Just curious as to why still analog??

[Beck]

The heart of it is incoherent and makes no sense? Oookeyyy... if you say so...

I’m not implying that he may be speaking over your head, but he makes perfect sense to me. So I’ll leave it at this – none of us speak exactly the same language even if we all speak English. In this particular case though it appears to me it is more about one persons inability to grasp in the abstract rather than the other’s inability to communicate. If you don’t understand French that doesn’t mean someone speaking French is not making sense.

We have language barriers of the mind far beyond idiom. That’s half the trouble on these forums. We just have to accept that some of us understand each other and some can never meet intellectually, and more communication doesn’t help the situation. Speaking French louder won’t help.

 

[regebro]

And then what? Do you mean, that an ignorant dude who hears 'sh*t' coming out of his monitors connected to his DAW after 'learning something' will start loving it? ahaaaa. - that is only possible in virtual reality...

heh heh, just don't you dare say, that 'his ignorance' is the reason why the "sh*t' comes out of his smonitors.... and thus he should learn how to 'properly use digital technology'. Cos if you do - it's just gonna really piss me off, I may become very unstable ....
We all heard soooooooo many times: "The technology is just fine, it's just you, guys, are not 'ready for it'". grrrrrrrrrrr

arghhhhhhhhhh

/later

Have fun fighnting those windmills.

 

[regebro]

I’m not implying that he may be speaking over your head, but he makes perfect sense to me. So I’ll leave it at this – none of us speak exactly the same language even if we all speak English. In this particular case though it appears to me it is more about one persons inability to grasp in the abstract rather than the other’s inability to communicate. If you don’t understand French that doesn’t mean someone speaking French is not making sense.

We have language barriers of the mind far beyond idiom. That’s half the trouble on these forums. We just have to accept that some of us understand each other and some can never meet intellectually, and more communication doesn’t help the situation. Speaking French louder won’t help.

Instead of making a complete fool out of yourself by implying that I have trouble grasping the abstract (ridicolous), why don't you just explain what this means:

"From all the trickery of human brain's design (from programming, from hundreds of sets of commands and rules on how to 'manipulate the abstract data (again I highlite it: the 'rules for the machine' were written by a "collective designer/programmer", the "collective designer" has decided which switch to turn on, which switch to turn off) and from sophisticated incorporation of millions of ON/OFF-switches with electrical signal - that's what a/d and d/a really are)."

 

[Dr ZEE]

I'm sorry, this part of you post makes no sense to me, I have no idea what you are trying to say. There is however, no "trickery of human brain design" involved. Maybe you are confusing this with lossy compression? What this has to do with collective progamming is completely beyond me.

let me try to "help you out":

hint 1: Without trickery of human brain's design (without command of a programmer) the entire digital technology is useless gigantic dumpster of switches.

hint 2: It is collective in its core. It is all built on (or say stitched by) <include> tag.

/respects

 

[regebro]

let me try to "help you out":

hint 1: Without trickery of human brain's design (without command of a programmer) the entire digital technology is useless gigantic dumpster of switches.

Ok, lets split this up into two parts. part a:
"Without trickery of human brain's design the entire digital technology is useless gigantic dumpster of switches." This is simply false. There is no human brain trickery involved.

part b: You seem to use statements "trickery of human brain's design" and "without command of a programmer" in such a way that the second statement somehow should expand or explain the first statement. But it doesn't. They are completely unconnected. You could just as well say "Without trickery of human brain's design (a car just parked outside)". It doesn't elucidate on the first statement, in fact it makes the whole sentence confused and incoreherent, since you assume that what's inside the parenthesis somehow has something to do with the rest of the sentence, when it doesn't.

hint 2: It is collective in its core. It is all built on (or say stitched by) <include> tag.

What is? Include tags definitely have absolutely zero connection to anything we are discussing here. I suspect you are talking gibberish in an effort to make fun of me. I am humorless. Sorry.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I suspect you are talking gibberish in an effort to make fun of me.

At what point of the 'discussion' you have started sensing that you are the subject of the discussion?
******

as for trying to get any sense out of what I'm incoherently ranting here... hmmmmm, i'd say: give it up. There is nothing to gain there, it is not worthy of a single minute out of wise man's life

/respects

 

[Dr ZEE]

Speaking French louder won’t help.

heh heh,

Tim! How do you speak French loud? Is it even possible?

sorry, guys... I personally do not like when discussion losing its focus, .. but what'cha gonna do.
Me? - I'll shut up.

