Tom Scholz and analog tape as EE

[Ethan Winer]

Anyone can voice an opinion. Whether you should place credence on that opinion is another matter. No-one is entitled to present an opinion as fact, specially if they are not qualified to do so.

This is the crux of it. Preference is one thing, science fact is another. If Tom Scholz likes what analog tape does to the sound that's fine, and nobody can refute that. Chocolate versus strawberry. But when he says digital recording alters the phase severely and audibly, it's easy to prove that is factually incorrect. I've done that test many times, including in my AES Audio Myths video.

I also see here the logical fallacy "Argument from authority." Just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't make them an expert in another. And experts are sometimes wrong in their own field. I'll give Scholz the benefit of the doubt, and assume that if he actually tested phase shift - both analog tape versus digital conversion, and for audibility amounts - he'd change his opinion. A proper blind test would also be a useful tool.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

I'm just curious as to what his intentions are for the thread and what he's looking to get out of it. I mean who really cares enough to have another endless debate of opinions.

Exactly.

I asked in the other "Scholz" thread...what was the goal of the thread?
To prove something beyond a shadow of doubt...or to just kick the can on topics that have been ongoing for years across many forums by many people, pro and amateur alike....?

Bringing up Scholz as the possible "demon seed" of pro-analog/anti-digital views is rather funny.
I'm not defending Scholz, just pointing out that his comments are not threatening anyone's choices...which I guess is what the opposing point was about when his name was mentioned in the other thread, that somehow he started the anti-digital buzz and is responsible for its perpetuation because of some comments in an interview...
...which IMHO is not the case.

The more technical statements made by Scholz are still being made by some top engineers. They still feel that sampling at any rate is slicing and then assembling and interpolating the pieces in order to assemble the audio signal in a digital format, and that they find less than "real" to how analog works....and while at certain bit depths and sampling rates, that can be "acceptable" even to them, they still profess that analog audio sounds better....to them.

Some people need/want someone else to make the decisions for them...to tell them what format they should use, and that their choices are the better choices...etc. Most folks on home-rec forums and audio forums in general have adopted digital mainly for its inexpensive ease of use, and not from hands-on comparisons and tests...and they want affirmation that their choices are acceptable to.......?
Any mention of analog gear and tape recording yielding a better and more pleasing sound...is met with more and more outrage as digital usage spreads.
In the early days of the migration...there were a lot of analog users attacking the digital proponents...but from what I've seen on audio forums, those "attacks" pretty much subsided about 8-10 years ago, and the analog/tape-only folks were happy to pull back into their own (and what has now become a) niche environment.

Not really sure what conclusions will be arrived at here?
If this is all just so we can argue about what Tom Scholz has said as true/false...that will be entertaining enough, but then you might as well pull in dozens and dozens of audio pros who still harbor strong, educated, experienced views on either side of the analog/digital fence, and then also bring their views and interviews into the discussion. It ain't just about Scholz.

I think it might be best to just not bother with yet one more analog/digital debate, because in the end, little will be proven no matter how many "skilled/experienced" people reply.
Use what you use for whatever reason you use it...and go recording some music.

 

[Lt. Bob]

ultimately it's all about what you DO with it.
There have been plenty of all analog recordings that sound glorious and I do consider myself to be in the camp that finds good analog to capture certain timbres better than 16/44.1 digital.

Having said that ...... there are also plenty of all digital recordings that also sound glorious.

And that's not to mention the fact that more and more we're seeing higher resolution digital being used in the studio. As soon as you get to 24/96 digital I personally lose the ability to tell the difference.

It's all how you use it and a decent engineer or someone with good ears can get wonderful results out of either.

I think people obsess far too much over equipment and not enough over what they're recording with that equipment.
Use what you prefer ...... ignore those that don't agree with you .... and make the best music you can.
Done right I can't imagine anyone ever saying, "That's digital or that's analog."
I just can't see that being an issue with the final product.

 

[gecko zzed]

ultimately it's all about what you DO with it.
There have been plenty of all analog recordings that sound glorious and I do consider myself to be in the camp that finds good analog to capture certain timbres better than 16/44.1 digital.

Having said that ...... there are also plenty of all digital recordings that also sound glorious.

