Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

[TerraMortim]

live performance is another thing entirely.. It's in a very sorry state, especially in North America, I do still get good reports of people pretty much anywhere else of the interest in live music, however. In China, my buddy's band gets about 1600 attendees at every single show, and they only have one album out. (lucky bastard lol) In Europe certain kinds of music seem to still have a big draw (mostly of the heavier variety) Vancouver is especially bad, unless your in the metal scene...we're kind of close to that so we're trying to break more into playing with metal bands than the "industial/goth" shit shows. All these industrial idiots want is a dj so they can shake their ass on the dance floor and take people home to get herpes...they're preps wearing black vinyl.

Club owners are promoters are ridiculous... almost all cheats and liars. They bring in a nice salary, and you practically have to pull anything more than a couple of pennys and free beer (some don't even do that much) from their cold dead hands. They expect that you'll want to play their place for "exposure", and when you start talking money they seem to get really busy with other matters really quick.

The Music industry is changing, for sure. There are still ways to make a living playing live, you just need to find someone to professionally manage that end of it all (we're working on finding someone to do just that), then it's a bit easier to avoid getting constantly screwed by the people that put on shows.

As far as people's lack of interest in live music on a local level, I'm not sure what the rest of the cities are like, but Vancouver is HORRIBLE.. People don't tend to go to very many shows, and would rather hear a DJ spinning Cannibal Corpse, than actually see a live band. When they do go to a live show, aside from the metal scene, they have a major chip on their shoulder, standing solemnly with their arms crossed or at their sides, frowning as if they wish they were someone else...they don't even drink much of anything from the bar, barely even clap for anyone (sometimes not even at all) and that's if you can even get people to show up. When I saw Bauhaus, there were a lot of people there... but everyone sat in their seats as if they were bored, some people resting their heads on their hands...barely clapped between songs, etc... What do you know, next time around they didn't even bother coming to Vancouver. Don't people realize that if they don't take part in live music, there will be no live music. IF they suck the joy right out of being on stage, no one will go on stage. IF they don't go to shows, then club owners will all either go out of business, or start having fruity ass djs to play cds all night...or is that what kind of bs they want.

Seattle wasn't too bad for getting people to go to shows when I lived there tho, used to play for anywhere from as little as 200 to as much as around a thousand on average. What's it in the water some places?

 

[Bob's Mods]

The Music industry is changing, for sure. There are still ways to make a living playing live, you just need to find someone to professionally manage that end of it all (we're working on finding someone to do just that), then it's a bit easier to avoid getting constantly screwed by the people that put on shows.

I wish all the best in your musical pursuits. It takes real guts to pursue music as a vocation these days. Its a hostile jungle out there.

Bob

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

There are still ways to make a living playing live, you just need to find someone to professionally manage that end of it all

I think you guys are right when you say that a lot depends upon ones geogrphy; things change from city to city. But here in Chicago, the above quote from Terra is very true and important. But it's not the only option.

I have mentioned a million times the gaggle of real quality musicians and performers that I have been lucky enough to associate with. As much as I love these guys and gals, one thing thatthe majority of them are just plain lousy at (and most of them will be the first to admit it) is that they are just no good at managing themselves or their bands. The ones that are the best at managing and promotion are the ones that least deserve that management and promotion. There seems to be almost an inverse relationship between musical talent and managerial capabilities; one goes up, the other goes down.

There are several of them who do just fine making a living at it. One of my keyboard player buddies was until very recently making an easy six figures a year just playing 4-star steakhouses, piano bars, etc. (It's easy to make bigger money when you don't have to split the house with four other guys )

Many of them do it by playing for more than one band. It's not unusual for these guys to be playing for three or four different bands at once. One drummer is first string for a couple of bands and on the call sheet as substitute second string or studio session player for some thirty other bands.

Then there are the ones with pro managers. One band I know and have worked with is regularly playing 2-3 gigs a week; you can't travel five miles in this city without seeing their name on a marquee somewhere it seems. It's not that they are so great - they're good, but not great - but they have a manager that hustles hard and gets them the gigs. Another band got decent management and the nextthing you know the singer (Lisa McClowery) is recording a song for a Disney movie and climbing the ladder of fame. Of course it helps that she is quite talented .

G.

 

[cusebassman]

Of course it CAN happen. And, frankly I can't think of someone more deserving than you . But that doesn't mean it WILL happen for every David K out there. In fact, the odds are that it won't. You, my friend, were lucky enough to beat the odds.

G.

I'd better stop going by the stage name "David K" then... maybe change it another letter. Has a David B made it big yet?

 

[mshilarious]

I'd better stop going by the stage name "David K" then... maybe change it another letter. Has a David B made it big yet?

