.

Yes, tape distortion, saturation and all names associated with the "tape sound" or "analog sound" are nice BUT I truly believe these are but tips of the iceberg and not the full reason why Analog sounds so convincing to many of us Analog Only folks.

[Tim Gillett]

Daniel,
It's fine to talk about your listening experience but people have their own experience of listening too.
Millions upon millions of people right across the globe have happily embraced CD audio for decades, listening to music and speech from every genre of music, from hip hop to classical baroque and everything in between. THEY dont feel the life and soul of their favourite music has been mutilated by even CD audio, which is admittedly a compromise audio format.
Then experienced audio people debate about the sonic differences betwen 44.1 and higher sampling rates but the fact they debate it suggests they debate about small differences. They dont discuss whether CD audio removes "the life and soul of the music", as you say.
I respectfully tried to discuss with you the technical and conceptual issues which you raised in the other thread but you didnt even acknowledge my post. What am I supposed to make of that?

To give you the benefit of the doubt I can only think you have had a bad experience of dubbing analog to digital, probably due to poor equipment or lack of understanding how to use it. It's easy to go out and buy a quality music CD but harder to make a good A/D conversion oneself although I hardly think it's desperately complex either. Countless home recordists as well as seasoned professionals at all levels simply dont have the problems you seem to have had with digital audio's sonic qualities.
What sort of digital recording equipment were you using? The soundcard, the software. What did you play it back through? Did you have adequate help in setting up the gear?
Your vagueness in describing "the difference" doesnt help either. Phrases like "the life and soul of the music" give no clue. Was there background noise, was there distortion, of the highs, mids, lows, lacking highs, lacking lows, poor in stereo image, etc etc. Try to be specific.

My experience at first was disastrous because I used the existing cheap soundcard in a PC and the recordings were crap. Only some years ago when I went to a customer's home studio with decent digital gear did I hear the real thing. I listened to the digital playback of an analog tape source and there was no difference I could pick and I've been listening critically to music and audio for many many years.
I've spent the intervening years transferring a great amount of old analog tape recordings, for myself and others, to digital. I use good gear, know how to use it, and the results are fine. There just isnt an issue. How could your experience be so radically counter to that of most people in the world, whether consumers, audio pro's or home recordists? That is the question I ask myself and maybe the question you might also ask yourself.

regards, Tim G

[Dr ZEE]

Digital becomes analog when it leaves the speakers.

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

Actually when it leaves the D/A converters

Actually nothing becomes anything neither when "it" enters what ever, nor when "it" exits what ever. Entering and exiting also are just words. Nothing "enters" (arrives to) anything , nor anything "exits" (leaves) anything.
Speaking of reality, that is.
We call it "digital", while in reality all it is - a "f*ked up analog system" which was developed for and has found its good way into audio recording and, consequentially, - music recording/production and distribution and then took over (all for a "good" reason, of course).

/WAR (the lost one, that is )

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

Millions upon millions of people right across the globe have happily embraced CD audio for decades, listening to music and speech from every genre of music, from hip hop to classical baroque and everything in between.

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

THEY dont feel the life .Tim G

BOTH statements above are 100% true!

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by RawDepth

Oh yes, I am well aware of what clipping is. I too have been in the live PA business for over twenty years. I have done both FOH and monitor world many many times. One of the hardest lessons to learn is about proper gain structure. Some guys never learn it.

I do understand your point but, I don’t know if it is necessary. I had all faders on unity. Are you saying one mixer had an advantage over the other? And besides, wasn’t that exactly the whole point? My experiment only showed that one of the mixers had more apparent headroom before audible clipping occurred. Perhaps the analog circuitry provided some kind of absorption or cushion to mask it. I don’t know, but if it did, isn’t that a good thing?

As a side bar note:
I am no expert at recording but, if you find you need to boost any frequency by more than 10db, shouldn’t that be a red flag that poor choices were made during tracking? I hope it never comes to that.

No signal chain, or part of the chain, no matter what it is, should be pushed beyond its design limits, unless you are doing it deliberately for the effect. Not all gear clips at the same point. Generally the better the gear the less likely to clip but of course that's only one part of a good unit's specification. There's no point in having it clip 10db higher than the other links in the chain because clipping is clipping. The weakest link does the damage. Usually one tries to fix that one weak link so all links in the chain are matched.

