“The Superiority of Analog Audio Tape”

[Beck]

Haha… a crystal ball game.

 

[Dr ZEE]

heh heh heh ...lol, good one.
mine is actually made of pure ebonite by Daka-Ware in Chicago, not my home, but a sweet one

 

[MCI2424]

Not a chance.
Your point is the only point you inject where ever you arrive, and it is:
cheap gear -low end and bad
expansive gear - hi-end and great.
If one does not have expansive gear of the day , then he/she can not and thus should not make any conclusions about anything and his/her findings (if there are any and if such findings are being stated on this b-board) are invalid by default.
Your "point" should get lost, but, nop, - not a chance. Also, your "point" works well for people who suffer of their own misery, self-implicated by laziness, lack of curiosity and convenient volunteer disregard to the obility of their mind.
**********
btw, there's no such thing as "Cakewalk system" (Or did I say that already), regardless of what you may (or wish to) imagine about what "it" would be like.
And, no, I am not just being picky on a word here. Anyone who knows well by heart a system or two or three or few, part of which Cakewalk/Sonar software happen to be, knows well what I am talking about. And there's (or better say - can be) a lot things to be compared within a such hypothetical "system" (a "system" that can be low, mid, or high end or anything in between or a mixture) if one whishes to compare something. Have it your way. It's all good, as long it's not a "reference" from an article.
A line like "Comparing a Cakewalk system with a soundblaster card to a what ever" is shinning on and radiating a lethal dose of superficial knowledge base (softly speaking), (well, not so for a "guy in the corner", though. Of course.)
**********
now I have to make that freaking speacial note for some who rather need a note like this.
Here I go:

WE, (the folks on this board, that is), DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORAGES AND APPLES.
We ARE Grey-Haired Farmers
so, there....
you can try this sh*ty "argument" again, just don't get pissed then when reading some follow ups replies, that may smell a bit "personal". Because you are getting on my not-anymore-so-sensitive nereve!!!!!!!!!
.
/later

You really topped yourself Zee.



Way to add to a thread!

Cheers

 

[evm1024]

Folks!

Let's stay on topic and let the bar fights go to the cave.

As I recall state of the art tape outshines state of the art digital sonicaly as stated in the paper. Some (er, I) suggested that digital will at some point inthe future gain enough precision and sample rate to reduce the artifacts to below human detection. Some have hinted that digital is already at that point.

Now I want to say that as the level of the recorded and played back digital signal decreases the distortion increases. This is not so in tape. As the dignal in digital becomes smaller the number of bits to encode that signal becomes smaller and the quantization errors become extreme. Even to the point that dither must be introduced to cause the LSB to take on a random pattern. (Don't focus on the exactness of the words I am using but look for the meaning.)

Regards

 

[Dr ZEE]

Way to add to a thread!

Nop.
It's a way to deduct from a thread - things like same moldy so called "arguments", like:
"people who disregard digital technology in relation to music/recording production and express their reasonings for such disregard or their findings do not compare apples to apples and/or do not have "state of the art" equipment, and thus are "full of it".
Or "arguments" like:
"my friend, who is professinal violinist in major symphony orchestra loves his CDs"
"millions of people buy CDs and mp3 players and they don't give a sh*t about analog"
"I have state-of-the-art Radar and a very nice ProTools system"
.....
such crap has to go - marked to be deducted that is.
********
btw:
is it imo?
- YES!
Always so, and not so humbled.

***********
here's another way to put it:
(hypothetically speaking)
I say: Digital Sucks and Analog Is Great. - that's what I know and express. Whether or not I offer any reasonings or explanations - that's another story. I may , I may not.
You say: Digital is great and Analog sucks. - That's what you know and express. And that's just fine with me. Whether or not You offer any reasonings or explanations - that's another story. You may , you may not. And it's all good.
BUT! If you say that I simply don't know what I am talking about and start from there, then expect no me being humbled around. That's all.