/respects

 

[Beck]

Instead of making a complete fool out of yourself by implying that I have trouble grasping the abstract (ridicolous), why don't you just explain what this means:

"From all the trickery of human brain's design (from programming, from hundreds of sets of commands and rules on how to 'manipulate the abstract data (again I highlite it: the 'rules for the machine' were written by a "collective designer/programmer", the "collective designer" has decided which switch to turn on, which switch to turn off) and from sophisticated incorporation of millions of ON/OFF-switches with electrical signal - that's what a/d and d/a really are)."

What I said is that there is no point. Dr. Zee and I can converse, but you and he cannot at a certain level.

Why don't you just say you don't understand what he is saying and leave it at that, instead of making yourself the point of reference for what makes sense for all humanity.

It doesn't make sense to you -- that's all you can say. By saying someone is incoherent you only set yourself up to be the fool when it turns out what he says makes perfect sense to others. It only says to those others that your brain doesn’t go there. We’re not all the same – live with it.

Anyway, you won’t change the nature of digital recording technology by barking up this tree.

 

[Beck]

heh heh,

Tim! How do you speak French loud? Is it even possible?

sorry, guys... I personally do not like when discussion losing its focus, .. but what'cha gonna do.
Me? - I'll shut up.

/respects

Regebro enjoys the chaos -- it never goes anywhere. It is foolish for me to even try since I should know better.

French loud... ok how 'bout Italian.

 

[regebro]

At what point of the 'discussion' you have started sensing that you are the subject of the discussion?

Never. Did I say that? No.

as for trying to get any sense out of what I'm incoherently ranting here... hmmmmm, i'd say: give it up. There is nothing to gain there, it is not worthy of a single minute out of wise man's life

OK, thanks for telling me that a wise man should not waste time trying to understand what you say. Being less than wise, it's not obvious to me, I thought you wanted to say something.

 

[arjoll]

Lets get back to the point

OK, I've reviewed the posts for today and skipped over some I didn't understand (I think you have to be from North America to understand some of them ).

I might be misinterpreting things, but I think the most important points are:

1. Analogue sounds better in a lot of cases because it colours the sound in a way that sounds (regebro etc, apl early in the thread, and me to a certain extent).
2. Analogue sounds better in all cases because it seems to my ears to be a fairer representation of what I was recording (cjacek, Beck, Dr Zee etc).

We can get stuck down in opinion on why analogue sounds better, but to be honest I don't think that the question is really that important. The issue is that it does in a number of cases. We all seem to agree on that.

 

[Beck]

2. Analogue sounds better in all cases because it seems to my ears to be a fairer representation of what I was recording (cjacek, Beck, Dr Zee etc).

More or less, but also digital sounds bad to me (hard to listen to) even if there were no such thing as analog tape. I've previously likened analog to airbrushed playboy centerfolds -- looks better than the untouched original. So in that regard analog is not necessarily a more accurate representation, but rather better than live sound. Whereas digital is also different than live sound, but in a non-musical destructive way. That would sum up how I see (hear) the issue.

We can get stuck down in opinion on why analogue sounds better, but to be honest I don't think that the question is really that important. The issue is that it does in a number of cases. We all seem to agree on that.

I agree. It’s such as fascinating topic though. The proof to most of us is in the hearing. No amount of analysis beyond that is necessary. However, the mad scientist in some of us would like to find a quantifiable measure to explain it.

Most of these threads mutate and could rightly split off into new threads to discuss certain aspects. The original “question” that started the thread was hardly genuine in my opinion though and was as much as statement as a question. It was basically a multiple choice, but with no positive answers. That is, no good reasons to be using analog.

Q. Why still analog?

A. You can’t afford new equipment
B. You’re stuck in the past
C. You can’t figure out new technology/set in your ways

It could only go down hill from there.

 

[acorec]

damn you're a piece of shit. it is you that "degrades every thread you post in". who cares if people are not backing up their opinion with fact?? this thread started out asking for opinions. fucker.

