After seven years of DAW, I will NEVER abandon tape again.

[DesertRatt]

1970 - A typical phone call over the copper wire network was clear, and rich in tone. Voice had original character and the full duplexing worked beautifully with no awkward pauses or delays. Conversation was natural - like face to face.

2020 - A typical phone call over the cellular network (or VOIP) is distorted, and very poor in tone quality including lot of picket-fencing and micro delays. The duplexing barely works, and people constantly have awkward "step overs" in the conversation. Not to mention you are holding a glass plate to your head.

This is called progress.

How bad is cell phone voice? See here: Why Is Cell Phone Call Quality So Terrible? - Scientific American.

But, way, WAY worse than destruction of call quality has been the destruction of jobs. The Bell system was a massive supplier of good, high paying, middle class jobs, with benefits, security and pensions for over 500,000 employees.

 

[ecc83]

"But, way, WAY worse than destruction of call quality has been the destruction of jobs. The Bell system was a massive supplier of good, high paying, middle class jobs, with benefits, security and pensions for over 500,000 employees."

Yes but those same telecommunications companies are now worth bilions, far more than in their 'analogue' days. The top managers and CEO are extremely rich people. The march of job destroying technology is one of the greatest problems of the modern world and AI will just make it worse.

There HAS be a solution and the obscene wealth now residing in fewer and fewer hands, shared out in some way.

At this point someone is going to shout "COMMIE BASTARD!" I am not and we have seen at least a move in this direction. Under Covid lockdown, employees in UK were paid 80% of salary, by a CONSERVATIVE government! Paying people a decent wage to do F A!

We had a politician who, a few decades ago predicted "blood on the streets" over racial issues. The ever growing, worldwide gap between UBER rich and poor will mean blood, entrails and rolling heads if something is not done.

Dave.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Long distance calling in 1970 was expensive and the quality could be poor. You could only do it from a home or business to a home or business. How much voice calling do you do these days anyway?

If you wanted to send a picture you had to find the negative, go down to the photo processor, spend money to get a print made, wait days, put the print in an envelope, go down to the post office, spend (a little) money on postage and wait more days for it to arrive. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the time I just wouldn't bother.

 

[TalismanRich]

1970 - A typical phone call over the copper wire network was clear, and rich in tone. Voice had original character and the full duplexing worked beautifully with no awkward pauses or delays. Conversation was natural - like face to face.

1970 POTS has a whopping 300–3,300 Hz bandwidth. Not exactly rich tone. Its attached to the wall with a 20ft curly cord that is knotted in 5 places.

1970 If you broke down on the side of the road, either you walked miles to the next place that you could find that offered a phone, or you hitchhiked (not a great option if you were a female) to get help.

1970 When your kid is out at midnight past their time, you worried for hours waiting for that call from the police or hospital, only to find out that they were stuck somewhere until they could get a ride.

1970 It costs me $23 to call my family long distance for 15 or 20 minutes.

2020 - A typical phone call over the cellular network (or VOIP) is distorted, and very poor in tone quality including lot of picket-fencing and micro delays. The duplexing barely works, and people constantly have awkward "step overs" in the conversation. Not to mention you are holding a glass plate to your head.

2020 Your phone fits in your pocket and goes where you go. The mic is a MEMs unit that is the size of a postage stamp, but you can plug in a more traditional unit if you want to improve the sound quality.

2020 Your car breaks down and you pull out your phone and call AAA for a tow or repair.

2020 Your kid calls you and asks if you can come and pick them up because they don't want leave with their planned ride because they were drinking.

2020 I call my friend who lives in Canada for no extra charge. I use my phone hooked to the internet to call home over VOIP from South Africa for free.


There are advantages and disadvantages to everything.

 

[miroslav]

Not sure why everyone is going all the way back to 1970...I mean cellphones only blew up in usage in the last 15-20 years.

I still have my house landline...and I have a cell phone.
I use my landline like 85% of the time because 1.) it's clearer sounding, 2.) the phone doesn't start to burn up in my hand after 10 minutes use...and 3. my monthly unlimited, long-distance landline costs half the price of my monthly cell phone bill...not to mention, the price of a smart phone costs as much as a big-screen TV.

So yeah...let's put it into perspective.

