Does analog move more air. . . ?

[lonewhitefly]

I did. . . And then I gave up when it all went downhill. . . These days I'm just one of several breaks from the intensity and animosity that has more or less dominated this thread. . . This thread was, I think, my second post. . . It's quite a place you have here. . .

Don't worry, this is normally one of the most civil and respectful forums out there.

I apologize if I contributed to any perceived negativity ...

But if there's one thing most people in this section of the forum take seriously, it's the viability of the Analog format.

I'm quite used to these types of discussions taking place on other forums, but it seems kind of disrespectful for people who never post in this forum to post negative anti-tape comments to people who primarily use tape. Trust me, we've all heard it before.

I felt it was necessary to respond to some of these comments.

 

[mdainsd]

Yeah. For the most part its been debate, and I learned a thing or two along the way.

I agree also that it is disagreeable for people who never post here to wander into a sub-forum clearly labeled as "Analog only" and offer disparaging remarks to the regulars of said forum. Go back to your own forums and give us the same courtesy we give you.

 

[AtoDeficient]

I somewhat expected the debate, and even said as much in my original post. . People can be passionate about what's important to them. That's perfectly understandable. . . I keep my sense of humor, and take no offense. . . It's all good. . . But I DO think there should be a seperate "debate thread". . . Then the questions could be answered, and the A vs. D debate would have its own place, but maybe some questions will always turn into a debate anyway, i suppose. . .

 

[Victory Pete]

Test equipment doesn't have to be digital. On an earlier thread on this topic we had an EE state that he had both analog and digital test equipment; each had its strengths but in the end they pretty much did the same thing. Funny how nobody challenged him after that, but they certainly did before.

What do you have to say about the Blackmer stuff I posted? That was quite interesting, later on the page they describe how the same signal processing can be accomplished with a fully parametric and fully analog circuit. I think somebody may have built something like that . . .

Anyway, digital has not won at this point because nobody has bothered to take a few simple measurements of their tape recorders. So, I'll stay here until somebody gets off their duff.

My Analog Test Equipment make me feel more alive!

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

Don't worry, this is normally one of the most civil and respectful forums out there.

I apologize if I contributed to any perceived negativity ...

But if there's one thing most people in this section of the forum take seriously, it's the viability of the Analog format.

I'm quite used to these types of discussions taking place on other forums, but it seems kind of disrespectful for people who never post in this forum to post negative anti-tape comments to people who primarily use tape. Trust me, we've all heard it before.

I felt it was necessary to respond to some of these comments.

This forum is the most "Civil" for sure, the Guitar Forum is "Downright Vicious", right MsHysterical?

VP

 

[mshilarious]

This forum is the most "Civil" for sure, the Guitar Forum is "Downright Vicious", right MsHysterical?

VP

Well you did get banned from HR because of your postings on the guitar forum. I don't know all of the details there though. I do remember you suggesting grounding schemes that violated NEC, and when I challenged you on that you kind of kept digging for codes that you thought supported your position when they actually said the exact opposite.

For the record, a technical ground *has* to be bounded to the main ground at the service entrance via a nice thick wire that runs outside the structure--equitech has a good explanation:

Installing a Technical Ground

Or Mike Holt's forum:

Mike Holt Mike Holt Code Resources

 

[Victory Pete]

Well you did get banned from HR because of your postings on the guitar forum. I don't know all of the details there though. I do remember you suggesting grounding schemes that violated NEC, and when I challenged you on that you kind of kept digging for codes that you thought supported your position when they actually said the exact opposite.

For the record, a technical ground *has* to be bounded to the main ground at the service entrance via a nice thick wire that runs outside the structure--equitech has a good explanation:

Installing a Technical Ground

Or Mike Holt's forum:

Mike Holt Mike Holt Code Resources

You are correct, you dont know all the details.

VP

Hint: GFCI protection.

 

[Beck]

Is there a way to bump this thread DOWN ?. . . Oh, nevermind. . . I think somebody said that already. . .