Byrne?

 

[mwthompson]

I think you guys are right when you say that a lot depends upon ones geogrphy; things change from city to city.

I live in Eastern NC and there are a lot of really great musicians here, but the music scene sucks because the only bands that get the followings and bookings are the ones who play nothing but f**king classic rock covers. That, or beach music. *gag*

Seriously, when are these people going to realize that "Brown Eyed Girl" has now become a JOKE? Even the bands that play that crap admit it, they just have to pay bills and eat like the rest of us.

The best original bands can do nothing but play frat parties and post music to pedophiles on MySpace. It's quite sad.

But, what can you do, unless you're wealthy enough to create your own scene?

EDIT: I think a lot has to do with the "good 'ol boy system" here too. You have to be "in" with the rich white trash to get any stage time.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd better stop going by the stage name "David K" then... maybe change it another letter. Has a David B made it big yet?

Byrne?

I thought it was Bowie.

FAME, Fame, fame, fame....



G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

EDIT: I think a lot has to do with the "good 'ol boy system" here too. You have to be "in" with the rich white trash to get any stage time.

Definitely there is a "good ol' boy system" of sorts here, but it really has little to do with rich whte trash. It's more like honest networking between musicians.

To this day it still catches me off guard how many of these guys know each other and have played with each other or with "band x" or "singer y" at one time or another. It's so incestuous that I'd think I was in back woods Appalachia if it weren't for the distinct lack of banjo players.

That's how these guys are in several bands at one time and how they get a LOT of pickup work both on stage and in studio; everybody is on everybody else's call sheets. Of course the more reliable and more talented you are, the higher on the call sheets you're listed.

G.

 

[TerraMortim]

Part of the lousy music scene, at least here, is definitely the fault of the bands themselves. For one, they are a bunch of pussies, who will give up hope after one bad gig, as if that's not something that happens to every successful band a million times in their career. Also, instead of working for the community of bands, to actually...have...a music scene, they see it fit to become an island, cut down every other band they can, compete compete compete...so instead of supporting each other and getting a good healthy local music community who goes to shows regularly, supports the local talent, everyone's caught up in these stupid rivalries and nobody goes anywhere as a result. I don't understand that mindset... doing music HAS TO be about community for it to work. No band can make it entirely by themselves, unless they have a great deal of money... it takes everyone helping each other out, throwing high profile gigs around, sharing fans, going on tour with each other, etc... I don't know if it's just around these parts or just has become that way everywhere, but before I moved to this city, I remember it being a lot more community based, and as a result, we'd play to shitloads of people...almost all the time. Other bands were willing to throw opportunities our way as well as vice versa. There was the odd premadonna band that tried to screw you to get ahead, but they were the exception, and they were known for being that way, so it didn't work as well as they would have liked. Now it seems every band I come across, they seem nice at first, but just wait till push comes to shove, and they have no loyalty, or any sense of community to help their "friends" out when they get an opportunity, which I definitely did for them (put them in contact with people, tried to help them by getting them on good bills etc)

When will people fucking learn?

 

[mwthompson]

Part of the lousy music scene, at least here, is definitely the fault of the bands themselves. For one, they are a bunch of pussies, who will give up hope after one bad gig, as if that's not something that happens to every successful band a million times in their career. Also, instead of working for the community of bands, to actually...have...a music scene, they see it fit to become an island, cut down every other band they can, compete compete compete...so instead of supporting each other and getting a good healthy local music community who goes to shows regularly, supports the local talent, everyone's caught up in these stupid rivalries and nobody goes anywhere as a result.

I have seen that in other places I've lived, and can at least say it's not that bad here. The musicians in this town are usually very cool. I can think of one douchebag, but everyone knows he's a douchebag and he pretty much spends most of his time playing with himself at home on his uber-expensive guitar rig. I'm not even sure he gets along with himself, but he's the exception.

But, there are a lot of amazing musicians here who are pretty laid back and easy to get along with. It's just that someone has convinced all the club owners here that "Brown Holed Girl" and anything by Lynrd Skynrd is the only way to bring in the crowds. Pfft. It's a college town, beer is all that's needed.

I did have fun sitting in with a band playing at a sorority party though. I can be a sellout at times, but not for money.

 

[Beck]

There appears to be an inherent 2 D sounding problem with digital from my experience and I've got a good clock source. It seems reasonable to believe that phase relationships could play some type of a role in this 2 D problem. The article was dated Nov 2006. Certainly not in the cave dwellar days of digital.

Yeah, the narrowing of the stereo soundstage is very noticeable when using digital. With analog, even cassette has a wider, fuller stereo soundstage. Just simply doing a one-to-one stereo transfer from tape to digital with a MasterLink or whatever will result in altering the soundstage. You can hear the difference with headphones or in the sweet spot of a good pair of speakers.