Sure, cell phones for remote emergency communications are hard to beat...but consider the damage being done by 5G/WiFi...of wait, people don't want to consider it, they are hooked on the cell phone convenience.

Oh...and speaking of convenience...when there is a storm that knocks out the networks and the cell towers...the landlines still work in most cases because they do not require additional power, the lines are "self-powered" and not affected by bad weather.
I would never get rid of my landline....I would get rid of the cell phone first if I had to chose.

Cell phones were not missed when all we had was landlines...in most cases....now people can't live without them for more than 3 minutes.

 

[snow lizard]

There is a sort of "Nyquist point" for tape, the bias frequency.

Not really.

Dynamic resolution in digital (word length if you prefer) is finite. When it runs out you get quantization error, or truncation. The only exception that I know of is if you're processing the audio and you change the level in exactly 6.02 dB increments (6.02 dB = 1 bit). Truncation causes data loss and distortion. This prevents the audio from being able to have a true linear transfer function. Dither adds noise by randomizing the LSB which removes the distortion and restores the lost data, which allows linear transfer.

The bias frequency of a tape machine is the analog version of the same thing. Many people hold the opinion that dither just adds subsonic noise that you can't hear anyway so why bother? It's the same as saying tape bias just adds an ultrasonic frequency that you can't hear. Again, why bother?

I'm thinking "linear transfer function" is a good place to start.

The analog version of the Nyquist point probably has more to do with speed, like on a phonograph record where the IPS decreases as you get towards the end of the record. If we had a CNC phonograph where we could make records using G96, the RPM would increase as the stylus groove diameter decreases, maintaining constant surface speed.

 

[ecc83]

Not sure why everyone is going all the way back to 1970...I mean cellphones only blew up in usage in the last 15-20 years.

I still have my house landline...and I have a cell phone.
I use my landline like 85% of the time because 1.) it's clearer sounding, 2.) the phone doesn't start to burn up in my hand after 10 minutes use...and 3. my monthly unlimited, long-distance landline costs half the price of my monthly cell phone bill...not to mention, the price of a smart phone costs as much as a big-screen TV.

So yeah...let's put it into perspective.

Sure, cell phones for emergency communications are hard to beat...but consider the damage being done by 5G/WiFi...of wait, people don't want to consider it, they are hooked on the cell phone convenience.

Oh...and speaking of convenience...when there is a storm that knocks out the networks and the cell towers...the landlines still work in most cases because they do not require additional power, the lines are "self-powered".

Indeed! I shall never give up my landline for the same reasons. I have an 'old' Blackberry' type I use for rare texting and Sony smart phone which mostly baffles me but at least I can talk to son in France for free. Emergencies? Yes, the smart phone especially runs the battery down in 20 hours. The 'Berry' last a week. Mind you, I can always charge the Sony in the car.

Dave.

 

[TalismanRich]

In my area, its almost as likely that a phone wire will fall during a storm, as so many are strung alongside tree lined streets. When the wire hits the street, the phone stops working. On the other hand, I've only had a couple of times when my cell tower went out. In total, its' probably a wash between the reliability of the two.

I do still have a land line although I've converted to VOIP, same number that I've had since 1976. Consider it the best of both worlds.

As for the phone battery, I've got about 5 of those portable battery packs that I can use to charge the phone. Good for about 2 days each charge. Plus I can charge in the car.

If the power's out that long, I'll be more worried about all the stuff in the deep freeze rather than making phone calls! Or the water pipes, if its dead of winter.

 

[grimtraveller]

^^ that 43rd take is what makes you a better musician

That 43rd take can be what makes you end up detesting that song forever and a day !

once you're good, you don't need that many takes to record a part

You should read about the making of the White album where songs like "I will" took 67 takes, "Not guilty" took 102 takes and still didn't make the cut and "Happiness is a warm gun" took 95 takes, "Sexy Sadie" 52 {and 2 remakes} etc, etc.
The band that made it weren't bad either !

that's one thing that is great about analog. i've greatly improved my timing/rhythm because of that

You're going to have to explain to me exactly what that has to do specifically with analog because I can't see it. That's to do with being a musician.

also, being limited by how many tracks you can record shows you how much "less is better"

I don't know about that. I don't think limitation makes one better. It just makes you limited. The simple reality of recording history is that whenever there were less tracks, artists and engineers looked for more. By the time digital recording came into being, the standard analog recording trackage was not 2, 3, 4, 8 or 16 track, it was 24 track and a number of studios lashed multiple 24 tracks together to get more tracks.
Less isn't necessarily better. It limits what one can do but it does, I guess, make one have to be inventive in a different way.

i know a bunch of people who open ableton and put a bunch of useless shit to make a song that sounds like nothing.