There is plenty of trolling going on in this thread by people who should know better. If you ever feel a thread you started has gotten out of control… perhaps become a playground for one or two antagonists you could try to ask a moderator to close it. We used to be able to close them ourselves with thread tools available to the OP. I don’t think we can anymore on homerecording. On other Vbulletin sites that tool is available. It’s up to the site, and IMHO homrecording.com has chosen unwisely to restrict that option. Sorry, I meant IMO, not IMHO. There is nothing humble about my opinion.

There are a lot of posers on forums of every kind… every topic. It’s a phenomenon of our times made possible by anonymous Internet forums. There are many who sound like they know what they're talking about but only a handful that really do.

Maybe if people understood they aren't pulling it off so well as they think. It’s not that easy. Those of use who have been in recording for decades recognize those who haven't, in the same way we know someone born and raised in Eastern Europe was not born and raised in America. Even if they speak perfect English now they still have an accent. It could be a sexy accent, but that’s beside the point.

I guess we can't stop them though. They're still going to come here and play "Recording Expert." Maybe even claim they're an EE or at least have seen or touched a real actual EE. I don't know though because EE's are like Jedi or Ninja... they have magic powers and are very elusive. They only come out at night, hiding in the forest by day. LOL

 

[mshilarious]

You are correct, you dont know all the details.

VP

Hint: GFCI protection.

Yeah I remember when you posted one paragraph from the NEC, and then it was pointed out that didn't support your position, then you found another one, and that didn't work either . . . you kept trying to find a provision that would allow your wiring *after the fact*, when you should have consulted and understood the NEC before you did you wiring.

GFCI measures an imbalance between hot and neutral; that has nothing to with grounding electrode safety. It's a nice try, but it's not allowed.


Go on, go on Holt's forum and ask if your wiring complies with NEC.


Beck, quit being a sissy. Just because there is an Analog forum doesn't give participants the right to say any stupid crap they want and go unchallenged. Get your own forum if you don't like it. Or do something useful like measure the distortion and frequency response of one of your decks.

 

[Victory Pete]

Yeah I remember when you posted one paragraph from the NEC, and then it was pointed out that didn't support your position, then you found another one, and that didn't work either . . . you kept trying to find a provision that would allow your wiring *after the fact*, when you should have consulted and understood the NEC before you did you wiring.

GFCI measures an imbalance between hot and neutral; that has nothing to with grounding electrode safety. It's a nice try, but it's not allowed.


Go on, go on Holt's forum and ask if your wiring complies with NEC.


Beck, quit being a sissy. Just because there is an Analog forum doesn't give participants the right to say any stupid crap they want and go unchallenged. Get your own forum if you don't like it. Or do something useful like measure the distortion and frequency response of one of your decks.

Beck is right, this thread is getting out of hand. I will make one last comment: Having been a Master Electrician in 3 states for some time now, I am quite familiar with the past and present NEC. My studio is 100% NEC compliant and inspected by the local inspector when it was built in the early 90's.
Now lets get back to discussing why Analog sounds much better than Digital.

VP

 

[AtoDeficient]

Well, all I can say is Thank You to the many participants. . . This thread certainly moved alot of air. . . .

Very soon I'm getting some "new" analog gear, and I will probably have a few more questions, but hopefully they will just pertain to the equipment I have, and how to get the most out of it. . . . Quality that is, not air. . .

 

[mshilarious]

I would like to know why analog sounds better, but you keep refusing to use all that analog measurement equipment you have. Earlier today you said you were going to measure the output of a recorder for traces of bias tone. Would you agree that if the bias signal is not present at the output then it must have been filtered out? And if it is filtered out, does it not stand to reason that the output of a tape cannot be the continous, infinite signal you thought it was, but rather, the output is bandwidth-limited?

 

[Victory Pete]

I would like to know why analog sounds better, but you keep refusing to use all that analog measurement equipment you have. Earlier today you said you were going to measure the output of a recorder for traces of bias tone. Would you agree that if the bias signal is not present at the output then it must have been filtered out? And if it is filtered out, does it not stand to reason that the output of a tape cannot be the continous, infinite signal you thought it was, but rather, the output is bandwidth-limited?

I will make no assumptions until I see what is on the scope, although if there is no 150Khz at the output I would not be surpised, after all it was not part of the original recorded signal.

VP

 

[lonewhitefly]

I would like to know why analog sounds better

I've got a good test for you: Listen to some music that was recorded all analog. Then transfer that to digital using the best equipment you have. Tell me which one you think sounds better.

