Does analog move more air. . . ?

[mshilarious]

I realized did not link my "test" cymbal earlier, here you go:

Cymbal

24/96, only 2M. Loop that several times once you have it, then run a converter loop test, then a recording through your tape deck, and post results. Please keep at 24/96 if possible.

If you don't know how to measure anything else, you can do this.

 

[mshilarious]

Here is my cymbal test, top is RME converter loop, bottom is Tascam CD-A500 recording. C'mon, you will do better that than. You can't do worse!

See, people think I am anti-tape, but I'm not. I think good tape is probably pretty good. Bad tape is . . . probably not so good, but we have good tape right? So no big deal. I don't understand why people treat tape machines as equals when nobody but nobody did that back in the day . . . I mean if you owned a four-track then you were a dirtbag, no ifs ands or buts about it. And if you recorded via the internal mic of a boombox direct to cassette . . . I'm going to maintain plausible deniability on that issue

I am anti-people saying false things about audio engineering, whether digital, tape, or pure no-recording-medium analog. So let's say true things and learn from them.

 

[mixsit]

Here is my cymbal test, top is RME converter loop, bottom is Tascam CD-A500 recording. C'mon, you will do better that than. You can't do worse!

I hate to have to ask but what exactly are the two plots showing- the spikes at various frequencies?

 

[Bobbsy]

Yes It can sound like there is more Fullness and Depth. Digital will never be able to record a true sine wave like analog. It's a square wave which looks like a stair case.

Really? I guess I need new glasses because this digital tone (1kHz, 0dBFS) looks remarkably like a sine wave to me:



(I've zoomed in to actual sample level resolution--that's the dots on the wave. This is a 44.1 sampling which is probably the lowest resolution anybody would use for music. Obviously the detail goes up as the sample rate goes up.)

As long as "better" is a subjective term I'll stay out of the argument about which is "better". Yes, analogue can often be more "pleasing to the ear" but let's not confuse that with "more accurate" Most of the things that make analogue sound good are, in fact, faults with its reproduction--just ones that we've come to like the sound of.

 

[houseofhits]

Depends on how good your hearing is & what's important to you, but in my 39 yrs experience as a professional sound engineer, no digital setup invented can match a good analogue setup. The better it is, the less background noise there is. The frequency response is more extended in either direction despite what most people think. Long serving professionals like Doug Sax & Bernie Grundman think it's because in vinyl the sound is back to being in a mechanical, moving state, (as opposed to ones & zeros), just like sound waves. I have many albums on vinyl & cd; there's not one instance where the vinyl doesn't sound better, including the recent Beatles remasters. It took five guys four years to come up with something that doesn't sound as good as the vinyl. Not really their fault, they were defeated by the format.

 

[mshilarious]

I hate to have to ask but what exactly are the two plots showing- the spikes at various frequencies?

The useless autosave ate my post. I'll try again tomorrow . . .

 

[gecko zzed]

Most important of all and what makes everything else moot however is if you try to analyze music with anything other than human perception you will always lose the analog-digital debate, no matter which side you're on.

I think likewise "you will always lose the analog-digital debate, no matter which side you're on" if you try to analyze music with human perception. Human perception is not immune from human preferences, and our subjectivity will play a significant part in the debate

You're still not getting it... can't think outside of it. All you know is based on test instruments that are inadequate to do what you believe they do, but more than anything are inadequate because they are not human ears. I don't care about anyone's measurements. It's all been done before ad nauseum. It's not where the debate should be.

There is an advantage in choosing not to "care about anyone's measurements". It grants you immunity from implied criticism in those measurements. That's a pretty smart move. But I'm not sure where the "debate should be".

 

[Bobbsy]

The other thing that's needed is to make any comparison a true "double blind" exercise so preconceptions and prejudices don't cloud the aforementioned "human perception".

I once conned a hard core "analogue only" fan by adding some LF rumble and an occasional click to a digital recording while finding a nice pristine bit of vinyl on a good turntable for the comparison. My friend immediately picked the digital as better because of the rumble and clicks....

 

[Victory Pete]

Really? I guess I need new glasses because this digital tone (1kHz, 0dBFS) looks remarkably like a sine wave to me:

View attachment 70205

(I've zoomed in to actual sample level resolution--that's the dots on the wave. This is a 44.1 sampling which is probably the lowest resolution anybody would use for music. Obviously the detail goes up as the sample rate goes up.)

As long as "better" is a subjective term I'll stay out of the argument about which is "better". Yes, analogue can often be more "pleasing to the ear" but let's not confuse that with "more accurate" Most of the things that make analogue sound good are, in fact, faults with its reproduction--just ones that we've come to like the sound of.

What about what it looks like at much higher frequencies?

VP

 

[Bobbsy]

Sure.

Here's 20kHz at 44.1 sampling, zoomed into individual sample level again.



Nyquist was right!

 

[Victory Pete]

Sure.

Here's 20kHz at 44.1 sampling, zoomed into individual sample level again.

View attachment 70209

Nyquist was right!

So how do the spaces between the sample points get filled in? Digitally fabricated? How can that be accurate? I dont buy it.