And if they put the same stuff on tape, I suppose it would sound like.......a song that sounds like nothing.
Besides, that's only your opinion. The president's wife might love it.

recording analog forces me to sit down and work out the song before recording, as opposed to digital where i can immediately open the program, start recording and then stop because i'm discouraged of not coming up with anything good

Again, that's got little to do with digital or analog. That's to do with you.
Pretty much the way I record with digital is the way I recorded with analog with a few tweaks here and there that may have come along anyway as I thought more about recording and got more experienced.
I recognized long ago that it isn't analog or digital that revolutionized songwriting and recording, but multitracking. It just happened to be tape that was in use when artists found that they didn't have to have complete songs to hand in order to start recording a song. Back in the 60s, songs like "Good Vibrations," and "A day in the life" didn't start off their recording lives as fully fleshed out songs. "Bohemian Rhapsody" in the 70s wasn't even half its size at the start. It's multitracking per se that has helped unchain peoples' imaginations over long periods of time. Countless bands/artists have gone into studios over the last 55 years and more with only the vaguest notions of what they're going to record and have taken sometimes months to complete their song and no one at the start could have predicted it would sound like that.

I like working with tape. Don't need any reasons, justifications, tech specs or anything. I just like it.
If you like working in a certain medium, creation is more of a joy.
That’s good enough

Absolutely. I've observed over many years that so many people need to find a reason why what they like just has to be the best way to go and so all kinds of technical or scientific or natural or morally wonderful hoopla gets trotted out. When in actuality, it comes down to this: like. Most facets in recording have their own inherent element that enables them to do the job.
What really makes the difference is how things are used....and preference.

Drums recorded to tape have a “magic glue” effect where they sound coherent, where in digital they always sounded sharp and harsh

I find that is often more about the specific equipment and/or the way it is recorded rather than the actual medium.

Perhaps it has to do with the shape of the medium the wave form is recorded on?

It has to do with preference, pure and simple but argued against frequently and rarely admitted.

 

[miroslav]

Less isn't necessarily better. It limits what one can do but it does, I guess, make one have to be inventive in a different way.


I find that is often more about the specific equipment and/or the way it is recorded rather than the actual medium.


It has to do with preference, pure and simple but argued against frequently and rarely admitted.

Well...it's not just about being more "inventive" due to limitations...it's also about knowing that you don't have 100-track capability, or endless options to fix things later on, so you have to bring your A-game from the first take.

AFA "specific equipment"...well, that IS the medium, the specific equipment...it's one and the same.

Also...while preference plays a part in decisions...I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the only thing that separates analog and digital audio recording.
Maybe to you or me or some other person...but on the whole, it's safe to say that analog has it's "sound", and often the preference to use it isn't just an "either-or" thing...and digital has no sound, but often tries to imitate analog...and THAT is the real "pure and simple" of it.

Oh...one thing I forgot to mention about the cell phone discussion....

Out of all the negatives aspects of cell phone usage...the one that I think is the worst, is how much it has elevated social rudeness.

Like the idiot in the left lane who is going 10 miles slower than the speed limit because he's thumbing through his messages, but refuses to move over, and even gets pissy if you flash your lights at him...
...or the woman in the check out line, holding things up because she's on the phone, while the clerk is waiting for her to finish...
...and the person at the next dinner table carrying on loudly on his phone, while you're looking to have a quiet enjoyable evening, but you have to listen to him argue with his pool installer who messed up the yard...
...and all the people walking on the sidewalks bumping into other people because they are too preoccupied with their phones.

Just a whole lot of social rudeness with the use of cell phones, and especially the smart phones, where people are trying to do even more than just talk, while engaged in other activities.

It's like no matter what activity cell phone users are doing...their cell phone conversation takes precedence, and the real activity is on autopilot.

