Tom Scholz and analog tape as EE

[miroslav]

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.

Sure, that's possible and even common on both sides of the fence...that it's the equipment, stupid...and I think we all agree that gear is only a tool, but I think we can also agree that there are differences in gear quality that can affect things.
The point I've seen made by some pros on audio forums is that until you have all the gear and you can compare side-by side, you don't know what you are missing with a high-end analog system.
Is it really all just hype...or do some of these guys really hear details most of us will miss...?

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.

And I absolutely agree with that, and I do use both, so I'm not leaning 100% one way or the other.
I also know that claims are and have been made on both sides...not just by the analog guys.
Many digital proponents always hang their hat on the specs-n-measurements and that digital is more "accurate and transparent"...but you analog guys can use analog if you prefer the sound of less accurate and less transparent...
...which then implies digital is better AFA audio quality.
And that's where it all falls appart IMO...because audio quality is NOT about specs-n-measurements to our ears...it's about hearing and perception...all very subjective stuff.

So....are we disproving what Scholz was trying to say without having all his details and science in front of us...
...or is this just another analog VS digital debate?

 

[Chili]

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

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

Well, flash drives and usb drives (which are flash drives) are not magnetic. They use an thin film to store a capacitance charge.

But, sorry, taking the thread off course again. I gotta quit doing that.

 

[miroslav]

Well, flash drives and usb drives (which are flash drives) are not magnetic. They use an thin film to store a capacitance charge.

But, sorry, taking the thread off course again. I gotta quit doing that.

Yes...you are right about the flash drive...my bad.

AFA the USB drive...I didn't mean what you think (USB/Flash would basically be the same thing)...I meant external hard drives that are connected via USB, as some people think they are different because of the USB connection.
They are the same as internal drives -- magnetic recording.

 

[ido1957]

That interview was 6 years ago. The loudness wars had crushed his dreams ...

 

[Tim Gillett]

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?

Well...you wanted me to take part when we briefly talked about these things via PM....so that's why I joined in.

I dont recall asking you in a PM to to join the thread but even if I did, you, as we all do, post by choice. I am not responsible for your choice to participate or not participate here. You are.

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.

Ditto. But your using both digital and analog tape doesnt make you "unbiased" any more than my using both makes me - or anyone else "unbiased". A person could use solely analog tape, or solely digital, and still be perfectly unbiased in their statements - simply because they have good analog and digital audio knowledge, and are honest when they speak with others seeking objective advice.

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?

The other thread did not start out as a Scholz thread. To my knowledge, Scholz never said digital "narrows the stereo image". I read it, on multiple occasions, right here on an HR forum (Analog Only actually) ..I will bring up the quotes from archives if you like.

"This is old news", meaning what? Strangely, it is you, Miroslav who is at pains to say that this is a very current issue with many top pro's divided on it. Old news? Yes it has been around a long time but you of all people assert it is not dead! The debate lives on and is still relevent... Make up your mind, Miroslav.

Others have also pointed that out and asked why yet another analog/digital debate?

Which "others" are they? Names and numbers please. Let them speak on the open forum Miroslav. What are they afraid of?

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.

Again an "empty discussion" you call it, which you say is still very much relevent today. ..

Miroslav there are answers which do apply to particular equipment under particular circumstances. If there werent, science and engineering would never have progressed. We would never have even had the most primitive phonograph. Science and engineering are built on predictable, repeatable results, not just happenstance.

You are always kicking the analog VS digital can...you've been doing it in every thread where possible.

If anyone on the HR forum wants to see consistent, repeated "kicking of the analog vs digital can" many of us know where to see it played out, year in, year out. On the Analog forum. No names , no packdrill.
I can cite right here for all to see, threads on the Analog forum where one person consistently and repeatedly started "analog vs digital threads". Amazingly, even some of his Analog forum members (who mostly were probably analog tape fans) complained in the thread that they were sick of him raising the subject yet again. One suggested he was just bored and was looking for another analog vs digital fight! (Reference: thread # 4961, page 20 in archives) And there are many such examples.

Shall I make that the subject of another thread here, with all the details from archives reposted? They're publically available right now, it's just that most people never delve into that dark cave of misinformation, abuse, slander and bullying. Perhaps just as well...