And that's not to mention the fact that more and more we're seeing higher resolution digital being used in the studio. As soon as you get to 24/96 digital I personally lose the ability to tell the difference.

It's all how you use it and a decent engineer or someone with good ears can get wonderful results out of either.

I think people obsess far too much over equipment and not enough over what they're recording with that equipment.
Use what you prefer ...... ignore those that don't agree with you .... and make the best music you can.
Done right I can't imagine anyone ever saying, "That's digital or that's analog."
I just can't see that being an issue with the final product.

Pretty much all the above.

It is really all down to the skill of the engineer. That is going to have far greater impact on the quality of the final product than the notional differences between formats.

 

[grimtraveller]

I'm not questioning Tom Scholz's personal preferences so why are you asking me about mine?

I already said: curiosity.
I'm not interested in fights in cyberspace. But I am interested in this topic. I don't have the techy knowledge to participate in it on the level of the likes of yourself, Miro and Ethan and I wouldn't know an integer if it tried to burgle my house. However, every so often a statement may be made to which I might have something in reply that might be of use. That's the agony and the ecstacy of threads on open forums.
For instance, what Lt Bob shared in his last post is probably not strictly relevant. But for me that opened up a whole new channel of thought and sparked me off in directions I may otherwise have forgotten about.

 

[Tim Gillett]

However, every so often a statement may be made to which I might have something in reply that might be of use. That's the agony and the ecstacy of threads on open forums.
For instance, what Lt Bob shared in his last post is probably not strictly relevant. But for me that opened up a whole new channel of thought and sparked me off in directions I may otherwise have forgotten about.

Glad you're finding the thread of use.

Tim

 

[mjbphotos]

Leaving the whole A vs D thing out of it, from everything I have heard/read. Mr Scholz is a real dickhead. But maybe that's just my opinion (of which I am entitled!)

 

[Tim Gillett]

Exactly.

I asked in the other "Scholz" thread...what was the goal of the thread?
To prove something beyond a shadow of doubt...or to just kick the can on topics that have been ongoing for years across many forums by many people, pro and amateur alike....?

Bringing up Scholz as the possible "demon seed" of pro-analog/anti-digital views is rather funny.
I'm not defending Scholz, just pointing out that his comments are not threatening anyone's choices...which I guess is what the opposing point was about when his name was mentioned in the other thread, that somehow he started the anti-digital buzz and is responsible for its perpetuation because of some comments in an interview...
...which IMHO is not the case.

The more technical statements made by Scholz are still being made by some top engineers. They still feel that sampling at any rate is slicing and then assembling and interpolating the pieces in order to assemble the audio signal in a digital format, and that they find less than "real" to how analog works....and while at certain bit depths and sampling rates, that can be "acceptable" even to them, they still profess that analog audio sounds better....to them.

Some people need/want someone else to make the decisions for them...to tell them what format they should use, and that their choices are the better choices...etc. Most folks on home-rec forums and audio forums in general have adopted digital mainly for its inexpensive ease of use, and not from hands-on comparisons and tests...and they want affirmation that their choices are acceptable to.......?
Any mention of analog gear and tape recording yielding a better and more pleasing sound...is met with more and more outrage as digital usage spreads.
In the early days of the migration...there were a lot of analog users attacking the digital proponents...but from what I've seen on audio forums, those "attacks" pretty much subsided about 8-10 years ago, and the analog/tape-only folks were happy to pull back into their own (and what has now become a) niche environment.

Not really sure what conclusions will be arrived at here?
If this is all just so we can argue about what Tom Scholz has said as true/false...that will be entertaining enough, but then you might as well pull in dozens and dozens of audio pros who still harbor strong, educated, experienced views on either side of the analog/digital fence, and then also bring their views and interviews into the discussion. It ain't just about Scholz.

I think it might be best to just not bother with yet one more analog/digital debate, because in the end, little will be proven no matter how many "skilled/experienced" people reply. Use what you use for whatever reason you use it...and go recording some music.

No it aint "just about Scholz". Nobody said it was. But this thread is about discussing openly and fairly some of his views.

Strange that for someone who claims such little interest in the subject, your posts here are so frequent and long... How long and often would you post if you were interested in the topic? We might equally ask what is your agenda here?