 

[ecc83]

Yes, we get the 'plugged up wanderers' here as well. We call them "Phombies"

But people ARE rude and getting worse. Northampton, being something of a 'hick' town is not so bad but my brother-in-law lives in Bromley Kent (London dorm' suburb) and he says when he HAS to go out people don't wear masks and generally don't give a fuck about other people who they might infect. Mostly young people.

He is 76 and is in pretty poor health so rather vulnerable.

Generally in UK we have seen a great improvement in people's attitudes to on another during the worst of the virus crisis but now things have eased quite a lot there is a bit of a return to the "I am going to make MY way in this world and ***ck everybody else!"

There is a general groundswell of wanting NOT to return to the mad consumer, polluting society pre Covid and a push for some radical socio-political change. The latter because, I suspect, many very well paid people had their incomes slashed overnight and their lifestyle grossly curtailed. They had never in their lives walked even ten feet in 'those shoes' leave alone a mile and thus came to realize that"Society" DOES matter and some form of safety net is needed.

But! I am pretty sure, once a vaccine is rolled out and the virus brought under control the same people will forget the bad times and go back (if they can) to their 60k Beamers and their 3 holidays in the sun every year.

Dave.

 

[DesertRatt]

The philosophy of "progress" in civilization is around 200 years old. Science, technology and organization improvements will improve the "human condition." The problem is, it hasn't. Poverty, hunger, war, disease, and plain old misery are all with us. And yet, every single technical innovation is automatically assumed to be "progress." High def TV, Apple iPhone 1 through n, and the endless sequence from 1G to nG and beyond. All progress? Not by the real meaning of progress.

"Converting Life to Data" is in the very early innocent stages. It's all about collection right now. What you watch, hear, and look at got collected first. Then where you go, where you are, what you spend, what you do, when you do it, was next. And now the important new collection is what you think about. Billions of biological lives are being transformed into digital lives that are not accessible by the individual, only by the owners of those digital lives for their use, their convenience, their purpose. When the collection phase ends - maybe a few years away yet - the management phase will begin. Your digital tail will be completely beyond your reach, out of your control. You were slowly transformed from a biological entity of divinity, to a digital, remote controlled property with not one slave owner, but dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of owners.

This path is irrefutable. The tipping point was passed when everyone ran out and embedded a smart phone into their life.

 

[miroslav]

The philosophy of "progress" in civilization is around 200 years old. Science, technology and organization improvements will improve the "human condition." The problem is, it hasn't. Poverty, hunger, war, disease, and plain old misery are all with us. And yet, every single technical innovation is automatically assumed to be "progress." High def TV, Apple iPhone 1 through n, and the endless sequence from 1G to nG and beyond. All progress? Not by the real meaning of progress.

"Converting Life to Data" is in the very early innocent stages. It's all about collection right now. What you watch, hear, and look at got collected first. Then where you go, where you are, what you spend, what you do, when you do it, was next. And now the important new collection is what you think about. Billions of biological lives are being transformed into digital lives that are not accessible by the individual, only by the owners of those digital lives for their use, their convenience, their purpose. When the collection phase ends - maybe a few years away yet - the management phase will begin. Your digital tail will be completely beyond your reach, out of your control. You were slowly transformed from a biological entity of divinity, to a digital, remote controlled property with not one slave owner, but dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of owners.

This path is irrefutable. The tipping point was passed when everyone ran out and embedded a smart phone into their life.

It's not just the embedded smart phone...it's pretty much ANY technology that has the "smart" label attached to it.

Last year my power company was upgrading the electric meters to the latest "smart" meters....and at this point I would say the majority of the USA (and many other parts of the world) has been converted by the local/regional power company to using smart meters.
Basically...smart meters are ALWAYS transmitting a WiFi signal back to headquarters as they monitor your 24/7 power usage. They can pretty much tell when you turn on your TV, your A/C, and when you leave the house and when you come home simply by the changes in your power usage. They all swear that they will protect your privacy and your personal data laughings.

The other thing...these are digital meters which use a switching relay to read the analog power...pretty much once per minute at least...and every time they do, it sends out huge EMF spikes and makes your electricity dirty, which means that some home appliances end up needed MORE power to run because of the dirty power.
Many places have fought the installation of the smart meters. If you live in a condo/apt...and your unit is at the end of the line where they have the 20+ meters attached on the outside...you are getting bombarded with some serious EMF radiation....kinda like living next a massive microwave that is always on.