I agree with Glen to a degree that there is some subjectivity to it, though some things can be measured. My perspective on the subjective aspect is different though as far as what accounts for varied perceptions of digital sound. (more on that below).

The quote from Scholz I posted earlier is very similar to thoughts he shared in a 2003 article in Engineering Times.

The “Phase angle” thing he is talking about appears to have something to do with this narrowed and flatened soundstage and the resulting displacement of instruments in the left/right stereo continuum, as well as other cues we get from high frequencies that provide a sense of space.

Instruments are displaced in the stereo left/right continuum simply by transferring material to digital. For example, if the material is hard-panned left-right on analog tape, a transfer to digital will bring the extreme left and right towards the center. We’ve always known this (We, meaning recording industry professionals) and nothing has changed in this regard, even with the latest digital technology. But many engineers/producers accepted it because they felt other attributes of digital made up for it.

As for his comment about the problems of a high audio frequencies, such as 16 kHz being sampled at a resolution of 44.1 kHz (or 48… whatever), that’s just math. Contrary to popular misconception (thanks in part to marketeering), oversampling does not change the fact that a frequency of 16,000 cycles per second is being sampled at a rate of 44,000 cycles per second as in this example. As many of you know, digital recording is just sampling (taking a rapid series of snapshots). The lower the frequency, the more snapshots are taken of the waveform. This might explain why from its introduction the main complaints about digital sound are focused on higher frequencies. Or it might not explain it, which brings me to where I’m at on the issue.

Since music isn’t made for test instruments, but rather for human consumption, evaluating human reaction and interaction with recorded music is more telling IMO. Why try to prove something to someone with test equipment and calculations if they can’t hear it? So the gut, emotional reactions of people are more meaningful to me, which follows that I don’t think we should so easily dismiss the objections to digital by so many renowned artists and engineers simply because we don’t agree with their theories to try explain it. Even if they can’t explain it scientifically, they are hearing it nonetheless.

So, back to the subjective… I see the digital issue thusly:

- There is a segment of the population that is very sensitive to what digital does to sound… the artifacts it adds, as well as something it leaves out. These individuals have identified digital as the source of the “aural pain” if you will. I fall into this category.

- There is another segment of the population that is adversely affected by digital sound, but they are unaware on a conscious level that the sonic nature of the music they listen to is making them feel, “Out of sorts.” This is on an environmental psychology level, which involves such things as the affect on humans of the color of a room or the height of a ceiling or computer screen resolution set at 60 Hz, or the resonant frequencies of different light bulbs. IMO this is the bulk of the general listening public, but also includes engineers and musicians. People in this category deal with the subliminal aural discomfort by compensating. Perhaps the most common method by which both artists and music listeners compensate is by accentuating frequencies that digital handles better… hence the rise of the subwoofer and greater emphasis on bass in popular music compared to 20 years ago.

- There is a third segment of the population that simply isn’t bothered by digital sound. IMO, their hearing is generally below average in some measurable way or untrained (but that doesn’t make them bad people anymore than having to wear glasses makes one a bad person). The average adult cannot hear frequencies above 15 or 16 kHz. Some people can’t hear above 12 kHz or even less if they have abused their ears or are simply older. However, I think people can overcome limitations to some degree by training to listen for other elements.

What does this all mean to the recordist? For one, even if you cannot hear something wrong in digitally recorded/reproduced music, perhaps much of your potential listening audience can.

Time for another quote and then I’ll take a breath and let people respond (hopefully rationally and with an attitude of accepting diversity of thought, no matter how crazy it sounds to them).

“Some gifted individuals, much like their instrumental virtuoso counterparts, possess, through training, the ability to discern the most subtle change in the reproduction of sound, whether produced by an instrument or a sound-reproduction system. It is these individuals who are rejecting the digital recording medium and its in-home partner, the compact disc player, as an inferior sound source, regression in reproducing music, another example of a world of accepted mediocrity or of large corporations' marketing progress for progress's sake to finance ongoing digital research.

This is unfortunately a complicated and controversial topic, but those fortunate enough to be able to discern the differences continue to use analog recording tape to master music.

we do believe that pressing CDs from an analog master tape is going to produce as full, rich and sweet a recording as the digital playback medium will allow. This method of digital pressing from an analog master is championed by a great many labels around the world, small though they may be, whose primary objective is nothing less than the finest possible quality of music capturing and reproduction for their valued clients.”