Miroslav, if you're not interested in the topic or this thread, no one's forcing you to read it. So please stop trying to shut down the discussion for those of us who are interested in participating.

Tim

 

[rayc]

"If analogue was truly analogous it would be the same. Instead all recorded audio is a similie, the product of the ear of the listener as well as the imprint of the medium that is not unlike that which was recorded. Remembering that any recorded artifact is subject to temporal interference upon playback.
I read The Recording Angel at a relatively early age & it's smeared my mind."
Does it read better if I don't state my opinion on degrees of expertise?
Tim, you sorted Miro's M.O. in one go.
I love analogue. I enjoy my LPs & play/read/fondle them often.
Digital is what I usually use because analogue gear that can do the same stuff is way beyond my price range.
The diff between 16 & 24 - Lt Bob you're spot on.
itunes & download MP3s at less than 256 - they're what gives digital a bad name - but not with the squillions who use them.

 

[miroslav]

No it aint "just about Scholz". Nobody said it was. But this thread is about discussing openly and fairly some of his views.

Strange that for someone who claims such little interest in the subject, your posts here are so frequent and long... How long and often would you post if you were interested in the topic? We might equally ask what is your agenda here?

Miroslav, if you're not interested in the topic or this thread, no one's forcing you to read it. So please stop trying to shut down the discussion for those of us who are interested in participating.

Tim

Well...you wanted me to take part when we briefly talked about these things via PM....so that's why I joined in.
My interest in the subject is not "little"....I've been involved with both sides for a long time and still am, hence my hybrid approach to recording. I'm always looking at how to improve my analog/digital rig in my own environment.

I'm not trying to "shut down" the thread, but I am confident it will die off quickly just like the other Scholz thread did because this is old news. Others have also pointed that out and asked why yet another analog/digital debate?

What I do have little interest in is another empty discussion about stuff that has no absolute answers or where you are fishing for specifc kinds of answers.
You are always kicking the analog VS digital can...you've been doing it in every thread where possible.
You now say that "this thread is about discussing openly and fairly" but right from the git-go you wanted to cherry-pick who's views would matter or not...who should respond or not.
You've tried to prevent open discussion by dictating which views are allowed.

That's why people are asking...what is your agenda?

 

[GONZO-X]

bought the newer 're-mastered' boston album...

compared it against the old cd i had...


MUCH better.

not way louder, but all the changes were improvements that made it sound MUCH better.

these guys know what they're doing.

 

[moresound]

Analog tape recording was my first love - digital recording for me is just a mistress or at best a cheap lady of the night.
But in the end they all produce the same out come for me.

 

[miroslav]

...digital recording for me is just a mistress or at best a cheap lady of the night.

She provides a service for a price.

Hey...as long it feels good.

 

[Farview]

bought the newer 're-mastered' boston album...

compared it against the old cd i had...


MUCH better.

not way louder, but all the changes were improvements that made it sound MUCH better.

these guys know what they're doing.

I haven't heard both, but the original CD master was done back when it was just more of a transfer. The problem with that was (besides comparatively crappy converters of the time) there was normally some high end emphasis that was used to battle the generation loss inherent in duplicating 8-track, cassette and LPs. So a lot of CD's were really sharp and brittle sounding because of that. Simply adjusting for that emphasis, or just the magnetic field of the earth slowly erasing the master tape for 30 years, would make a big difference. Add to that some modern high end converters and you should be cooking with gas.

 

[miroslav]

Simply adjusting for that emphasis, or just the magnetic field of the earth slowly erasing the master tape for 30 years, would make a big difference.

The audio gets better with time...like good brandy.

Now sure if you are just joking around about the earth's magnetic filed...but at most it has little effect if any.

From AMPEX info:

The effect on tape of the earth's magnetic field of approximately 0.5 oersteds is negligible. Generally stated, a stray field of approximately 10 oersteds should have no detrimental effects on magnetic tape. When tape is exposed to more powerful fields, up to about 100 oersteds, low level and short wave lengths signals may be erased.

One might argue that even 0.5 oersteds over 30 years would add up...but I don't think it works that way...it's just not strong enough to alter the tape.
Maybe someone here has better science than what I got from the AMPEX info....?