VP

 

[Bobbsy]

It requires math far beyond my abilities to explain the "why" (read HERE if you're interested) but the fact is that my 20kHz sine wave WAS reconstructed accurately from the samples that were made.

That said, I'm one of those who believes that there's a "something" about well recorded analogue signals--they're more "involving" somehow--but I know I'm on a hiding to nothing if I try to argue that it's because they're more accurate. I've seen the results played back on oscilloscopes often enough to realise that digital far more accurately recreates the original sound signal that even the best analogue tape machine and certainly better than the best vinyl.

Let's be clear here....everything we do to record sound introduces errors. This starts with the conversion of sound pressure waves in the air to an electrical signal (even if you use the best mic in the world) and continues right through whatever chain you use until your $20,000 monitor speakers try to recreate those sound pressure waves. Digital, love it or hate it, introduces fewer errors than analogue. That doesn't mean digital sounds better than analogue but, in terms of accuracy, it's superior.

 

[mshilarious]

So how do the spaces between the sample points get filled in? Digitally fabricated? How can that be accurate? I dont buy it.

VP

Here's a layperson understanding: take a LF square wave, say 100Hz. Add a lowpass filter at 200Hz, nothing too steep, say 18dB/octave. What does the resulting wave look like on a scope? Where did the new wave come from? Was it fabricated?

Of course not, we know the square wave had a (theoretical infinite, practically much less so) series of odd-order overtones; the original square wave was actually the sum of very many sine waves (as all signals are). When we remove most of those overtones with a filter, we get a wave that looks pretty much like the fundamental sine wave which was there all along, hiding.

If a DAC actually worked like the staircase picture of a DAW, then it would output the original signal together with lot of ultrasonic overtones that were not part of the original signal. It has a reconstruction filter so that doesn't happen, instead it outputs an excellent approximation of the (bandwidth-limited) original signal . . . better than any other storage medium we have.

The only issue is how much bandwidth do we need? There are no practical compromises up to 40kHz bandwidth, up to 100kHz is debatable, beyond that we probably start to lose signal accuracy. Nobody has ever demonstrated a need for audio bandwidth greater than 40kHz though.

 

[Victory Pete]

Here's a layperson understanding: take a LF square wave, say 100Hz. Add a lowpass filter at 200Hz, nothing too steep, say 18dB/octave. What does the resulting wave look like on a scope? Where did the new wave come from? Was it fabricated?

Of course not, we know the square wave had a (theoretical infinite, practically much less so) series of odd-order overtones; the original square wave was actually the sum of very many sine waves (as all signals are). When we remove most of those overtones with a filter, we get a wave that looks pretty much like the fundamental sine wave which was there all along, hiding.

If a DAC actually worked like the staircase picture of a DAW, then it would output the original signal together with lot of ultrasonic overtones that were not part of the original signal. It has a reconstruction filter so that doesn't happen, instead it outputs an excellent approximation of the (bandwidth-limited) original signal . . . better than any other storage medium we have.

The only issue is how much bandwidth do we need? There are no practical compromises up to 40kHz bandwidth, up to 100kHz is debatable, beyond that we probably start to lose signal accuracy. Nobody has ever demonstrated a need for audio bandwidth greater than 40kHz though.

I dont make it a habit to record "Square Waves" in my studio.
VP

 

[Bobbsy]

It has a reconstruction filter so that doesn't happen, instead it outputs an excellent approximation of the (bandwidth-limited) original signal . . . better than any other storage medium we have.

The only issue is how much bandwidth do we need? There are no practical compromises up to 40kHz bandwidth, up to 100kHz is debatable, beyond that we probably start to lose signal accuracy. Nobody has ever demonstrated a need for audio bandwidth greater than 40kHz though.

It's to do with an "inverse Fourier transform". Since I need a stiff drink at the thought of even a "regular" Fourier transform (or at least the maths involved) much less an inverse one, I just accept it as magic that works and get on with it.

 

[mshilarious]

I dont make it a habit to record "Square Waves" in my studio.
VP

I take it you don't do a lot of death metal then?

Hey, if you have that scope, why bother with the little signal analyzer

 

[mshilarious]

It's to do with an "inverse Fourier transform". Since I need a stiff drink at the thought of even a "regular" Fourier transform (or at least the maths involved) much less an inverse one, I just accept it as magic that works and get on with it.

Yeah, I've written a few simple triangular filters to do over/downsampling, that I can grok. The sinc filters are a bit beyond me . . .

 

[Victory Pete]

I take it you don't do a lot of death metal then?

Hey, if you have that scope, why bother with the little signal analyzer

I have recorded all kinds of music here. Show me a square wave recorded from a miked speaker cabinet. Take a look at this again Analog Audio Generator Minirator MR-PRO

VP

 

[AtoDeficient]

I had a cinnamon bagel and coffee this morning. . Antenna TV is doing a Monkees marathon. . Good Stuff. .

 

[Farview]

Yes It can sound like there is more Fullness and Depth. Digital will never be able to record a true sine wave like analog. It's a square wave which looks like a stair case.

No, it isn't. It's a bunch of numbers that represent vectors. Think about it, even if it was a stair case, the 'steps' would be at the sample frequency, which is filtered out. Once you filter out the 'steps', you would be left with a sine wave.