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 is not true. This is an open forum. If I were a Moderator, my role would be to ensure a fair debate. That is your role since you are a Moderator. But I am not a Moderator. I'm just a poster and very occasional thread starter, like everybody else.

I'm not even required to ensure a fair debate. I dont wear that hat.

You wear that hat. You are a Moderator. You are required to ensure a fair debate.

I did say at the beginning (knowing clearly I have no power to enforce it) that experienced audio practitioners were my preference as participants. I'm allowed to express that wish, even though it has no power behind it.

Yes I was hoping that someone with the knowledge of Ethan Winer and Farview would contribute and I'm glad they did. Is there anything wrong with that?

To suggest I was trying to stack the numbers so the analog point of view would be silenced is absurd. For a start I quoted one of the strongest pro analog/ anti digital public statements I could find on the www, and not content with just a short quotation, provided a link to the entire article where Scholz could speak for himself without any editing or comment from me or anyone else.

Anyone in the world, no matter what their opinion, is able to post on this thread. Yours is an outrageous claim, Mr Moderator.

If I had wanted to propagandize why did I cite in full the person whose position I profoundly disagree with? Seems like I prefer to kick goals for the opposition doesnt it... Or could it just be that I believe in fairness, yes even to people whose views I disagree with?

There are 6 other HR Moderators and on this thread. On this thread one of those Moderators has taken you to task on some of the things you have said here.

You say that in the Tom Scholz interview I posted there is not enough detail to know exactly what he means. Yet in your quoting of the Scholz interview, you only cited the sentence that taken on its own is harmless and not controversial at all.

And you avoided the next words of Scholz which are controversial, and which form the crux of his position. You claim there is not enough detail. Not so. Enough detail is there, yet you acted as if he never said it! Who is the one wanting more detail? Certainly not you. You avoided the detail. Isnt it likely you avoided directly discussing or even acknowledging detail that he did give because it embarrases you in this context? Isnt Scholz's radical comment the sort of thing you might openly discuss and passionately agree with in "another" HR forum but not on a truly open forum like this one?

I have already challenged you once about this in this thread and you made no reply, but you came out with a torrent of other words. Again, why only cite his weakest, most innocuous words and leave out the hard words - the detail - that he did say? And then why, oh why claim that he has not been specific enough? He was specific and you avoided it!

Maybe you would prefer that he hadnt been as specific as he was but if so, that would be your preference and not reality. He said it. Discuss it. That is the purpose of this thread.

You say you are "confident" the thread will die out.

The last thread didnt "die out". That is twisting the truth. It has served a good purpose in my view and more people may yet contribute.

I believe both the last thread and this one will have already served a good purpose, even if they were both to stop now. But I'm happy to leave it to the posters as to whether the threads develop further.

For one thing Miroslav, I have now asked you some pointed questions, one of them a repeat because you still havent answered it. Perhaps we should keep the thread open until you come up with those answers. They'd better be good ones.

Tim

 

[Farview]

I don't think people get religious about the equipment they use to stroke their ego. I do think that, through experience, people will attribute supernatural qualities on the equipment that gives them what they want to hear.

In one of the Sholz quotes, he said something about analog recording being "real musicians playing for real" (Im paraphrasing). So its probably not just about the equipment to him, it has something ti do with the methodology.

All of this makes sense because once you find a way to do something well, you obviously get very tied to the tools that allow you to do it.

If you took the bc rich guitars and marshalls away from Kerry King and handed him a fender mustang and a twin reverb , he would have a hard time doing what he does at that Slayer concert. His tools are what allows him to be him, so of course he will say thing like "you have to use Marshalls" or BC Rich Guitars are the only way to go".

Just because you are an EE and you had a couple hit albums 40 years ago doesn't make you immune to this sort of thing. Nor does it make your opinion any more useful than any other.

 

[miroslav]

Perhaps we should keep the thread open until you come up with those answers. They'd better be good ones.

Tim....enjoy your debate.

I've made my points, and I'm not going to play tennis with you any more.
So far...this and the other thread have proven absolutely nothing and they've not explained in any way what Scholz was getting at or why...etc.
They are just more of the same analog VS digital...which you have a known passion for promoting.