 

[Chili]

Heat is probably a tape's worst enemy. Higher temperatures allow the magnetic domains to rotate randomly and lose their alignment to the recorded signal. 5th grade science project.

Oh, and to kind of stay on topic, that doesn't happen in the digital world. Well, maybe it could on a hard drive.

 

[miroslav]

Right....hard drives, flash drives, external USB drives, old floppy drives....all magnetic media.

Not to mention...excessive heat could kill a PC.

 

[Ethan Winer]

The more technical statements made by Scholz are still being made by some top engineers. They still feel that sampling at any rate is slicing and then assembling and interpolating the pieces in order to assemble the audio signal in a digital format

Yes, a lot of mixing engineers believe that, even some well known pros, but it's easy to disprove with simple frequency response and distortion measurements. This is an important issue for me. People can ask where's the harm if people want to believe silly things, but there is harm. Misinformation is harmful in its own right, and its especially harmful when people waste time or money based on bad advice. If someone prefers the sound of analog tape that's fine. But when they tell newbies they'll never get pro results unless they spend large amounts of money on "analog gear" when they should be focusing on things that really do matter, like microphone placement and acoustics, is wrong and harmful.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

Yes, a lot of mixing engineers believe that, even some well known pros, but it's easy to disprove with simple frequency response and distortion measurements. This is an important issue for me. People can ask where's the harm if people want to believe silly things, but there is harm. Misinformation is harmful in its own right, and its especially harmful when people waste time or money based on bad advice. If someone prefers the sound of analog tape that's fine. But when they tell newbies they'll never get pro results unless they spend large amounts of money on "analog gear" when they should be focusing on things that really do matter, like microphone placement and acoustics, is wrong and harmful.

--Ethan

Missinformation can be harmful when dealing with absolute truths.
Someone saying they think analog or digital sounds better is not always about absolute truths.

AFA as Scholz comments...I have no idea what exactly he was getting at, since as someone pointed out, the interviewer didn't press for more details and we just have a couple of basic statements. So for us to debate that in great detail is moot.
IOW...arguing about or disproving what Scholz is saying without his actual presence and clarification and his science....is not going to change much here.

So then are you implying that all the pros and design engineers who are holding their analog positions are doing that only for the sake of perpetuating "false myths" and with the main goal to sell high-priced gear and/or to stroke their own egos...?

I believe that there are the "golden ear" types...just like there are athletes with exceptional speed, agility, and strength that can't be gotten from pure training...and they can hear/perceive things with greater depth.
In the long run...none of that may have any deep significance since the majority of the music listeners probably don't hear/perceive it, and not to mention, the most common audio delivery format today does far more harm to the audio than analog tape or typical A/D conversion ever could....(which by the way, is a digital format).

 

[gecko zzed]

Missinformation can be harmful when dealing with absolute truths.

Agree. Though I am not sure that we can be certain that there are "absolute truths".

Someone saying they think analog or digital sounds better is not always about absolute truths.

Agree.

So then are you implying that all the pros and design engineers who are holding their analog positions are doing that only for the sake of perpetuating "false myths" and with the main goal to sell high-priced gear and/or to stroke their own egos...?

I would not say that all pros and engineers etc. are doing this. I would say that the pros and design engineers who hold their analog positions do so because they get good results. And if they are pros, they get good results because they are skilled at what they do, and they do it on high quality equipment. I venture that there are some who misplace the attribution of their success, i.e. they attribute it to the medium, rather than to their own skills and abilities and the equipment they use.

I believe that there are the "golden ear" types...just like there are athletes with exceptional speed, agility, and strength that can't be gotten from pure training...and they can hear/perceive things with greater depth.
In the long run...none of that may have any deep significance since the majority of the music listeners probably don't hear/perceive it, and not to mention, the most common audio delivery format today does far more harm to the audio than analog tape or typical A/D conversion ever could....(which by the way, is a digital format).

There may well be people with "golden ears". It's a logical extension of observable fact that some people are somehow inherently gifted at running or whatever. However, if that is the case, just like the gifted runner, it should be observable and measurable. Simply making a claim doesn't make it a fact, and a claim ought to be supported by evidence.

This has been my main point in these analog vs digital debates: there's nothing wrong with preferring one over the other. There's everything wrong with claiming one to be superior that the other without evidence.