Why analogue and not digital?

[apl]

Objective[/I] data is nothing more than a collection of information or values which by consensus is validated as factual.
Consensus requires an opinion or two, btw

No, it's not. For example, the daily high temperatures at your city over the last year is a set of objective data.

Interpreting that data, or the data about digital and analogue recording is something else and usually loaded with opinion.

This thread seems to be about two schools of thought.

First, there's the "X is better than Y because I think it's better." This is pure subjective opinion. And that's fine; we're not talking geopolitics here. People can get very good recordings out of either realm.

Second, there's the "How do X and Y differ? Let's make some measurements." This is an interesting and worthwhile pursuit.

I advocate digital because it's cheap, easy, and flexible. I'd love to record on tape, but to me it's just too much work and too expensive. Does tape sound better? All else being equal, yeah. But all else ain't equal. I could improve my recordings with better mics, pres, fx, etc.

Frampton's instrumental album was recorded to a Studer deck then copied into ProTools. Why? Probably because whatever tape adds is desirable, and working in ProTools is more productive.

Then we ask, "Why does it sound better? How does it differ from digital? Let's make some measurements..."

 

[apl]

At least you spelled truth with a small "T". Objective data is not truth. It is:

------------------
1a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

c: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

2: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs

3a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b: of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
---------------------------

I think you've given the definition of objective, not objective data.

Audio is always subjective and thus not subject to the limitations of objective data.

I suppose so. For example, there's another thread about using AutoTune as an effect on vocals. Some are saying "It sounds like poop." Others say, "It sounds cool."

But we can measure and quantify exactly what AutoTune does to a signal.

We might measure and calculate to our hearts content but that will not tell us that digital sounds good or sounds bad. Measurement must be corrolated to the subjective to be useful.

And that's the whole point of this thread.

We are dealing with people who do say "I recorded to digital for 4 years and then I tried a tape deck and was blown away". This is not something that all can hear (or can they?) But it exists. And then if you are hard into digital you may feel a need (an emotional need) to correct them and show that the objective data that proves their subjective experience is invalid and just can't be.

I'm not trying to change their minds. The question we're trying to get at is why.

Without casting any bad thoughts to MSH or APL, People who rely on objective data here at work don't know what they are talking about. Every new post doc that comes through the door makes their initial major mistakes when they rely on objective data and don't bother to look at reality.

Regards, Ethan

Again, that would be an interpretation error.

 

[apl]

Wouldn't the signal approach continuity in the frequency domain only in the theoretical limit of infinite signal length (in time, that is)?

Cheers,

Otto

I guess it depends on the question. If you take a signal, sample it, and convert it to the frequency domain, the frequency bin width = 1/length of the sample in time. But that's not the same as losing frequency information between bins.

 

[apl]

You know what improved my recordings more than anything else?

A box of 703.

 

[Dr ZEE]

The question we're trying to get at is why.

Who we? I am not. And if I was, then measurement (if would at all!) would be only a part of the process of trying to get at "it" among with load of analytic thinking and lines upon lines of interpretations.

When recording and evaluating the result, Interpreting what I hear is all I do.

You may prefer to measure something and then interprete the results of your measurements.

1. Neither you nor I are immune against interpretation errors.
2. The fact, that you've measured something while I've measured nothing, does not make the conclusions, that you've come to based on your interpretations, more valid than my conclusions, that were based on my interpretations.

Oh, And one more thing, btw :
3. A dismissal of a conclusion, that was made based on interpretations of results of measurements ("objective data" that is), is NOT an anti-scientific act.

/respects

 

[pianodano]

Are you suggesting that a nice multitrack tape deck takes less maintenance than a digital recording set up?

You're kidding right ? No upgrades. No updates. No revisions. No drivers. No operating system debacles. No bugs to uncover. Hundreds of hours wasted on throw away crap on a computer screen that may or may not ever become a stable recoding system? Again I ask. What is your time worth ?


As for a recorder ? Yes. Just turn it on. Anybody that thinks, or tries to convince other people that really don't know any better or has limited experience, that a recorder used in a home studio drifts much and or needs a total realignment every day, week or even monthly, must have some kind of agenda or economic incentive to do so.

 

[apl]

Who we? I am not. And if I was, then measurement (if would at all!) would be only a part of the process of trying to get at "it" among with load of analytic thinking and lines upon lines of interpretations.

When recording and evaluating the result, Interpreting what I hear is all I do.

You may prefer to measure something and then interprete the results of your measurements.

1. Neither you nor I are immune against interpretation errors.
2. The fact, that you've measured something while I've measured nothing, does not make the conclusions, that you've come to based on your interpretations, more valid than my conclusions, that were based on my interpretations.

Oh, And one more thing, btw :
3. A dismissal of a conclusion, that was made based on interpretations of results of measurements ("objective data" that is), is NOT an anti-scientific act.

/respects

Can you help me out here? What do you think you and I are disagreeing on?

 

[apl]

You're kidding right ? No upgrades. No updates. No revisions. No drivers. No operating system debacles. No bugs to uncover. Hundreds of hours wasted on throw away crap on a computer screen that may or may not ever become a stable recoding system? Again I ask. What is your time worth ?

I've had a glitch here or there, certainly not tens of hours worth. And most of those were the result of errors on my part.

As for a recorder ? Yes. Just turn it on. Anybody that thinks, or tries to convince other people that really don't know any better or has limited experience, that a recorder used in a home studio drifts much and or needs a total realignment every day, week or even monthly, must have some kind of agenda or economic incentive to do so.