But you can't do that because you don't have a multi-track tape recorder. So why exactly are you posting in the analog forum? To talk down upon everyone who is still using the technology you left behind years ago?

Allow us to enjoy your discarded trash and have fun with your digital system.

 

[PAPA]

Yeah. For the most part its been debate, and I learned a thing or two along the way.

I agree also that it is disagreeable for people who never post here to wander into a sub-forum clearly labeled as "Analog only" and offer disparaging remarks to the regulars of said forum. Go back to your own forums and give us the same courtesy we give you.

I like this guy! Viva la analog

 

[Victory Pete]

My first multitrack recorder was a Vestax 6 track casstte, that got me hooked. The Alesis ADAT was soon to be released so I spent a whole summer researching and debating. I decided to try the ADAT. Walking out of the music store I commented to my Bass Player that I had just bought a $3500 VCR, a very high price to weight ratio, a "Box of Air" came to mind. I had a sinking feeling, after all I put this on a credit card and on a personal loan. I used it for one project that lasted a month, I couldnt wait to return it and trade it in for a Tascam TSR8 which was discounted to $1800 due to it being discontinued soon. A year later I went in debt again buying the discontinued MSR24 for $4800. The Digital definitely had a "Harsh, Brittle, Cold, and Uncomfortable" sound to it. The rest is history.
VP

PS In that months time the ADAT took a trip to Alesis in CA to be "Fixed" I could hear "Clock noise?" in some channels. Of course the "Techs" at Alesis said it must be something in my studio.

 

[Lt. Bob]

And if it is filtered out, does it not stand to reason that the output of a tape cannot be the continous, infinite signal you thought it was, but rather, the output is bandwidth-limited?

the bandwidth is limited but within the band width it is a continuous sine without the 'steps' you have in a digital signal.
personally, I can tell the difference between 16 bit/44.1k sampling and the original analog I recorded it from. I hear the difference and it's not just analog distortion because I'm making the recordings from analog sources (16/44.1k) .... so if it's just analog 'warmth', it would still be there.
As long as we stipulate that I'm only talking 16/44.1k ..... then I, and many others, find that analog does some things better than 16/44.1k.
Certain timbres of instruments and especially reverb tails and cymbals don't do so well in 16/44.1k.

I don't have to justify it or prove it to anyone nor do I try ...... I know what I hear ....... other people's opinions on the subject range all over the place from objectivists who want to prove everything by measurements and honestly feel that those can accurately predict how something will sound ..... and mental patients who claim to hear differences when changing chassis screw materials in amps .... .... (Jonathan Scull .... formerly at Stereophile) ......

My feelings are somewhere in the middle ........ I think a lot of the 'hi-fi voodoo' shit is nuts. Common sense and any knowledge of, well ..... anything, will tell you that putting three little ebony discs on each speaker won't 'open up your room'.
So I avoid absurdities like that.
But there are fundamental physical differences between the two media ( again .... 16/44.1k ) and a significant number of people with good ears that hear areas in which they feel analog does a better job. I'm one of them ...... and please ..... don't try the , "You're just hearing pleasant distortions you've gotten used to" ..... I play with real life analog instruments every night as my job so I'm not just comparing analog to digital ..... I compare everything to the 'live' instruments ...... plus I'm a piano tuner ........... I hear LOTS of live acoustic and electric instruments all the time.

Having said all that ..... I can NOT tell the difference once you go to 24/96.

So that's what I use when I record and simply have to accept that for most purposes it will still end up being 16/44.1k.
Since the majority of what I record is for me ....... I go with what makes me happy.

Not to jump into ya'll's battle though ........ go ahead!

 

[mshilarious]

I've got a good test for you: Listen to some music that
was recorded all analog. Then transfer that to digital using the best equipment you have. Tell me which one you think sounds better.

But you can't do that because you don't have a multi-track tape recorder. So why exactly are you posting in the analog forum? To talk down upon everyone who is still using the technology you left behind years ago?

I remind you that it was you and VP that first starting talking down digital, not me talking down tape. My first statement was quite "fair and balanced" Reread page 1. Read my first post, VP's first post, your first post. Reread where OP asked for a "scientific study".