/later

 

[Beck]

...as the level of the recorded and played back digital signal decreases the distortion increases. This is not so in tape. As the dignal in digital becomes smaller the number of bits to encode that signal becomes smaller and the quantization errors become extreme. Even to the point that dither must be introduced to cause the LSB to take on a random pattern. (Don't focus on the exactness of the words I am using but look for the meaning.)

Precisely! And to clarify, in this case it is not the harsh distortion of overdriving or clipping, but simply altering of the source signal through an imperfect sampling process. In past threads when I’ve tried to point this out it’s been met with giggles because as one poster insisted (not mentioning any names), “I’ve never experienced any distortion at low levels.”

This is an area where the properties of digital, in this case the dynamic range, have been exaggerated. Like analog there is a limit to the highest and lowest signal a digital system can process while maintaining fidelity. In fact the only level at which a digital sampler (recorder) meets its specified word length is 0dBfs. Above that is the harsh clipping people commonly think of as “distortion.” But below that is an ever-decreasing accuracy, which also degrades frequency response. So while analog tape eventually falls into a noise floor, digital sampling falls into distortion. Digital processing distorts the signal at both ends.

This would not be such a big deal if marketers didn’t continue to exaggerate the usable dynamic range of digital compared to analog… emphasis on the word, “Usable.”

But the irreparable damage to the recording industry has already been done. All one can do now is say Beta WAS better than VHS (figuratively speaking) and perhaps consumers can move forward with an attitude of “Once bitten” rather than gullible idiot begging for more of the same… “Thank you sir, may I have another!”

 

[Han]

OMG, the saga continues, a well aligned two inch machine with +9 tape and Dolby SR will not have any problem with a dynamic range of 85dB.

Besides that, I examine CD productions in my digital editor that have a dynamic range of: pay attention now, one single deciBell.

So what the f*ck is the importance of dynamics anyway these days?

Okay, my (jazz) productions, recorded on 2" have a dynamic range of 12-15 dB, which is a lot these days.

 

[Beck]

So what the f*ck is the importance of dynamics anyway these days?

Not anymore important than it ever was, outside of marketing brochures.

And yes, the saga continues and will continue as long as manufacturers use the same worn-out, misleading buzzwords to sell inferior crap. So it looks like we’ll be here for a while.

I’ve proposed a ceasefire, but that would require that manufacturers abolish slavery and release their captives. So far they’re not interested.

And right now we have our hands full anyway getting the captives to even understand the concept of freedom and why they should want it.

 

[Han]

Look what I found at gearslutz:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza2
Nothing wrong with tape, if you can afford a tech to keep it in good shape and pay for all the repairs. thats the only reason im not recording to tape......do not want the service bills. /quote

My answer to him:

I never get any bills, the machine always works and aligning is a piece of cake when you have an MRL.

It's a miracle perhaps, but the machine works without any problem now for ten years. It's an Otari MX80, I want a second one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As if any two inch machine needs a tech every other day, myths and saga's.
Two inch machines were designed to work 24/7 for many years and so they do.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/126467-i-have-new-addiction-2-analog-tape-3.html

 

[Beck]

Nothing wrong with tape, if you can afford a tech to keep it in good shape and pay for all the repairs. thats the only reason im not recording to tape......do not want the service bills.

Funny... that's the same reason I dumped ADAT and would be a good reason for me to dump PC based systems if I wasn't the tech doing the billing.

 

[Beck]

The maintenance issue is another interesting aspect of the D vs. A debate. Most people fail to include PC issues like dead hard drives and the catastrophic data loss that often ensues; RAM, processor and motherboard failure, Operating system crashes… or just having to continually upgrade all of the above to stay, “Current.” Add to that regular maintenance, like defragging and backups, tracking down bugs and installing fixes, etc. Even for people that don’t need to call tech support and do it all themselves (like me) the time alone (not to mention parts) is a very significant portion of the total cost of ownership.