They had swapped out my old analog meter to a basic digital a few years back without me realizing the issues of the dirty power...and I was wondering for the last few years why some devices would behave oddly...luckily, my studio has a substantial power conditioning/regulating setup, so it wasn't bothering my audio gear.
It was the early version that didn't transmit back to headquarters via WiFi...but the meter reader could trigger a transmission up from the street, so he wouldn't have to come to the meter.
Anyway...along with the new smart meters installation...they were also offering op-outs, because people were complaining. So I opted-out of any transmission meter, and they came and removed my semi-smart meter, didn't install the new fully smart meter...and instead replaced it with a basic digital readout meter that has no transmission option.
I still have to deal with the digital switching and the dirty power thing...but they refused to put back the older analog meters, citing maintenance issues and no more production by any company. Well of course...they are all in bed together...but if they wanted to, they could easily make analog meters again...but they won't.

Why won't they...?...because this IS the first step toward controlling your individual power usage. Right now they are gathering the data.
The next phase will be to analyze it, and then implement power distribution controls...which they are already doing in some countries. Instead of giving you the full power promised...they can cut it back to lower the demand on their equipment.
So instead of investing in better equipment to provide more clean power...they are implementing power controls and are selling you dirty, and eventually reduced power.

Yup...that's "progress".

 

[RFR]

There’s no progress at all. Not for us, anyway.
Plenty of ‘progress’ for the controllers. And that in a nutshell is what the covid is all about.
It is THE catalyst to bring in very rapidly what the controllers have always wanted. Which is complete control.
Technology wasn’t previously available to them, but now is.

What started out as a 2 week lockdown (in the us) for the purpose of ‘flattening the curve’ so the hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed turned into a complete destruction of the society that we know. All so ‘they’ can rebuild it in their own image.

Welcome to the New World Order....Slavelandia

 

[grimtraveller]

Well...it's not just about being more "inventive" due to limitations...it's also about knowing that you don't have 100-track capability, or endless options to fix things later on, so you have to bring your A-game from the first take.

While it's true that in analogue one doesn't have endless opportunities to fix things later, it's much of a muchness because the possibility has existed since the early 60s to fix things later. That is part of the story of rock. That's why many people in bands and studious fell out, some discovering that their recorded tracks had been wiped and replaced. Artists have frequently brought their A game and it wasn't what was required. Professionals bring their A game regardless. But even that has never guaranteed there'd be no mistakes. Look at those Beatle take figures I gave earlier. Knowing you can do lots of takes is ultimately the same as having 100 track capability.

AFA "specific equipment"...well, that IS the medium, the specific equipment...it's one and the same.

No, that's not what I meant.
I meant that different machinery makes the difference, not the medium. For example, some people hear a specific difference between one mic and another of a different brand or one console and another. Apples was talking about the special 'glue' that analog brought to drums, implying that digital can't or doesn't and thereby announcing its inferiority. My reply was that things like that weren't necessarily to do with the medium, but rather, the specific equipment used.
There are essentially 3 ways to record and capture the sort of sounds we make ~ via analog tape, via digital means and through a hybrid set up. All three are wonderful.

on the whole, it's safe to say that analog has it's "sound", and often the preference to use it isn't just an "either-or" thing..

I don't deny analog has its sound, whether via reel tape or cassette {or other things like vinyl}. Neither do I have a problem with people discussing why they love it. In fact, I welcome it and enjoy hearing why people like it. Where I draw the line is when that conversation delves into analog superiority as some kind of objective fact when it is nothing but preference. Now, preference is actually really important. It's part of what makes an individual's thoughts and opinions interesting. But some people don't stop there. They begin to introduce what they deem to be objective/scientific reasons to justify/prove why their specific preference is the better one. And I'll often point that out when I can be bothered. And I'll do the same with those on the digital side of the equation when they do the same.
If someone says "I'll never go back to analog" or "I'd never use a DAW again" I'm actually interested in hearing about it but I've never come across anyone whose reasons weren't ultimately down to their preference.