Ira Segal
Journal of The Audio Engineering Society (AES) - 1997

 

[Bob's Mods]

Excellant post there Beck. I can say that I can hear digital. I do agree that analog mastered digital sounds very good to my ears. When I hear a newer digital mix I can tell right away. Its like there is something missing. It doesn't quite have that zing. I agree the ear test is the best. It would be interesting to record a multitracked demo in a decked out tape based studio and then record that same mulitracked demo in the same studio using a state of the art digital system and compare. Do the demos have the same zing as each other? Does the medium effect the feel? Are what Sholtz points out really downsides of digital that subtract from the mix and we consciously hear it and are discomforted by it? Are what was always thought of a negatives in the analog tape world really positives?

Bob

 

[mwthompson]

Since music isn’t made for test instruments, but rather for human consumption, evaluating human reaction and interaction with recorded music is more telling IMO. Why try to prove something to someone with test equipment and calculations if they can’t hear it? So the gut, emotional reactions of people are more meaningful to me, which follows that I don’t think we should so easily dismiss the objections to digital by so many renowned artists and engineers simply because we don’t agree with their theories to try explain it. Even if they can’t explain it scientifically, they are hearing it nonetheless.

I"m not saying that I agree or disagree with your stance that digital is sonically inferior, but I don't think there's any reputable way to counter science with a gut feeling and conjecture.

That being said, the florescent ballast in my coworker's office makes the most gawd awful, high pitched squeal and really makes me feel almost physically ill yet I'm the only one in the office who hears it.

I do know that some hear what others can't. I just can't hear what makes digital so bad in comparison to analog. Is there some way to exaggerate this difference to make it recognizable to less sensitive ears?

I will say that even if I can be made to hear the difference, I will still be working all digital as long as I'm a government employee.

EDIT: This thread got me curious and I did some research on reel to reel systems, which is why I know there's no way I'm going that route. Unless I'm missing something obvious, tape hardware is uber-expensive. (On a home hobbyist budget.)

 

[mshilarious]

Yeah, the narrowing of the stereo soundstage is very noticeable when using digital. With analog, even cassette has a wider, fuller stereo soundstage.

Cassette? Gimme a freakin' break. Really dude, now you are just drinkin' Flavor Aid. Even a Portastudio running on high speed with metal tape has little response above 16kHz.

The “Phase angle” thing he is talking about appears to have something to do with this narrowed and flatened soundstage and the resulting displacement of instruments in the left/right stereo continuum, as well as other cues we get from high frequencies that provide a sense of space.

He was talking out of his ass, and the article I posted pwned him 2 years before he spewed his pablum.

As for his comment about the problems of a high audio frequencies, such as 16 kHz being sampled at a resolution of 44.1 kHz (or 48… whatever), that’s just math.

Yes, and that math describes how 16kHz can be perfectly represented by the 44.1 sample rate. If you are unable to understand the math, reread Dan Lavry's whitepaper until it becomes clear.

Contrary to popular misconception (thanks in part to marketeering), oversampling does not change the fact that a frequency of 16,000 cycles per second is being sampled at a rate of 44,000 cycles per second as in this example. As many of you know, digital recording is just sampling (taking a rapid series of snapshots). The lower the frequency, the more snapshots are taken of the waveform. This might explain why from its introduction the main complaints about digital sound are focused on higher frequencies.

No, it just explains that you don't understand Nyquist.

Since music isn’t made for test instruments, but rather for human consumption, evaluating human reaction and interaction with recorded music is more telling IMO. Why try to prove something to someone with test equipment and calculations if they can’t hear it? So the gut, emotional reactions of people are more meaningful to me, which follows that I don’t think we should so easily dismiss the objections to digital by so many renowned artists and engineers simply because we don’t agree with their theories to try explain it.

That is because their "theories" are easily disproven scientifically, and anyone with a home studio can disprove such theories themselves. Digital has a problem reproducing a 16kHz signal? Prove it. I can prove the opposite through 30 generations of D/A/D. You wanna try the same thing on a Portastudio? OK, I have one of those too. Let's do it.

This is on an environmental psychology level, which involves such things as the affect on humans of the color of a room or the height of a ceiling or computer screen resolution set at 60 Hz, or the resonant frequencies of different light bulbs.

Which, unlike your purported flaws in digital audio, are all EASILY measured. I can measure most of them with my digital camera The computer resolution, I would need a faster frame rate, so I'd have to borrow a nicer camera.

There is a third segment of the population that simply isn’t bothered by digital sound. IMO, their hearing is generally below average in some measurable way or untrained

I have measured hearing in both ears. 17kHz in my left ear (only 10kHz in my right, lots of childhood ear infections) Let's do a high-frequency test of your ears, shall we?