Even less so for a standalone digital recorder.

But this was a discussion about which sounds better, right?

 

[pianodano]

But this was a discussion about which sounds better, right?

I believe it was.
So without further ado and to point out the obvious. . if a DAW newby can't get his system stabilzed or reliable enough to even to record a complete project . . He won't have much to hear. Does that sound right ?

 

[mshilarious]

I believe it was.
So without further ado and to point out the obvious. . if a DAW newby can't get his system stabilzed or reliable enough to even to record a complete project . . He won't have much to hear. Does that sound right ?

I'll drive up and borrow you my HD24

 

[pianodano]

Even less so for a standalone digital recorder.

Been there done that. Can I interest you in 5 (five) wonderful sounding Tascam 24 bit DIGITAL DA-78 high resolution recorders ? Extremely low hours on the drums.

 

[apl]

Been there done that. Can I interest you in 5 (five) wonderful sounding Tascam 24 bit DIGITAL DA-78 high resolution recorders ? Extremely low hours on the drums.

Those aren't stand alone recorders. OK, maybe they are, but it's not what I meant.

One of these.

 

[pianodano]

How about something more like this.

http://www.openlabs.com/neko-overview.html

 

[apl]

How about something more like this.

http://www.openlabs.com/neko-overview.html

That looks like a PC in an unusual box. If you don't like PCs, you probably won't like that.

 

[famous beagle]

This thread started from the premise that there was such a flaw in digital that could be heard. But the reasons given can all be easily measured objectively, and thus rejected. So if digital is flawed, it is for a reason that has not yet been described. Therefore, the reasons that have been given should no longer be posited as they are not compelling.

Though you state this as a fact, I would stronly argue that.

Quantam physics has already started to prove* that properties, elements, etc. act differently when studied, as if they're aware they're being watched.

Isolating musical/audio "data" in a vacuum---i.e., removing the listener from the equation---is hardly what I would call an accurate, comprehensive test.

(I say "prove" because that's almost in contention now. It seems that the only thing science "proves" anymore is that the more it learns, the less it knows.)

If people want to record digitally because they think it sounds better, then great.

If people want to record digitally because it's cheap and easy, then fine.

That's the reason I do it right now. I record on a Yamaha AW16G workstation because I got it for $500 several years ago, and it's got 16 tracks, each with dynamics, 4-band EQ, two effects processors, and a built-in CD-ROM. Luckily (knock on wood), I haven't had a HD crash yet. (But I know a friend who did have one HD crash on his PC and he lost about 8 months worth of work on an album he was recording. So .. I will probably start backing up my work to CD, now that I'm thinking about it!)

Anyway, I've had one 8-track R2R in my life and loved it. Unfortunately, I had to severely downsize my setup years ago due to medical bills, and so I bought the Yamaha as an all-in-one solution to maintain the ability to record. To be honest, it sounds nice (I think it records at 16-bit uncompressed), but I much preferred the sound of my Tascam 38.

It's just that I can't afford an analog setup right now. Considering the mixer, recorder, and effects, I'd bee looking at thousands, and that's simply not doable right now with our #1 on the way. So I'm working with what I've got and trying to make the best of it.

I realized a year ago or so that I was spending so much time thinking about how I could go analogue again, and hoping, and wishing, that I wasn't even recording anything anymore. Now I've started doing what I can with what I've got, and I'm having fun again. Sure, I'd prefer my R2R setup again, but that's just not in the cards right now.

So ... I'm making music with what I've got to work with, and I think that's the most important thing.

I think it's important to remember that the Beatles, the Stones, and all those other bands of the "good ole days" were recording on what they used because it was pretty much state of the art at that time. Those Vox and Fender amps, those R2R's, those mixers, were new then.

Now, there's no need to go on and on with the "they don't make 'em like they used to," because I'm well aware of that. And like I said, I prefer analogue any day (as well as vintage tube amps). But my point is, those bands (most of them anyway) weren't fixated on gear. They were making music with the tools they had available.

That's my two cents anyway.

 

[apl]

Though you state this as a fact, I would stronly argue that.

Quantam physics has already started to prove* that properties, elements, etc. act differently when studied, as if they're aware they're being watched.

Well, sort of. Heisenberg figured you can measure a subatomic particle's momentum or position but not both.

The effects of measurements on things at the scales we're talking about are for practical purposes non-existent.

 

[famous beagle]

Well, sort of. Heisenberg figured you can measure a subatomic particle's momentum or position but not both.

The effects of measurements on things at the scales we're talking about are for practical purposes non-existent.

I would argue that that's your opinion.

Let us not forget that it used to be considered fact that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[apl]

I would argue that that's your opinion.

Let us not forget that it used to be considered fact that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Are you suggesting there's some aural gremlin in the digital recording and reproduction process that vanishes when someone tries to put calipers on him?

 

[ausrock]

But this was a discussion about which sounds better, right?

Wrong! The thread title (and I suspect it's intent) asks why one and not the other.

 

[ofajen]

Well, sort of. Heisenberg figured you can measure a subatomic particle's momentum or position but not both.

Actually, you can measure both, but the precision of one limits the precision of the other: delta (x) * delta (p) >= h-bar/2, where (capital) delta is the RMS deviation from the mean and h-bar is Dirac's constant (h-bar = h/(2*pi), where h is Planck's constant). h-bar/2 is pretty small, about 5 * 10**-35 joule-seconds. That's why quantum phenomena are rarely observed at macroscopic scales, except under extraordinary circumstances, like extremely low temperature, for example.

Cheers,

Otto