You only show how stupid you are with posts like these. Please don't post here anymore with an attitude like that.

 

[acorec]

Originally Posted by FALKEN
damn you're a piece of shit. it is you that "degrades every thread you post in". who cares if people are not backing up their opinion with fact?? this thread started out asking for opinions. fucker.

Then why are people constantly defending analog recording technology here.
I think I'm done reading these A/D debate. Its been beat to death here. This is the analog forum so why in the fuck should we have to constantly defend our choice of recording...of all things in the ANALOG FORUM....I don't see ANYONE going to the computer forums and suggesting going back to analog...hmmmm?


OK, that does it. I started yelling for stickies in the Studio Building Forum and I'm going to do it here. This should be the first one.......
fitZ

Because I do both. Regbro does both. Plenty of people do both. But, you and a select group of pansies like to beat a dead horse even further than dead. You berate, badger and insult anyone who sees the other side and you can't accept any opinion other than your own. You are not defending analog at all, you are forcing your "opinion" on everybody else. Shut up and go away if you can't respect people's opinions. You, specifically, have been reported to the moderator for this performance.

 

[acorec]

Hey, guys, I'd say you are hitting right about in the 'heart of it' ... (imho) that's what makes analog to be more preferable 'method' for recording performed music. (NOTE: you see, I'm using word 'preferable' instead of 'better'. Also there are other than 'performed music' musical artforms and also productions where music is being used as supprtive entity (film, games, commercials etc), so I would not include those fields of music production into discussion)

I also want to add here one more thing, which is also hard to clearly explain from technical point and why it matters. But, I think it is important to keep in mind, that in addition to 'being sum of it's parts in digital domain everything (what ever is happening) was pre-set (pre-programmed) by a designer (programmer), regardless of how complex and sophisticated the programming is.
I will try to sort of explain with following analogy/example: 2 balls plus 3 balls = 5 balls, right ? - right. How do we know?
In digital domain you get this answer only and if you first set the machine to give you the ansewer by providing the machine with hard and strict set of rules and the machine will give you the answer only by FOLLOWING YOUR RULES.
In Analog 'domain' to get the answer you have to through the balls into the air and when they 'naturally' (forced by gravity) fall down on the grass - you'll see five balls.

Now, I guess, some/many of you, guys, say: "What the hell is he talking about?" heh heh , I know, I understand that my example is kind of way out of logic and may not make much sense. But I am trying to illustrate here the sense and feeling of independence (and freedom if you will), which I get as an artist/producer, when working with analog. Another words, when working with analog, I get that feeling of doing something more personal, more unique, less predictable and clearly much more natural, and I don't have that back-feeling, that everything I do, every step on the way is predetermined by a software programmer, to whom I've learned not to trust! .

well, I did my best to explain. heh heh , sorry if my rant makes no sense...

/respects

I guess so. Converting any signal carried as a sound wave (moves in air) to an electrical signal changes the original sound. You cannot "hear" a signal after the mic diaghram. Analog goes to tape as a storage devvice and digital goes to tape as a storage device (A hard drive is tape in essence, they are the same except for the backing material). Digital gets converted to words (not just 1s and 0s, but actual words of info that represent many attributes of the "sound"). Analog gets converted to a magnetic waveform modulated by a bias frequency (making the actual stored information different from the info carried by the air). The software programmer has absolutely no interaction at all in the A/D or D/A conversion, These are done in hardware and *presented* to the programmer. The only job a programmer has is to decide the most efficient way of storing this information (like a librarian stores and organizes the place, but has no interaction with the information in each book).


In a properly designed and adjusted system, the only sound that can be stored and reproduced is the sound that got recorded in the room plus any distortion introduced by the whole rcording chain. Recording to analog tape will not sound different from recording digitally unless we *intentionally* introduce distortion into the recording. One effect is called tape compression and is the deliberate distorting of the recorded signal. This has wrongly been used in all these disscussions as the one attribute that makes analog recordings sound "better" than digital. But, record onto tape like the designers intended, and this tape saturation (compression) does not exist.