Because PC maintenance usually comes at you in bits and pieces people fail to add it up. And unless repair and maintenance specifically involves a soundcard or the recording software many people fail to pay it from the studio account. But a Windows OS issue is a recording device issue if your recorder is dependant on a Windows PC.

I’ve heard people complain about things like having to wait for tape to rewind as a reason not to use tape. LOL In the long term the time spent not recording but rather tinkering and “fixing” has increased 10 fold since tape was king.

Not that tape machines don’t take time and skill to setup right the first time, but after that they stay that way for a long time with relatively little attention.

My oldest piece of personal analog gear is a TASCAM 246. In the 19 years I’ve owned it I’ve only needed to replace the capstan belt and pinch roller once, and repair a VU meter. Other than that only routine cleaning and degaussing, which I can now do in my sleep. In that same time (actually a bit less) I’ve run two ADATs into the ground (both failing prematurely) and gone through more PCs and peripherals than I can remember… not to mention all the repair and upgrades while I owned each one.

I long for the simpler less costly days of reliable equipment.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I never get any bills...

heh heh heh , good one
Now, Han, what are your references so to have a nerve to make a such bald statement?

I ...- the tech doing the billing

Me too. I bill only myself though
**********
speaking of "tinkering and “fixing” "
During tinkering and “fixing” PC related stuff and such I feel extremly annoyed, irritated, pissed and after it is fixed I still feel that way with added taste of wasted valueable time.
But during tinkering / “fixing” some analog pies of equipment it feels like an adveture and after it's done I feel ...hmmmm - special. heh heh

 

[Beck]

Ok, back to the future…. I wonder what digital will look like, assuming that quality will some day be the point of reference one again (which is a stretch in itself).

I envision a hybrid analog/digital system. I don’t mean in the sense that we already have as in using digital and analog in the same studio.

I’m thinking of a system where digital recording is a very controlled process like early sampling used to be. You have a window, or rather once again acknowledge there is a window within which optimum results can be achieved. The dynamics are then restored by an analog expansion process, not unlike the decoding step in analog noise reduction.

Almost like being able to send analog across cyberspace because the process of expansion will be a hardware function of the typical soundcard on the other side. Digital will do what it does best – control things at high speed. The thing being controlled will be an analog device that is in turn controlling dynamics. The basic sample is digital, but the dynamics are analog. Listening to the raw digital just this side of the DAC without the decoder would sound very flat and constrained. We haven’t had the speed in digital or analog components to do this until fairly recently.

The realization that there is only so much digital can do well on its own is the best hope for it, as ironic as that might seem. The current trend is that digital can and should emulate everything. As much as that seems great for digital on the surface, the more we move in that direction the less hope for digital as a contender, sonically speaking. It will be the king of multitasking… jack-of-all-trades, master of none… as they say.

Same thing with digital devices like effects processors. The EQ will be digitally controlled analog… a variation on a theme going back to early digital processors, which had front panel analog EQ controls (knobs) that controlled conventional analog EQ of various types. Sure we can do it now with external EQ, but there is something intuitive about a device optimized and equipped for a single purpose.

Anything you do to sound in the digital realm you aren’t actually doing to sound, but only a binary numeric representation of that sound. The only thing you can manipulate are symbols that represent the sound, and that’s an approximation or a guess, which is what an algorithm is all about.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Heh, Tim. good thinking.
OK, let me rant something here, why not.

My anti-scientific theory shines no damn sun on the future of digital technology as a core-base for recording (as well as a core-base in many other areas of creative electronics which is a major part of the art of musical recordings production).
To me the problem is right in the heart of it.
Process in time is a continious motion (no stop(s)/go(s)).
Analog recording technology uses continious motion to represent time.
Digital system by default can not function in such envirnment. I see Digital technology as an "anti-motion" in a sense. The heart of digital system is Puls. They call it "clock" , but it is just a Puls. Puls is not a motion.
So at the output of any digital system there only can be a simulation of a continious process that once was in present at the input of the system. Ironically, The more sophisticated such simulation is the less desirable result at output . It's like drawing an ugly face: the more you draw - the uglier the face (depending on who you ask, of course ).
Digital technology is great for checking, keepping and making a statement (or say, command). So in my book, that is what you use it for.
Ideal recorder in my sclerotic mind is an analog recorder the functionality of which is being checked, kept in its best shape and controlled by a digital system.