digital has no sound, but often tries to imitate analog

One of the reasons digital technology tries to imitate analog is simply because so many fascinating and much used strides were made during the period when wax had been abandoned and magnetic tape was the only feasible medium. It happened to coincide with many technological innovations. And there was much spurring on. Analog equipment had its limitations and disadvantages too {not least weight, bulk and moving parts} but fortunately, helped bring sounds and pictures that zillions of people loved. Once innovators found ways of shrinking stuff, then it was inevitable that digital emulations of what already existed {as well as things that could not be done} would find their way into our lexicon. And increase choice. Of course not everyone uses it well but one could say that about anything.

digital has no sound

It depends what you mean. Have you ever listened to a piece of music encoded at 96kbps ? That's digital and it is an awful sound. I find it almost impossible to listen to videos and some music digitally recorded, transferred or encoded at low kbps from the early days.

 

[miroslav]

I know you want more than just someone's preference to be convinced that A is better than B...but if 100 people prefer A and one person prefers B...
...does it really matter if analytically/scientifically it can't be proven than A is better than B...?

Look at Pro Tools...which is a DAW...and these days, most people are convinced and will say that all DAWs are capable of the same audio quality, and have comparable plugins, because hey, it's all just 0's and 1's.
However...if you want to work in the pro studio recording world...no matter what DAW you prefer, you better also include ProTools, because that's what the majority of pros consider the DAW of choice...of preference...and really, do you think they care that some other DAW can do the same things.

So preference doesn't need to always be based on science for anyone to decide which choice is better.

Digital is really what I call a true "medium" only...it's adds or takes nothing at it's normal usage.
Analog tape is a medium, but it most definitely imparts something to the audio...sometimes it's bad too...but used in a specific "range", what it imparts has generally been a favorable preference to most people using it...likewise, so does a lot of quality analog gear. It has a technical use, but it simultaneously acts like audio spice. Now...do you like your stew flavored with some appropriate spice...or just plain boiled meat and veggies?
Which is "better" to you?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Now...do you like your stew flavored with some appropriate spice...or just plain boiled meat and veggies?
Which is "better" to you?

I wouldn't want all the meat and veggies to be sold infused with the same spice, I'd want to be able to buy it unspiced so I can add different ones on different days.

 

[miroslav]

I wouldn't want all the meat and veggies to be sold infused with the same spice, I'd want to be able to buy it unspiced so I can add different ones on different days.

Who said anything about using the same spice...there's the tape, and all kinds of analog hardware, each adding it's individual spice.

You know...you can also add more analog spice during mixdown and mastering...so it's not infused with one spice and that's it.

When you cook...you don't cook without any spice, and then wait to add it all when you sit down to eat.

 

[Chilljam]

Digital is really what I call a true "medium" only...it's adds or takes nothing at it's normal usage.

Compared to analog yes, there is definitely less of a sonic 'footprint' but to say that the digital medium is transparent at normal usage is just not true.

This is easily argued with the fact that if today's digital recording was 100% transparent then why would there be high end digital converters claiming greater transparency over budget converters?

At the end of the day, if we are recording real instruments or voices and we are listening back on magnetic speakers, AD and DA conversion will always be part of the digital recording process and there will never be a theoretically 'perfect' conversion.

Just pointing this out because these days I think a lot of producers and engineers have the attitude that digital recording means what comes in is what goes out so they are constantly taking mixes or parts of tracks out of the box to go through this analog processor then back in and out again for something else then again for analog summing then again for mastering through analog hardware.

The current trend seems to be all about imparting a certain sonic signature on individual tracks or entire mixes during the mixing stage. Cool but every conversion you could have avoided will make the sonics a little bit worse. Unless you have some pleasant sounding converters, in which case you can loop your mix through DA and AD until you run out of hard drive space

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Who said anything about using the same spice...there's the tape, and all kinds of analog hardware, each adding it's individual spice.

You know...you can also add more analog spice during mixdown and mastering...so it's not infused with one spice and that's it.

When you cook...you don't cook without any spice, and then wait to add it all when you sit down to eat.

True, but I was mostly talking about a purely tape based system where you get the tape sound all the time. You can't opt out. In some cases that's a good thing, but I prefer a less prescribed process. On the other hand, this conversation will probably inspire me to get the Solo 610 back in action.