The "preferable" method of recording is in the eye of the beholder. I definitly prefer to record digitally if I am in a hurry and need to edit a performance that I can't change (like a one time deal) or wneh I am recording a band and they have no money for tape. They prefer it too. I prefer to record to analog when I want to use effects like tape compression ( an effect that can only be done on a analog machine) for some killer drums/ bass tracks, or sometimes I prefer to record all analog. There are hundreds of reasons to "prefer" either format, none of these reasons makes either more/less useful.

 

[Dr ZEE]

The proof to most of us is in the hearing. No amount of analysis beyond that is necessary. However, the mad scientist in some of us would like to find a quantifiable measure to explain it.

quantifiable measure to explain it - huh! I love the way you put it. Also, the situation gets pretty problematic, because the 'Recognized' scientific community does not seem to provide us (unsatisfied minority ) with any clear leads (if any at all) to where to look for the answers. Maybe it is not in the best interest of the 'recognized scientific community', maybe recognized scientists simply have no idea... maybe they had no time to even think about it, or maybe there is something out there, but is burried somewhere in the dark underground.

So we (the unsatisfied minority) are being left neglected by both: science and industry, we are being left with no choice, but turn to gathering for para-scientific self-comforting lemmas for the soul and ramble through the ashes of e-bay for the 'kitchen table' . You see, we (analog guys) have good reasons and I'd say "rights" to be somewhat illogical, often over-reacting and ..well, pretty pissed off overall...heh heh , so you , digital fans guys, should be more sensetive to us and take it easy... sort of speak

*******
When I was trying to find a sort of sensible explanation of why digital does not deliver to me, I kind of looked at overall process, in very general way and as far from a distance as I could abstract myself from the written literature and compared it to analog recording. So what it looks to me like, is that "human mind" or "the designer's decission" or even say - "limitation of designer's mind" could be the factor or maybe even is the key here( ?????).
I'll try to explain, but if you are not into para-science, then don't waste your time here

So if I am not missing something, the digital recording system can be seen as passage through following blocks/actions/stages:

1. Analize (analize the electrical wave/signal)
2. Identify and select (identify the parameter and select it to be a signal representing carrier)
3. Measure
4. Register. (quantize, assign a "a digital name" - set the block of switch(s) position)
5. Add time mark.

6. Digital data manipulation stage. Intelligent switches position re-aggangement.

Digital data play-back section seems to be less relevant to me, as it simply can be seen as a 'mirror process' and built to reflect the 'input section's structure (or principles) ' but with 'revered result'.

So, let's assume that the technology have reached its top hight on the 'definition' part and system stability etc... so if I still hear something 'not-preferable' at the output, then my pointer will mark stage 6 and, more importantly, stage 2. These are stages, where the digital system is clearly differes from analog. These stages simply do not have place in analog system.
So, here's where I am leading to. What could be possibly wrong there? You see, the 'designer' after analyzing the signal to the extend of his mind's ability at the moment (stage 1) Identifies a single parameter which can be measured and controlled and selects this parameter to be a representing carrier of the signal. This is the only parameter will be snapshot registered and used through the entire system.
-You may say: "So what?" This all you need - the Signal Level at moment in time. There's nothing else to it."
-Well, you maybe right. But what if there IS something else to it? Something which we (as 'designers') simply either can not clearly identify and/or measure and register either just do not care to try to search for.
So, if you dare think that there may be something more in the wave signal than just one parameter, then this may point out to explanation of what you get at the output of the digital recording system. You can try to look at digital recording system as a "one single parameter pass filter", and if the digital recording system is linear, then it is so as long as the chosen by the "designer" parameter is the only the haracteristic of 'interest' in the system evaluation process.
In analog system, the parameters we chose to measure and use the measurements during design and evaluations also get singled out, but it only happens "on paper or in designers's mind", while what ever is being unrecognized or ignored - IS STILL THERE!. In digital system what ever the 'designer' picks and chooses - that is actually what you get at the output-door. This is why I was ranting so much about "human designer's brain factor"....

okey,

btw, I was trying to find something about 'linear systems' theory... just in case somebody wish to dig into for what ever reason... I could not find any sites from quick search, I've found this short article, check it out, not much there, but some basic stuff: Linear Systems Theory

anyhow,

/later,

 

[regebro]

Also, the situation gets pretty problematic, because the 'Recognized' scientific community does not seem to provide us (unsatisfied minority ) with any clear leads (if any at all) to where to look for the answers.