Re your last point, yes I could wish it never comes to that but it often does, at least in my work. Much of my work these days is transferring, as carefully as I can, old analog tape recordings to digits. The recordings can be up to 50 years old, done on poor gear, by people who often didnt have a clue. Eq is often the last resort to restore, hardly hi fi sound, that's impossible, but some semblance of intelligibility to disastrously bad audio. eq is the standard first port of call for with these types of low grade recordings. One is looking to get a reasonable balance betwen the various frequencies so one part doesnt overwhelm the other. Especially crucial for speech intenlligibility.
Sometimes more than 10db eq is needed.
Much of the time, one goes for cutting the too loud freq's, not boosting the weak as it avoids the risk of digital clipping. But the same principle has applied in analog for decades too. Nothing new there.

Cheers Tim G

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

It's fine to talk about your listening experience but people have their own experience of listening too.

..and I'm not trying to take that away from them. Just commenting on my own experience.

Millions upon millions of people right across the globe have happily embraced CD audio for decades, listening to music and speech from every genre of music, from hip hop to classical baroque and everything in between. THEY dont feel the life and soul of their favourite music has been mutilated by even CD audio, which is admittedly a compromise audio format.
Then experienced audio people debate about the sonic differences betwen 44.1 and higher sampling rates but the fact they debate it suggests they debate about small differences. They dont discuss whether CD audio removes "the life and soul of the music", as you say.

Too many variables here. Many have not even heard good analog reproduction like that of vinyl and tape and yet many more "consumers" just bought the lie that the CD was / is, including myself. Others have embraced the CD format for completely other reasons. But to say that if a majority buys or embraces a certain technology, that it must be good, is silly. I don't place too much faith in consumers. Most drink from the same water hole.

I respectfully tried to discuss with you the technical and conceptual issues which you raised in the other thread but you didnt even acknowledge my post. What am I supposed to make of that?

If you're talking about the Bob Dylan posts, then I did answer you. Were you not satisfied with my response ?

To give you the benefit of the doubt I can only think you have had a bad experience of dubbing analog to digital, probably due to poor equipment or lack of understanding how to use it. It's easy to go out and buy a quality music CD but harder to make a good A/D conversion oneself although I hardly think it's desperately complex either.

I think I'm fine.

Countless home recordists as well as seasoned professionals at all levels simply dont have the problems you seem to have had with digital audio's sonic qualities.

The same can be said of the "countless" who DO have a problem with digital.

What sort of digital recording equipment were you using? The soundcard, the software. What did you play it back through? Did you have adequate help in setting up the gear?

"Adequate help ?" ... hmm .... I think I manage fine. Thanks.

Your vagueness in describing "the difference" doesnt help either. Phrases like "the life and soul of the music" give no clue. Was there background noise, was there distortion, of the highs, mids, lows, lacking highs, lacking lows, poor in stereo image, etc etc. Try to be specific.

I can't be specific because I don't know what "specific" objects are missing when converted into digital but fact is that digital does toss out info, very much unlike analog. Can it be the frequencies which we cannot consciously hear or even detect by our gadgets that are responsible for the "life", that analog captures, yet we cannot hear but rather feel it ? I don't know but I do know the experience is different from digital to analog.

My experience at first was disastrous because I used the existing cheap soundcard in a PC and the recordings were crap. Only some years ago when I went to a customer's home studio with decent digital gear did I hear the real thing. I listened to the digital playback of an analog tape source and there was no difference I could pick and I've been listening critically to music and audio for many many years.

No doubt better gear makes a difference but I can't comment as to why your perception is different to mine and others on this board.

I've spent the intervening years transferring a great amount of old analog tape recordings, for myself and others, to digital. I use good gear, know how to use it, and the results are fine. There just isnt an issue. How could your experience be so radically counter to that of most people in the world, whether consumers, audio pro's or home recordists? That is the question I ask myself and maybe the question you might also ask yourself.

I don't think my experience is radically counter or unique. There are countless others, from every walk of life who prefer analog and even more so, leaving digital to embrace analog.