mshilarious
Banned
Yeah, kinda sad, they used to be a pretty good company; I mean they had some good products and some not-so-good, but oh well . . .
hmmmm I didn't try that ..... only tried the 16/44.1k and 24/96k but I could do that. I may but it'll be a couple weeks as I have bikeweek coming up and I'm gigging a lot right now. But that would get the nyquist up to 24k which could easily be a big difference. I think I'll try that when I get time and I'll let you know what I hear.I'd be interested to know if you repeated the test at 48 whether you got the same result, or if you offset the attenuation at 44.1 with a bit of EQ.
You dont know anything about my knowledge or experience. Your post shows what kind of person you are. I think the members of this board can make up their own minds about the credibility and integrity of the members here.
I know you're rude and dismissive to everyone including even those who show some degree support for you (like I foolishly did in this very thread).
And yes ..... it does seem like people here have made decisions concerning you ........ you are pretty funny though.
I always look forward to the trainwrecks you make threads into so props for that.
Yeah, kinda sad, they used to be a pretty good company; I mean they had some good products and some not-so-good, but oh well . . .
Where the nuclear obliteration of all things digital isn't going nearly far enough !come on man, this is the analog forum !
You should ask yourself about that. The fact that you don't recognize some of the people that posted during this debate doesn't mean much. What it does tell me is that there are a number of people that from time to time pop into the analog forum but don't or rarely post there. I'm exactly the same in the studio building and mastering forums. I rarely post there, especially the building one ~ but I do find interesting topics in there and some views I may vehemently disagree with.Last I checked, this was the 'Analog Only' forum. I thought this was one of the few safe havens on the internet. I don't even recognize some of these people posting in this thread
But with no contribution from anyone that is firmly into digital recording.....and horror stories and digital flaws only.We should be able to discuss analog and digital concerns here
This would probably be right were it not for the fact that many people of a certain age are experienced in both analog and digital and many of those that currently record with digitalia made the switch from analog. And vice versa in some cases. So alot of people have {or certainly have had} a foot in both camps.but when people seem to come in here just to argue the virtues of digital, it seems a little backwards ... Other forums are certainly available for that madness.
"Many" and "Most" does not equal "all". If out of 167 people 94 prefer analog, that's most of that number. Of course, the remaining 73 are the minority. If out of that 167, 64 do not use anything digital whatsoever, that's still many of them. But many does not necesarilly mean the majority.This is the only forum I know of where the contributors are generally current and active users of tape machines ... many who do not use digital equipment at all.
But analog vs. digital threads really have no place here ... Most have already decided (for whatever reason) that we prefer analog. Implying (or clearly stating) that digital is superior is kind of like going to a Beach Boys forum and saying the Beatles were better
It wasn't rude. The OP posed a question in the very first sentence of the thread, namely,It's just straight-up rude. We're talking about preferences and opinions. Most here made up their mind long ago and that's why this forum exists. I'm not going to go into the 'Computer Music' or 'Software' sections and start telling people why analog is better.
He compared analog to digital right from the get~go and so any hope of no debate was already lost, especially with the next sentenceI'm wondering if there has ever been a scientific study on whether analog recordings actually, literally move more air than a digital recording . . . That is, push a wider range of sound waves out of your speakers
That's as provocative a statement as it was possible to make. "We all know analog sounds better". There might be even analogists that could disagree with that. It is not a given. Although the OP stated(This isn't another A vs.D debate, I'm looking for facts here, and we all know analog sounds) better, but does the science and math prove that it sounds better? . . .
it already was before they had even finished typing that statement. The door was opened to the weight of digital firepower by two key statements upon which this whole thread went on to revolve,.This isn't another A vs.D debate,
andI'm looking for facts here
. The immediate problem is that the OP has backed themself into a corner from which there is no escape because they've made a bold, direct and intractable statement while also stating that they don't know if maths and science will bear them out.does the science and math prove that it sounds better? . . .
My point is that there is quite a bit of crossover.
Hello? It's the STONES
Where the nuclear obliteration of all things digital isn't going nearly far enough !
You should ask yourself about that. The fact that you don't recognize some of the people that posted during this debate doesn't mean much. What it does tell me is that there are a number of people that from time to time pop into the analog forum but don't or rarely post there. I'm exactly the same in the studio building and mastering forums. I rarely post there, especially the building one ~ but I do find interesting topics in there and some views I may vehemently disagree with.