BTW, Any system that functions - assumingly, is good at taking a command. It's all about, what happens next

now, I'm gonna' do a spin of my ebonite ball. see what's out there in the darkness of the future. I'll tell you - it's getting draker and darker.

 

[cjacek]

...and that's precisely why I would never opt for a digital recording system, no matter how "advanced" it may get. The non-linear / sampled way it captures sound doesn't sit well with me but that's the way digital records and that's how it will record in the future. That it will get better at it, doesn't sway me 'cause the fundamental way it captures, records, stores, will remain essentially the same. I agree with the concept of "an analog recorder the functionality of which is being checked, kept in its best shape and controlled by a digital system" but not the other way around. I never liked the concept of recording music to digital. It does not sit well with me for many reasons.

 

[Han]

heh heh heh , good one
Now, Han, what are your references so to have a nerve to make a such bald statement?

Me too. I bill only myself though
**********
speaking of "tinkering and “fixing” "
During tinkering and “fixing” PC related stuff and such I feel extremly annoyed, irritated, pissed and after it is fixed I still feel that way with added taste of wasted valueable time.
But during tinkering / “fixing” some analog pies of equipment it feels like an adveture and after it's done I feel ...hmmmm - special. heh heh

Is that a bold statement? Now seriously, I do have a big room and I'm kind of specialised in recording whole bands and orchestra's at once, all together in that 100m2 room.

The board has 24 busses and recording 23 tracks simultainiously is not much more than the push of a button, the mics are permanently placed on the drums and in front of the amps etc. So if a band comes in we drink a cup of coffee and in less than one hour we can start recording their music. A couple of weeks ago I recorded 27 songs in less than six hours on a sunny saturday.

The procedure is simple: I come into the studio in the morning and fire up the machines and the console and it always works. The band comes in and.....told you. I work very seriously, not on routine, I want the best possible sound and when the band's playing and I hear this sound of the mics and the board coming from the main monitors I am one hell of a happy camper. And when the song is done and we listen to the playback of the 2" tape I hear at least 95% of that sound again and the controlroom is filled with a lot of happy campers.

In case the electricity drops there's no problem, it's saved already in particles of iron.

Yesterday I've been mixing the whole day, same procedure. Gear gets fired up and it simply works. I have an automated board, the mix is sent to Adobe Audition in 24/96 because it ends up on CD anyway, I save each song after I've done some minimal edits like cleaning the start and fade out the end.
And when I'm done I push a couple of switches and have a zip or two because nothing needs to be done anymore, it's finished.

Sometimes when I have some free time I put the MRL on the machine and tweak a little here and there, it's really minimal. And sometimes there's a tiny little problem with the board, most of the time a dirty contact and after cleaning it up it works for months without any problem.

I'm not going to jabber about digital versus analog, we've been through that too many times already. Digital has it's pro's and conn's and so has analog. I simply work much more relaxed with tape, it sounds better to my ears and I don't like the way of recording one hour and edit for three hours.

I do have acess to a full blown and big studio of a friend, PT HD, the ICON board/controller, Neumann mics etc etc etc.
But I don't like the sound, it's flat and lifeless compared to my 2" and my analog big board.

I can't make it any nicer, I'm just an old fart, a tape slut, I love the sound of tube mics, ribbons, tape and big boards and the view of it, the spinning of the reels, the smell of fresh tape and this sound, this big wide and deep sound with lots of punch. And since I have two machines and thus 46 tracks at my disposal I don't want anything else.