Tell you what, I measured two of my daughters, they hear 19.5kHz EASILY. Let's let them do a high frequency hearing test of a Portastudio vs. digital, shall we? Which do you think will win?

Time for another quote and then I’ll take a breath and let people respond (hopefully rationally and with an attitude of accepting diversity of thought, no matter how crazy it sounds to them).

Sorry, I have read a dozen posts of your totally unsupported assertions, and I am tired of them.

Try this instead:

You like tape because of its inherent distortions. They sound good. Fine. Done. End of story, you win that debate.

But as soon as you seek purported flaws in digital, I will vehemently resist you with actual measurement and evidence.

“Some gifted individuals, much like their instrumental virtuoso counterparts, possess, through training, the ability to discern the most subtle change in the reproduction of sound, whether produced by an instrument or a sound-reproduction system. It is these individuals who are rejecting the digital recording medium and its in-home partner, the compact disc player, as an inferior sound source, regression in reproducing music, another example of a world of accepted mediocrity or of large corporations' marketing progress for progress's sake to finance ongoing digital research.

Classic fallacy. You must first demonstrate objectively that "gifted individuals" indeed possess extraordinary hearing, which a quick trip to an audiologist should be ample to demonstrate. Failing that, this seems like an appeal to authority to me, and I reject that.

we do believe that pressing CDs from an analog master tape is going to produce as full, rich and sweet a recording as the digital playback medium will allow.

If digital is inherently flawed, that statement makes no sense. If tape is a perfect recording medium, then there would be no difference between the playback of the tape to digital transfer and direct digital recording. The A/D is the same device.

Therefore, this is a clear statement that analog tape introduces elements that are not present in the original analog signal. That is by definition a distortion.

Case dismissed, with prejudice.

 

[TerraMortim]

- There is a third segment of the population that simply isn’t bothered by digital sound. IMO, their hearing is generally below average in some measurable way or untrained (but that doesn’t make them bad people anymore than having to wear glasses makes one a bad person). The average adult cannot hear frequencies above 15 or 16 kHz. Some people can’t hear above 12 kHz or even less if they have abused their ears or are simply older. However, I think people can overcome limitations to some degree by training to listen for other elements.

liking or disliking analog or digital sound has nothing to do with hearing ability, myself, and many people I know who work with digital systems have very very good hearing. As has been said...it is subjective. Nothing it right or wrong...nothing is in itself good or bad, it's all about the tastes of the person listening...some people don't want to record something that sounds smooth...if I'm recording an industrial track, I'd never touch analog with it, because I wouldn't want actual analog smoothness or warmness..I'd want it to sound agressive, mean, and at times even slightly harsh. On the reverse, there are some projects that I might use a great deal of analog tape to get a certain sound (the fx box concept I was talking about before) Do you release everything only on vinyl? Cause it's going to be digital at some point...and if you're convinced that touching digital audio will crappify your sound...then there's no way out, unless you only release vinyl (tape releases will never be mainstream again)

It's all relative man... I've done mixes in both analog and digital a few times just to see what would get a better result, and it was all over the place..one song didn't sound right with the analog mix at all, and vice versa... It's kind of silly to stick to one exact sound and call that good, I guess unless you pretty much only record one type of song.

The only thing I agree with you on is that CDs kinda suck. For digital, I really don't mind DVD-A..it can go up to 24 bit 192kHz, and supports 5.1 mixes (those are sooooooo nice)

Here's a good example of one of the biggest musical geniuses of the 20th century...Frank Zappa..he could hear such minute problems in music that he would drive people almost to the brink of insanity.... He was even unofficially kicked out of the Mothers of Invention because of that. Frank was also a very good engineer/producer (he even produced/engineered all of Alice Coopers stuff)...This guy probably had one of the most sensitive ears to minute changes in music and audio that I could ever imagine in my life... yet...an early hardcore adapter of digital audio, sometimes even going almost overboard by proudly throwing digital recording and things like that around on the back cover and such of albums... And you know what? His digital stuff sounded just as good as all the analog recordings... just as warm, just as wide, just as smooth... So no, there isn't this group of elite supermusicians who are writhing at the site of a digital setup... There was a bit of that early on with orchestral music and jazz music, but that's long since past.

 

[TerraMortim]

Excellant post there Beck. I can say that I can hear digital. I do agree that analog mastered digital sounds very good to my ears. When I hear a newer digital mix I can tell right away. Its like there is something missing. It doesn't quite have that zing. I agree the ear test is the best. It would be interesting to record a multitracked demo in a decked out tape based studio and then record that same mulitracked demo in the same studio using a state of the art digital system and compare. Do the demos have the same zing as each other? Does the medium effect the feel? Are what Sholtz points out really downsides of digital that subtract from the mix and we consciously hear it and are discomforted by it? Are what was always thought of a negatives in the analog tape world really positives?