Sure it does, you just don't like the answer.

Digital data play-back section seems to be less relevant to me, as it simply can be seen as a 'mirror process' and built to reflect the 'input section's structure (or principles) ' but with 'revered result'.

Yeah, but it isn't less relevsnt, just as the playback process in analog innot less relevant. It doesn't matter how great your recordings are if you can't play them back. The reproduction process is just as important as the recording process.

If you listen to vinyl without having a RIAA stage, how will that sound? Right, like shit.

So, let's assume that the technology have reached its top hight on the 'definition' part and system stability etc... so if I still hear something 'not-preferable' at the output, then my pointer will mark stage 6 and, more importantly, stage 2. These are stages, where the digital system is clearly differes from analog. These stages simply do not have place in analog system.

As far as i can tell, they don't exist in neither digital or analog systems.

Actually, I don't understand your stage system at all, it seems to have no relationship to digital audio whatsoever.

"1. Analize (analize the electrical wave/signal)"

Well, I guess you by this mean filtering, which is a sort of analyzing I guess.

"2. Identify and select (identify the parameter and select it to be a signal representing carrier)"

No such stage exists in digital systems.

"3. Measure"

Yup.

"4. Register. (quantize, assign a "a digital name" - set the block of switch(s) position)"

Same thing as measuring. No difference.

"5. Add time mark."

No, that doesn't happen.

"6. Digital data manipulation stage. Intelligent switches position re-aggangement."

That doesn't happen either.

-You may say: "So what?" This all you need - the Signal Level at moment in time. There's nothing else to it."
-Well, you maybe right. But what if there IS something else to it?

Well, then analog can't vapture it either, becuase thats all analog does as well.

 

[acorec]

quantifiable measure to explain it - huh! I love the way you put it. Also, the situation gets pretty problematic, because the 'Recognized' scientific community does not seem to provide us (unsatisfied minority ) with any clear leads (if any at all) to where to look for the answers. Maybe it is not in the best interest of the 'recognized scientific community', maybe recognized scientists simply have no idea... maybe they had no time to even think about it, or maybe there is something out there, but is burried somewhere in the dark underground.

So we (the unsatisfied minority) are being left neglected by both: science and industry, we are being left with no choice, but turn to gathering for para-scientific self-comforting lemmas for the soul and ramble through the ashes of e-bay for the 'kitchen table' . You see, we (analog guys) have good reasons and I'd say "rights" to be somewhat illogical, often over-reacting and ..well, pretty pissed off overall...heh heh , so you , digital fans guys, should be more sensetive to us and take it easy... sort of speak

*******
When I was trying to find a sort of sensible explanation of why digital does not deliver to me, I kind of looked at overall process, in very general way and as far from a distance as I could abstract myself from the written literature and compared it to analog recording. So what it looks to me like, is that "human mind" or "the designer's decission" or even say - "limitation of designer's mind" could be the factor or maybe even is the key here( ?????).
I'll try to explain, but if you are not into para-science, then don't waste your time here

So if I am not missing something, the digital recording system can be seen as passage through following blocks/actions/stages:

1. Analize (analize the electrical wave/signal)
2. Identify and select (identify the parameter and select it to be a signal representing carrier)
3. Measure
4. Register. (quantize, assign a "a digital name" - set the block of switch(s) position)
5. Add time mark.

6. Digital data manipulation stage. Intelligent switches position re-aggangement.

Digital data play-back section seems to be less relevant to me, as it simply can be seen as a 'mirror process' and built to reflect the 'input section's structure (or principles) ' but with 'revered result'.