Besides that, If I would have gone the Digidesign way I would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. I've bought a Fostex B16 in 1989, guess what, it still works. I've bought a brand new Tascam MSR24S in 1992 and guess what? It still works like new and it has never (not for a split second) let me down, it only needed a new head once and that's all.

And in 1998 I've bought this Otari MX80 2" machine from a private studio, almost new and hardly used. After ten years of using it quite intensly, it still works and sounds like a dream, so what do I need more? The latest Digi invention? Please give me a break.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Let's stay on topic and let the bar fights go to the cave.

As I recall state of the art tape outshines state of the art digital sonicaly as stated in the paper. Some (er, I) suggested that digital will at some point inthe future gain enough precision and sample rate to reduce the artifacts to below human detection. Some have hinted that digital is already at that point.

Now I want to say that as the level of the recorded and played back digital signal decreases the distortion increases. This is not so in tape. As the dignal in digital becomes smaller the number of bits to encode that signal becomes smaller and the quantization errors become extreme. Even to the point that dither must be introduced to cause the LSB to take on a random pattern. (Don't focus on the exactness of the words I am using but look for the meaning.)

Regards

Ethan,
Firstly, totally with you in your opening statement. If only...

The way you express it, it sounds as if the signal gets more and more distorted the further down it goes from 0dbfs. But that's not so. The distortion only happens when the converter runs down to the very lowest and last voltage representation and the signal "drops off the edge".

But with good converters, that's at a very low level. Plus analog noise in the converter will probably be above that threshold anyway. If it's not, it's a good converter. Go to 24 bits and then you're safe.
The dither issue will not arise unless we are converting say from 24 to 16 where we are doing rather radical surgery of chopping off the bottom 48db or so of program.

I was just checking out the specs on the current Dan Lavry mastering A/D converter. At 127db S/N (unweighted!) and about 0.0008% distortion (from memory) that's an impressive spec. Of course 127db is still well short of the theoretical maximum of 144db at 24 bits but at these low voltages the limitation is quite probably an analog limitation due to thermal analog noise in level sensing circuitry, power supply etc, not a digital issue..

True to Lavry's philosophy, the converter only has a maximum sample rate of 96khz where he could have easily made it sample at a lot higher.

While I agree the sound "drops off the end of the earth" when we get to the last bottom of the last bit, in practice, the limitations will usually be the limitations of the converter, not the theoretical bit rate limits, which at 24 bits at least, may never be equalled.

People talk glibly today of listening to 24 bit sound but AFAIK there isnt a converter in the world, or an amp, or a set of human ears (!) that can handle anywhere near that dynamic.

regards, Tim.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I'm just an old fart, ....I don't want anything else.

huh! as I've said once: As A Man gets older "it all" becomes not about things he has (or can have), but about things that matter.
/respects

 

[Dr ZEE]

People talk glibly...

Yes they do. Always did and will be. Thay also love to decorate their glibness with a lot of technical terms and references so it looks "right" for the party. But then they would drop things like: "24 bit sound" or "handle dynamic", and "it" speaks for itself. Naturally, What's inside bleeds through the cracks.
btw, when people simply talk about what they hear - it is all that matters at the end. Listening is the ultimate and the only true test when it comes to the art of musical recordings production.
*******
and, btw, if "you" (who ever may apply here) think(s) that "staying on topic" of analog vs digital dicussion means just rambling about how fast binary coded data can sneak through jungle of silicon and some not-so-precious metal (bit rate, that is ) and ADC/DAC specs, then "you" (who ever may apply here) are not really prepared for such dicussion.
That is not to say that "you" (who ever may apply here) should not particapate in such discussion. Go ahead, make your day. It bores my a*s to death, but so what? "one man's meat, the other man's..."
BUT, that is to say, that YOU CAN shove it - your "stay on topic" thing, that is

 

[cjacek]

Look what I found at gearslutz:

<snip>

My answer to him:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/126467-i-have-new-addiction-2-analog-tape-3.html

...and Han, if you haven't done so yet, pass on this link to the guys over at gearslutz.. They might find it enlightening.