Bob

I've actually performed this test.. There was a session recorded onto 2" tape that I figured I'd try to see what got a better result...did an entire mixdown using a NEVE console, Studer tape machine, all kinds of nice effects units and compressors and stuff... and then did one entirely in Logic... Some songs Logic sounded better some songs the analog did...I think it really varies... of course both mediums had a bit of a different sound, but as to which one was better, it was different on each song.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Wow, Beck, ol' buddy; I respect both you and your knowledge of the analog stuff as you well know, but I gotta tell you that last post is LOADED with misinformation, disinformation or obsolete information regarding digital:

Instruments are displaced in the stereo left/right continuum simply by transferring material to digital. For example, if the material is hard-panned left-right on analog tape, a transfer to digital will bring the extreme left and right towards the center.

"Digital" itself does no such thing. Something recorded hard-panned one way or another will remain hard-panned one way or the other by virtue of the simple fact that there is zero information going to the opposite channel. It's about as simple as that. Period.

We’ve always known this (We, meaning recording industry professionals) and nothing has changed in this regard, even with the latest digital technology.

Well, speaking as another "industry professional" for many years, on both the engineering front lines as well as behind the walls in product development, I can tell you that my "we" knows no such thing. This is pure myth perpetrated by and accepted by those who view an association with analog as a badge of superiority to wear on their uniforms. Not all of them do it consciously, mind you. Some just get suckered in by a bais they don't realize they have.

Can there be some perceived "smearing" of instrument location within the soundstage? Yes, it can happen in cases where the A/D conversion has the jitters, uses inferior dithering, and/or the house black is not doing it's job properly, each of which were far more prevalent back in the days of 20-bit converters. Can this happen to some degree with today's entry-level and prosumer digital stuff? Sure, it's possible.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, compare that gear to the inferior analog recorders that exist at that level as well. Not to mention ones that are 20 years old and miscalibrated on top of all that, which is what you need to be comparing with if you're going to talk about obsolete converter technology and mis-calibrated digital sync and clocking on the digital end.

The lower the frequency, the more snapshots are taken of the waveform. This might explain why from its introduction the main complaints about digital sound are focused on higher frequencies. Or it might not explain it, which brings me to where I’m at on the issue.

It explains nothing. As MSH said, any such arguments represent an 100% misunderstanding of information theory in general and the Nyquest Theorum in specific.

The complaints about the harshness of initial digital pressings were due almost entirely to poor converter design, not due to any inherent weaknesses in digital itself, and have nothing to do with sample rates, oversampling, etc.

I complement you on your knowledge of analog, but you knowledge of digital is sorely lacking and filled with propaganda. You really should study up on the enemy a bit more before you attack it.

Since music isn’t made for test instruments, but rather for human consumption, evaluating human reaction and interaction with recorded music is more telling IMO. Why try to prove something to someone with test equipment and calculations if they can’t hear it? So the gut, emotional reactions of people are more meaningful to me.

Try and remember that every time you see someone jamming out to their mePod.

I don’t think we should so easily dismiss the objections to digital by so many renowned artists and engineers simply because we don’t agree with their theories to try explain it.

There's a difference between simply disagreeing, and pointing out the fact that some of the "theories" you are referring to here are just plain false, with simply no room for opinion involved. A solid knowledge on the subject would shine the light of truth on much of the intelligent design-ish "theories" mentioned here.

There are some people who will believe that Adam and Eve saddled up their domesticated brontosaur and rode it to Sunday mass 6,000 years ago no matter what you tell them untl the day they die. The deeply ingrained faith in the religion of analog runs just as deep and as long in many folks, with reasoning just as faulty.

Leave engineering to the scientists and music to the artists. Religion disguised as pseudo-science that is ignorant of the real science involved has no place here, IMHO.

As far as the listeners, there are special interest "segments" all over the place. But when you show me a vast majority populace that through the years have had no real problem truely and thoroughly enjoying themselves with anything from "In the Mood" on shortwave radio to "Are you Gonna Be My Girl" on MP3, and actually chose VHS over Betamax, I don't see how the esoterics of analog vs. digital make a flying f...risbee of a difference as far as the listneing public is concerned.

G.

 

[Beck]

I"m not saying that I agree or disagree with your stance that digital is sonically inferior, but I don't think there's any reputable way to counter science with a gut feeling and conjecture.

That being said, the florescent ballast in my coworker's office makes the most gawd awful, high pitched squeal and really makes me feel almost physically ill yet I'm the only one in the office who hears it.

