mshilarious
Banned
No I haven't.
Does analog move more air. . . ?
- Thread starter AtoDeficient
- Start date
- Status
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
sorry ....... I present my proof
not a particularly cogent response but a response nonetheless!
not a particularly cogent response but a response nonetheless!
PRHunt
I void warranties
Because, I take it, that digital actually moves no air ... until it is converted to analog.I think it answers the original question...."Does analog move more air...?"
Yes it does.
Paul
lipservice
New member
Funny question:
"Move more air?" .. a fan is analog. A fan can move a lot of air.
Produce more movement in the air? Higher frequencies move more... technically digital can reproduce higher frequencies since analog is nominally designed for reproduction in the human hearing range.
Is it louder? A tube amplifier vs solid state is a different question from digital analog. Not going there right now. Regardless, the volume control is there for a reason.
"Analog distorts more cleanly." Not part of this question...
Please ask your question again and donate another $20 to the save me from myself fund.
"Move more air?" .. a fan is analog. A fan can move a lot of air.
Produce more movement in the air? Higher frequencies move more... technically digital can reproduce higher frequencies since analog is nominally designed for reproduction in the human hearing range.
Is it louder? A tube amplifier vs solid state is a different question from digital analog. Not going there right now. Regardless, the volume control is there for a reason.
"Analog distorts more cleanly." Not part of this question...
Please ask your question again and donate another $20 to the save me from myself fund.
Victory Pete
Banned
I have several speakers of all kinds around my studio, the only speaker I have seen move air was a "Bass Reflex" (Ported) enclosure. Sound doesnt move air, it changes the air pressure alternating (in phase with the input signal) the pressure above and below the ambient air pressure which is around 14 psi. I do happen to think that Analog "Moves more Spirit"!
VP
VP
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
mshilarious
Banned
You keep saying that, but of course you are not correct. Sound moves air! Air molecules must move to form areas of compression and rarefaction, which we hear as sound. They just tend to move back and forth over the same tiny area rather quickly, so we don't otherwise sense the motion of sound in air as we do with wind (which is also caused by a difference in pressure, just on a much larger scale).
Sound is a Pressure Wave
Wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Background information for Sound
The Victor-Victrola Page
Victory Pete
Banned
mshilarious
Banned
For a stable oscillating wave, maybe. For a real world signal?
All me to describe the experiment I just performed; lacking a camera you will have to trust me. Or rather in the standard scientific method you can use the description of my experiment to repeat it yourself.
I placed a 14" tom-tom (double headed, no hole in the reso head) perpendicular to the floor. I placed a lit candle 3" from the drum head, such that the flame was centered on the drum head. I placed an omnidirectional, flat response, calibrated measurement microphone 1" horizontally displaced from the flame.
Striking the tom at moderate volume (measured peak of 117dBSPL at 3" from the reso head using a fast-response C-weighted meter), I observed up to 1" displacement of the flame tip; I further observed that the flame took up to 2 seconds to resume its undisturbed vertical orientation. This I repeated for about a dozen iterations.
Having recorded the tom hits using the microphone, I played back the recorded hits (24/44.1) through my studio monitors, which have 10" woofers in a sealed 70L box (no port). Placing the candle flame and measurement microphone in the same orientation to the woofer as the tom, I played back the recorded hits, first to rerecord them with the microphone. Using that method, I calibrated playback to the same RMS as the live hit recording, and compared the spectral analysis of the two waves. I noted that since the microphone and flame are significantly distant and off-axis to the tweeter, the recorded response varied above the limit of the woofer, about 4kHz. I consider that may have an impact on observed flame displacement.
With the playback level thus calibrated within 0.3dBRMS of the live hit, I observed similar candleflame displacement, up to only about 3/4" however. Again, I suspect the observed difference could be due to the relative lack of HF content due to the distance from the tweeter. The observed flame recovery time was similar.
Conclusion: soundwaves from a typical musical instrument can visibly and significantly displace ("move") air over a period of time longer than the fundamental oscillating frequency of the instrument (92Hz for this tom), and playback of those sounds can in a similar manner according to the limitations of the transducers used.
All me to describe the experiment I just performed; lacking a camera you will have to trust me. Or rather in the standard scientific method you can use the description of my experiment to repeat it yourself.
I placed a 14" tom-tom (double headed, no hole in the reso head) perpendicular to the floor. I placed a lit candle 3" from the drum head, such that the flame was centered on the drum head. I placed an omnidirectional, flat response, calibrated measurement microphone 1" horizontally displaced from the flame.
Striking the tom at moderate volume (measured peak of 117dBSPL at 3" from the reso head using a fast-response C-weighted meter), I observed up to 1" displacement of the flame tip; I further observed that the flame took up to 2 seconds to resume its undisturbed vertical orientation. This I repeated for about a dozen iterations.
Having recorded the tom hits using the microphone, I played back the recorded hits (24/44.1) through my studio monitors, which have 10" woofers in a sealed 70L box (no port). Placing the candle flame and measurement microphone in the same orientation to the woofer as the tom, I played back the recorded hits, first to rerecord them with the microphone. Using that method, I calibrated playback to the same RMS as the live hit recording, and compared the spectral analysis of the two waves. I noted that since the microphone and flame are significantly distant and off-axis to the tweeter, the recorded response varied above the limit of the woofer, about 4kHz. I consider that may have an impact on observed flame displacement.