And I still have my Tascam 424mkII, which I bought in 1997 and used regularly until about 2003, when I bought a better recorder for mobile use, an Alesis HD24. I don't do mobile multitrack recording anymore so I sold the HD24, but the 424 I have kept because it isn't really worth selling. Besides, I never finished transferring all of my old tapes. Someday.

So I pretty much know from six years of using it that the 424 isn't anywhere near as good sounding as the digital stuff I have now, which is why I don't use the 424 anymore.

I mean the specs are right here on this site!

https://homerecording.com/tas424specs.html

1% THD and 0.05% flutter, 40Hz to 16kHz frequency response +/-3dB at 3.75ips; dynamic range of 55dB (without NR which I never liked the sound).

The converters I am using--which are six years old now--I just measured D/A/D at .001% THD, 0.00006% jitter, freq. response is +/-0.3dB from 5Hz to 40kHz (at 96kHz), dynamic range (20kHz bandwidth, unweighted) is 115dB.

Beck talks about how digital stuff just gets obsolete, which he takes as nonfunctional. That's not true, plenty of old digital stuff works fine (my computer is c. 2005, soundcard is c. 2003, I prefer a version of Wavelab from 2004 and the good ol' UAD-1 from 2002), people just trade up for newer stuff. So the old digital becomes basically worthless . . . exactly the same thing that happens to old tape recorders. I paid I think $600 for the Tascam in 1997. It's worth about $75 now. Old digital is about the same; 10%-20% of original value after ten years, beyond that only if it has collector value which a fair amount of stuff does, oddly enough. People get attached to things, like the soundcard I originally used, the DS2416. Great card with great capabilities that were never fully realized, then it got abandoned. Kinda sad, but I moved on.

I paid $600 for that in 2000 . . . today they are also worth $75 and they still have their following.

 

[Victory Pete]

I remind you that it was you and VP that first starting talking down digital, not me talking down tape. My first statement was quite "fair and balanced" Reread page 1. Read my first post, VP's first post, your first post. Reread where OP asked for a "scientific study".

And I still have my Tascam 424mkII, which I bought in 1997 and used regularly until about 2003, when I bought a better recorder for mobile use, an Alesis HD24. I don't do mobile multitrack recording anymore so I sold the HD24, but the 424 I have kept because it isn't really worth selling. Besides, I never finished transferring all of my old tapes. Someday.

So I pretty much know from six years of using it that the 424 isn't anywhere near as good sounding as the digital stuff I have now, which is why I don't use the 424 anymore.

I mean the specs are right here on this site!

https://homerecording.com/tas424specs.html

1% THD and 0.05% flutter, 40Hz to 16kHz frequency response +/-3dB at 3.75ips; dynamic range of 55dB (without NR which I never liked the sound).

The converters I am using--which are six years old now--I just measured D/A/D at .001% THD, 0.00006% jitter, freq. response is +/-0.3dB from 5Hz to 40kHz (at 96kHz), dynamic range (20kHz bandwidth, unweighted) is 115dB.

Beck talks about how digital stuff just gets obsolete, which he takes as nonfunctional. That's not true, plenty of old digital stuff works fine (my computer is c. 2005, soundcard is c. 2003, I prefer a version of Wavelab from 2004 and the good ol' UAD-1 from 2002), people just trade up for newer stuff. So the old digital becomes basically worthless . . . exactly the same thing that happens to old tape recorders. I paid I think $600 for the Tascam in 1997. It's worth about $75 now. Old digital is about the same; 10%-20% of original value after ten years, beyond that only if it has collector value which a fair amount of stuff does, oddly enough. People get attached to things, like the soundcard I originally used, the DS2416. Great card with great capabilities that were never fully realized, then it got abandoned. Kinda sad, but I moved on.

I paid $600 for that in 2000 . . . today they are also worth $75 and they still have their following.

I have a 424MKIII, How can you base your opinions on that machine. It is a great little machine but the 1/2" and 1" 15ips machines are absolutely in an entirely different planet, galaxy and universe.

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

Clock Noise? Pro Tools Product Review - YouTube
It is "Funny" to read the responses this poor guy has to put up with.

VP