I do know that some hear what others can't. I just can't hear what makes digital so bad in comparison to analog. Is there some way to exaggerate this difference to make it recognizable to less sensitive ears?

I will say that even if I can be made to hear the difference, I will still be working all digital as long as I'm a government employee.

EDIT: This thread got me curious and I did some research on reel to reel systems, which is why I know there's no way I'm going that route. Unless I'm missing something obvious, tape hardware is uber-expensive. (On a home hobbyist budget.)

I generally agree with the statement about science vs. feeling, but this is about human perception of sound, so a survey is scientific. If you have a significant amount of people that can hear something wrong, the evidence supports there is something to it, and at least makes it worth further examination.

In other words, the florescent ballast is probably making noise, not to mention probably making you feel ill from the subliminal flicker of the light… those affect me the same way. The fact that none of you coworkers can hear or sense it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

My opinion about digital isn’t based on my feeling, but rather the reports of countless individuals, professionals and casual listeners alike. Basically equivalent to having a few other people at your workplace saying the florescent light is bothering them as well.

As far as exaggerating the digital artifacts, nothing comes to mind except perhaps looking at the dismal state of popular music. IMO, we are in a post high-fidelity era and the recording industry is damn near just a footnote in music history. You might not see it that way though. Otherwise; I don’t have an answer for that at this point.

The total cost of ownership for a decent analog system isn’t that bad. I’ve spent many times more upgrading operating systems, software, hard drives, PCs and peripherals over the years than I have maintaining my analog decks.

 

[TexRoadkill]

Sure… Boston’s debut album, recorded almost entirely on Tom Scholz’ “semi-pro” Scully 12-track reel-to-reel in his basement studio… an album that is currently 17 times platinum and counting. But do you need a link? I didn’t think so.

You seem to misunderstand something. I’m not Walter Sear and I don’t agree with his perspective in toto. In fact, I’ve been one of the most outspoken proponents of so-called semi-pro equipment on this bbs, which is clearly reflected in my original contribution to this thread. I simply quoted something Sear said that I agree with.

I might also quote other people, like Scholz, but just because I think he makes a good point on a certain subject does not make me a vegetarian. By the way, if you didn’t already know it, Scholz is a vegetarian. I can share views with Sear or Scholz without joining the church they attend… if they attend a church. Make sense?

Tex, I lived through Heavy Metal, Punk and Rap. Everything starts with a demo, or so it did at one time. But all those genres gained the backing of major labels and went mainstream. By the way, there were no multitrack cassette units in existence in the early days of heavy metal or punk.

It’s a shame you are joining the bipolar member in this shark attack. You can do better than that.

If you want to discuss differences in perspective in an intelligent manner like Southside Glen is doing, my mind is wide open. But I’m not going to try and reason with uninformed terramortim type hysteria. I don’t consider that kind to be representative of the forum, although they may be talking (yelling) loudest.

I'm not being hysteric about anything and I'm not attacking anyone so please don't fire up the douchebag brigade.

What people were doing with certain technologies 20 or 30 years ago is almost irrelevant to today. Not from a theory standpoint but from a practical standpoint. Tom Shultz was also a very talented electrical engineer and part of the point of home recording is that you don't have to have a master's degree just to keep the equipment running. For people who want or need to spend more time recording then dealing with equipment issues, an old analog multi-track is not a very good format.

I'm not even saying that high quality analog doesn't sound better then digital. I'm just saying its impractical for most budget situations and posting the opinions of guys who work with whatever equipment they want is irrelevant and condescending.

 

[Beck]

Cassette? Gimme a freakin' break. Really dude, now you are just drinkin' Flavor Aid. Even a Portastudio running on high speed with metal tape has little response above 16kHz.



He was talking out of his ass, and the article I posted pwned him 2 years before he spewed his pablum.




Yes, and that math describes how 16kHz can be perfectly represented by the 44.1 sample rate. If you are unable to understand the math, reread Dan Lavry's whitepaper until it becomes clear.



No, it just explains that you don't understand Nyquist.



That is because their "theories" are easily disproven scientifically, and anyone with a home studio can disprove such theories themselves. Digital has a problem reproducing a 16kHz signal? Prove it. I can prove the opposite through 30 generations of D/A/D. You wanna try the same thing on a Portastudio? OK, I have one of those too. Let's do it.




Which, unlike your purported flaws in digital audio, are all EASILY measured. I can measure most of them with my digital camera The computer resolution, I would need a faster frame rate, so I'd have to borrow a nicer camera.



I have measured hearing in both ears. 17kHz in my left ear (only 10kHz in my right, lots of childhood ear infections) Let's do a high-frequency test of your ears, shall we?