With the playback level thus calibrated within 0.3dBRMS of the live hit, I observed similar candleflame displacement, up to only about 3/4" however. Again, I suspect the observed difference could be due to the relative lack of HF content due to the distance from the tweeter. The observed flame recovery time was similar.
Conclusion: soundwaves from a typical musical instrument can visibly and significantly displace ("move") air over a period of time longer than the fundamental oscillating frequency of the instrument (92Hz for this tom), and playback of those sounds can in a similar manner according to the limitations of the transducers used.
Victory Pete
Banned
AtoDeficient
New member
So, if I can understand this (your grammar here is a bit confusing to me), a real, live instrument moves more air than a recording of the instrument?. . .
mshilarious
Banned
Because visual does not interest me. My daughter has a camera but she was traveling back home from DC last night.
How come you don't have a candle?
More importantly, how come you spout off on a bunch of topics with an authoritative tone when you really don't know what you are talking about?
mshilarious
Banned
I would say a live source moves more air than a 10" woofer; that's all I know at this point. If I had a very high quality full-range driver I expect the result might be closer.
But yes, live kills any recording. Live kills direct monitoring. VP doesn't believe that.
AtoDeficient
New member
Okay. . . I didn't realize the topic veered off into whether live instruments move more air than recorded ones. . My bad. . .
Victory Pete
Banned
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
Victory Pete
Banned
So I guess instruments like Brasswinds and Woodwinds are then "Extremely Loud", they would blow out a candle!
VP
Tim Gillett
Banned
Whether live or a recording, or an analog tape vs a digital recording "moves more air" or blows out a candle better, are questions I've never seen raised in all of the various discussions I've read over the years on this topic.
The initial poster seems to be of the view that once you convert an analog audio signal into digital and back to analog again you "lose something". He doesnt know what this "something" is so he speaks of the digitally recorded signal "moving less air". I guess it's as good a stab in the dark as any other stab in the dark but it explains nothing.
From a strict audio point of view the only justification for using analog tape audio recording methods today is to deliberately add various distortions to the input signal. In certain cases that's perfectly valid and (rarely) I do it myself.
Digital is the preferred method of audio and video recording and playback (and this was known long before a practical digital audio recorder was even developed back in the 70's) because what goes in is what comes out. Essentially, it neither adds nor takes away. It's like a good pre or a good amplifier. Do we criticise a good pre or a microphone for having too "clinical" a sound? No. So why criticize a digital recorder for doing its job and doing it well?
If you want to play with the signal, go ahead. But that's not the job of the recorder - unless you only want to downgrade a recorder to the role of a mere FX unit.
"keeping it all in the analog domain" misunderstands the issue. The issue is "what is the best way of recording an audio signal?". 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...
Some time ago here one forum member said that the playback of an analog tape was "better" than the live signal it had recorded! This is like saying that there is something inherently inferior with the live voice of Renee Fleming or the violin playing of Isaac Stern or the live performance of any artist, and that the best way to "improve" the performance of such artists is to record them onto analog magnetic tape.
Sounds like one of those magical "all in one" laundry cleaners advertised on late night TV which is claimed to remove all stains and all foreign chemicals no matter what they are. It's hogwash. It doesnt work like that.
There are sometimes ways to subjectively "improve" a certain artist's recorded performance but those techniques can vary enormously depending on the weakness that needs to be treated.
But there's no "magic bullet". Recording to analog tape is not a quick fix for guys who havent the talent or cant be bothered learning the craft. The only real solution is solid audio engineering ability born from natural talent and experience.
Tim
The initial poster seems to be of the view that once you convert an analog audio signal into digital and back to analog again you "lose something". He doesnt know what this "something" is so he speaks of the digitally recorded signal "moving less air". I guess it's as good a stab in the dark as any other stab in the dark but it explains nothing.
From a strict audio point of view the only justification for using analog tape audio recording methods today is to deliberately add various distortions to the input signal. In certain cases that's perfectly valid and (rarely) I do it myself.
Digital is the preferred method of audio and video recording and playback (and this was known long before a practical digital audio recorder was even developed back in the 70's) because what goes in is what comes out. Essentially, it neither adds nor takes away. It's like a good pre or a good amplifier. Do we criticise a good pre or a microphone for having too "clinical" a sound? No. So why criticize a digital recorder for doing its job and doing it well?
If you want to play with the signal, go ahead. But that's not the job of the recorder - unless you only want to downgrade a recorder to the role of a mere FX unit.
"keeping it all in the analog domain" misunderstands the issue. The issue is "what is the best way of recording an audio signal?". 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...
Some time ago here one forum member said that the playback of an analog tape was "better" than the live signal it had recorded! This is like saying that there is something inherently inferior with the live voice of Renee Fleming or the violin playing of Isaac Stern or the live performance of any artist, and that the best way to "improve" the performance of such artists is to record them onto analog magnetic tape.
Sounds like one of those magical "all in one" laundry cleaners advertised on late night TV which is claimed to remove all stains and all foreign chemicals no matter what they are. It's hogwash. It doesnt work like that.
There are sometimes ways to subjectively "improve" a certain artist's recorded performance but those techniques can vary enormously depending on the weakness that needs to be treated.
But there's no "magic bullet". Recording to analog tape is not a quick fix for guys who havent the talent or cant be bothered learning the craft. The only real solution is solid audio engineering ability born from natural talent and experience.
Tim
- Status