So, let's assume that the technology have reached its top hight on the 'definition' part and system stability etc... so if I still hear something 'not-preferable' at the output, then my pointer will mark stage 6 and, more importantly, stage 2. These are stages, where the digital system is clearly differes from analog. These stages simply do not have place in analog system.
So, here's where I am leading to. What could be possibly wrong there? You see, the 'designer' after analyzing the signal to the extend of his mind's ability at the moment (stage 1) Identifies a single parameter which can be measured and controlled and selects this parameter to be a representing carrier of the signal. This is the only parameter will be snapshot registered and used through the entire system.
-You may say: "So what?" This all you need - the Signal Level at moment in time. There's nothing else to it."
-Well, you maybe right. But what if there IS something else to it? Something which we (as 'designers') simply either can not clearly identify and/or measure and register either just do not care to try to search for.
So, if you dare think that there may be something more in the wave signal than just one parameter, then this may point out to explanation of what you get at the output of the digital recording system. You can try to look at digital recording system as a "one single parameter pass filter", and if the digital recording system is linear, then it is so as long as the chosen by the "designer" parameter is the only the haracteristic of 'interest' in the system evaluation process.
In analog system, the parameters we chose to measure and use the measurements during design and evaluations also get singled out, but it only happens "on paper or in designers's mind", while what ever is being unrecognized or ignored - IS STILL THERE!. In digital system what ever the 'designer' picks and chooses - that is actually what you get at the output-door. This is why I was ranting so much about "human designer's brain factor"....

okey,

btw, I was trying to find something about 'linear systems' theory... just in case somebody wish to dig into for what ever reason... I could not find any sites from quick search, I've found this short article, check it out, not much there, but some basic stuff: Linear Systems Theory

anyhow,

/later,

Oh Man, I guess you can discuss the theories further, but you really should read how a digital system works first, that way your theories might actually make sense. I totally mean this with respect. I really have no idea what you are trying to say. But, your writing style is good.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Oh Man, I guess you can discuss the theories further, but you really should read how a digital system works first, that way your theories might actually make sense. I totally mean this with respect. I really have no idea what you are trying to say. But, your writing style is good.

istead of just keep sending me to the library, why don't you simply say how DOES it work? So let's see, professor, what'cha got. It would not take long. Just a few lines.
If you are way too high above an ignorant freak like me, and it's just a waste of your time, then, why even reply? Just smile and go on. Talk to the people of your "intellectual rank".
///////////// arghhhhhh....
forget it

the problem with you, guys, acorec and regebro is that you simply can't see beyond the manual. You study, you pick the right answer during your test, you grab your diploma and then you apply for a job.... and you do job well - that's the worst part of it. But you know what the most pathetic part is? - It is that each time after you've finished studying your scheduled manual - you feel that you NOW! know everything. What's so funny about it? - It's just the way you walk - you walk like a rooster in the chicken farm.
It's just sooooooo freaking boring - I'd prefer toothache instead

/later

 

[acorec]

istead of just keep sending me to the library, why don't you simply say how DOES it work? So let's see, professor, what'cha got. It would not take long. Just a few lines.
If you are way too high above an ignorant freak like me, and it's just a waste of your time, then, why even reply? Just smile and go on. Talk to the people of your "intellectual rank".
///////////// arghhhhhh....
forget it

the problem with you, guys, acorec and regebro is that you simply can't see beyond the manual. You study, you pick the right answer during your test, you grab your diploma and then you apply for a job.... and you do job well - that's the worst part of it. But you know what the most pathetic part is? - It is that each time after you've finished studying your scheduled manual - you feel that you NOW! know everything. What's so funny about it? - It's just the way you walk - you walk like a rooster in the chicken farm.
It's just sooooooo freaking boring - I'd prefer toothache instead

/later

I would reply, but it is a waste of time and energy. Digital recording has been the most maliigned and misuderstood technology out there. There are so many myths (like in analog recording) that it will take years for people to get it. As long as there are people who really don't understand it, then we might as well be talking to an african tribe out in the jungle about "that hot ball in the sky". No offense to you at all. But, you seem to be able to read up and learn about what you are interested in (analog recording). So. my best estimate is that you are not interesed enough in digital recording to read and learn. It is a shame, as I see you are trying to operate a recording studio. Sooner or later, if you want to be a professional, you are gonna have to offer digital recording. It is just a fact of the industry. You can go along with the retro vibe here on this board, or start learning digital as you go. Knowledge is a useful thing and you will never know when, or where you will use it. I will give you a bit of advice. I learned a software language some years ago. I saw the potential and went with it. I now hold a job programming with it that gets me over $100,000/yr. You never know when someone will walk up to you and offer you a well paying position recording using digital equipment and techniques. And, you will have blown it.

So, call me stupid, arrogent or whatever, but I am the one making the $$$ and used knowledge and an opportunity to make the best out of software that I did not understand (at the time).