Tell you what, I measured two of my daughters, they hear 19.5kHz EASILY. Let's let them do a high frequency hearing test of a Portastudio vs. digital, shall we? Which do you think will win?



Sorry, I have read a dozen posts of your totally unsupported assertions, and I am tired of them.

Try this instead:

You like tape because of its inherent distortions. They sound good. Fine. Done. End of story, you win that debate.

But as soon as you seek purported flaws in digital, I will vehemently resist you with actual measurement and evidence.



Classic fallacy. You must first demonstrate objectively that "gifted individuals" indeed possess extraordinary hearing, which a quick trip to an audiologist should be ample to demonstrate. Failing that, this seems like an appeal to authority to me, and I reject that.



If digital is inherently flawed, that statement makes no sense. If tape is a perfect recording medium, then there would be no difference between the playback of the tape to digital transfer and direct digital recording. The A/D is the same device.

Therefore, this is a clear statement that analog tape introduces elements that are not present in the original analog signal. That is by definition a distortion.

Case dismissed, with prejudice.

Eh, mshilarious… that wasn’t exactly the accepting diversity of thought I was hoping for, but ok… it’s a start I guess.

I respectfully disagree on most of your points.

For one, I had a feeling one or more people would latch on to my comments on cassette as meaning I thought it was an overall superior format. But I was specifically referring to the width of the soundstage, not the dynamic range, frequency response or any other specification. I thought about elaborating, but my post was too longwinded already… I cut it down quite a bit.

So let me stop here and ask everyone to try not to add or read things into my posts (or anyone else’s) that I haven’t said or meant to say. When people have fundamental differences in perspective they don’t tend to scan a person’s argument for things that actually make sense… because they don’t want it to make sense. I understand that. And although that is our human nature we can resist it by giving the person on the other side the benefit of the doubt and trying harder to see what they’re actually saying, rather than trying to catch them on some minor aside and making an issue out of a non-issue.

Of course, the participants must genuinely be open to considering different viewpoints in the first place. There are many people on forums like this that aren’t interested in openly examining certain issues for various practical reasons. The conclusions may be contrary to their best interests… typically involving what they do for a living. Not that this is what’s happening here, but the reader should be aware of it.

Ok, about your Nyquest comment. The Nyquest Theorem is digital 101. I can’t remember a time when I didn’t know it. And it only addresses minimum resolutions necessary for achieving a given frequency response without severe distortion. The actual quality of that frequency response as perceived by the human ear (not test equipment) is open to the listener. But advocates of higher digital resolution are already making that argument, so it’s as much a digital vs. digital argument as it is an analog vs. digital argument. The analog people could go away and it would still be an issue.

I don’t need to read anyone’s white paper. From the responses so far I’m getting a good sense of how deep (or shallow) many members swim when it comes to the true inner workings of current digital technology. Frankly, I’m seeing a lot right out of manufacturer talking points and brochures.

Not that it makes anyone here a bad person or even unlikable.

My hearing is in excess of 17 kHz in both ears. I too have children (teens) that can hear above 19kHz. I also have a classically trained coloratura soprano wife, whose hearing is a bit higher than mine. Digital bothers her more than anyone else in our household. That being said, I don’t know that frequency response is the test to settle the issue. It is only a hunch among many thoughts I have as to why digital hurts some people’s ears. However, there is no doubt that it does

But your experiences and mine are just anecdotal nothings in the grand scheme of the analog vs. digital issue, which is universal.

The results of your proposed experiments would be insignificant in light of the sheer number of people that already report a preference for analog for it’s pleasant handling of music compared to digital, and likewise the number of people we already know use digital systems without any apparent objections.

I have also heard all of the arguments you have presented. And I find that more often than not those that are using digital haven’t made an informed choice between analog and digital. They are simply using what is most available and have no deep technical understanding of the systems they possess.

I’m equally exasperated by members that know just enough about digital to be dangerous, but not much really beyond popular misconceptions. But, what we got is what we got on these anonymous forums. Arguing, taking sides and trying to prove whose right is not the point. In keeping with the general theme of the thread, the whole point to me is to share ideas from our music/recording backgrounds that may help members that are beating their heads against the wall trying to make professional recordings.

As for the quote by Ira Segal, of course analog colors the sound, as does digital. I’ve never argued that analog is truer, but rather more pleasant compared to how digital alters sound. What Segal is addressing is the difference between a totally digital chain and one that is tempered by injecting analog into the mix. I don’t think it could be any clearer.

When I consider how analog benefits my sound and how I meet such hostility by simply sharing that information for the benefit of fellow recording enthusiasts I think of something Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O’hara in Gone With the Wind… "You're throwing away happiness with both hands."

Not as well remembered as “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!” which is maybe more what you’re trying to say.