Safe havens ? Blimey. I thought the concept of forums necesitated a range of views.
It's ironic that not long ago a question was posed about where all the old posters to the analog forum have gone. There's not much action here. This thread has brought in alot more activity than has been seen in the anolog forum for the longest while.
But with no contribution from anyone that is firmly into digital recording.....and horror stories and digital flaws only. This would probably be right were it not for the fact that many people of a certain age are experienced in both analog and digital and many of those that currently record with digitalia made the switch from analog. And vice versa in some cases. So alot of people have {or certainly have had} a foot in both camps.
I tend to look in all the forums and regularly there are analog users posting questions there and they regularly get helped. If they can't be, they get referred to here. Not only that, you get people looking for "analog warmth with digital machines" and things of that ilk. My point is that there is quite a bit of crossover.
But most pertinent is that it's incorrect to say that people were just wandering in to argue the virtues of digital. Those that went into detail about digital waves and numbers and the rest did so against the backdrop of statements about the medium that could not be verified. Emotion and preference was fused with what appeared to be fact and the resulting conclusion by necesity had to be, at the very least, questioned.
"Many" and "Most" does not equal "all". If out of 167 people 94 prefer analog, that's most of that number. Of course, the remaining 73 are the minority. If out of that 167, 64 do not use anything digital whatsoever, that's still many of them. But many does not necesarilly mean the majority.
As for the Beatle/Beach boy analogy, I can't for the life of me see what the problem is in going to a Beach boys forum and saying "actually, I always felt the Beatles were a better band". You're not saying that the Beach boys are crap {which would be suspect}.
It wasn't rude. The OP posed a question in the very first sentence of the thread, namely, He compared analog to digital right from the get~go and so any hope of no debate was already lost, especially with the next sentence That's as provocative a statement as it was possible to make. "We all know analog sounds better". There might be even analogists that could disagree with that. It is not a given. Although the OP statedit already was before they had even finished typing that statement. The door was opened to the weight of digital firepower by two key statements upon which this whole thread went on to revolve, and. The immediate problem is that the OP has backed themself into a corner from which there is no escape because they've made a bold, direct and intractable statement while also stating that they don't know if maths and science will bear them out.
What if maths and science doesn't bear out their position ? How can only the analog agreers be the ones to present the evidence ? The opening post cried out for balance. From the other side.
Cue thread trainwreck.
Analog recording does not do dynamic range better than even a CD. Analog recording needs Noise Reduction to improve its dynamic range. Digital recording doesnt need it because its dynamic range is already very good without NR.
True, analog tape goes into distortion more smoothly than a straight clip. But that's like saying the tape has better dynamic range than its own internal amp driving its record head. In a good machine, the record amps have much better dynamic range than the tape. The manufacturers could design them with even better dynamic range but it would be a waste of money. Go figure.
Solid state pre's and amps usually hard clip. It's not just digital that hard clips. But if you have enough dynamic range before hard clipping it's just not an issue. That's why the sound coming out of your pre or mixer is clean and undistorted. It's easy to avoid noise and clipping.
This is where people get confused. Analog is not analog.Turning a human voice into an electrical signal is easy. Analog amplification of that signal can easily be made, preserving good dynamic range. But analog recording of that signal can never match it in terms of dynamic range. The reason for that is another discussion in itself.
These are just engineering facts known long before a practical digital audio recorder was even made.
Some analog tape devotees here dont seem to properly understand analog tape and its limitations. Read the audio engineering books of the 50's and 60's when analog tape recording was all there was. It's spelt out there in black and white that the weak link in the signal chain was the recorder. What do you know that those top audio guys didnt?
Tim
I understand the limitations of Analog (And by Analog I mean Analog). It is Digitals A/D & D/A "Fabrication" of the waveform. especially high frequencies, that I think leads to its "Brittle and Harsh" rendition of the input signal.
VP
VP, did you come to the conclusion that digital sound was "harsh and brittle" especially in the highs from listening tests? If so, yours is very different from my listening experience and that of countless others, both amateur and professional.
Did you come to the conclusion based on looking at graphs of ADC sampling which are drawn as square waves? If so, that is not how those samples are played back. They may be represented on an editing program's display as square waves but they are are played back as sine waves. Is a sine wave "harsh and brittle "sounding?
Tim