Also...please don't try and make the Mixing forum into a second Analog forum.
Threads that don't deal with mixing in any way will be moved to appropriate forums.

 

[miroslav]

I don't think people get religious about the equipment they use to stroke their ego. I do think that, through experience, people will attribute supernatural qualities on the equipment that gives them what they want to hear.

In one of the Sholz quotes, he said something about analog recording being "real musicians playing for real" (Im paraphrasing). So its probably not just about the equipment to him, it has something ti do with the methodology.

All of this makes sense because once you find a way to do something well, you obviously get very tied to the tools that allow you to do it.

I agree...and I do think it happens on all sides, all formats and all kinds of gear.

This is why I feel that pure specs-n-measurements mean little to our ears, and that you have to base your opinions somewhat on what YOU experience in YOUR environment....which is partly analytical but also subjective.
Who the heck knows exactly what Scholz (or anyone else) is hearing and what kind of gear they are using?

Trying to debate that is rather futile...and each side will swear they hear things that make their rig sound better.

That's why so many "shootouts" end with vague data or more questions than answers...IMO.

 

[Tim Gillett]

If you took the bc rich guitars and marshalls away from Kerry King and handed him a fender mustang and a twin reverb , he would have a hard time doing what he does at that Slayer concert. His tools are what allows him to be him, so of course he will say thing like "you have to use Marshalls" or BC Rich Guitars are the only way to go".

Just because you are an EE and you had a couple hit albums 40 years ago doesn't make you immune to this sort of thing. Nor does it make your opinion any more useful than any other.

Farview, I'm not so sure.

A musician might say "I use guitar xxx or amp xxx because it works for me. That's my sound." and that would be a fair comment.

But if he starts telling everybody else that "you have to use Marshalls" or BC Rich guitars are the only way to go" he's stepped over the line and started telling people what they should sound like. But how can he know how another person should sound like in terms of a particular flavour? That's up to them, not him.

A wise person is careful not to cross that line.

Hasnt Tom Scholz crossed that line? Not only that, he says the opposite of "use analog tape to get a particular "effect". He says, in effect, analog tape makes as linear a recording as you are likely to get -probably ever.

In his own words he goes beyond "sticking to what I know because it works for me". He makes definitive statements that he says apply objectively, no matter who is using the gear.

So, analog tape is the most linear recording format. Period. That is the plain, obvious meaning.

Equally that digital recording messes up the stereo image bigtime etc.

Can we at least try to agree on what he is saying, whether we agree with it or not? I thought we had.

Also, we werent discussing whether Scholz is a good person, a bad person, such as whether he says what he says to stroke his ego or not. Just whether his statements are objectively true.

Regards Tim

 

[gecko zzed]

Farview, I'm not so sure.

A musician might say "I use guitar xxx or amp xxx because it works for me. That's my sound." and that would be a fair comment.

But if he starts telling everybody else that "you have to use Marshalls" or BC Rich guitars are the only way to go" he's stepped over the line and started telling people what they should sound like. But how can he know how another person should sound like in terms of a particular flavour? That's up to them, not him.

A wise person is careful not to cross that line.

Indeed, a wise person is careful not to cross that line.

But many people are not wise, or maybe not wise enough to perceive that distinction. I think a statement like "you have to use Marshalls" is often used as a synonymous statement to "I use Marshalls because they work for me" without too much thought being given to it.

There is a benefit to the person who makes a declarative statement like "you have to use Marshalls". The listener (who may be even less wise) is impressed by the superior knowledge of the speaker, and goes out and buys a Marshall, thus reinforcing the speakers view and validating that declaration.

 

[miroslav]

That's a good point, zzed, though now the discussion is heading into a more broader theme about "what if" someone says something specific.

I went back and reread the Scholz interview, and I don't see at any one point that he is preaching what others should be doing or not doing...he's simply stating his own views.
Heck...at one point he even says that 24bit digital audio is pretty good, and he mainly had issues with the 16bit stuff, and I believe he was specifically referring to how the Boston albums sounded when first put out on CD...back when digital absolutely sounded like shit.

So I'm still trying to see what "truth" is being extracted from all of this...and why this one Scholz interview would even be on anyone's radar, never mind that it's being treated like the Rosetta Stone for all things pro-analog/anti-digital...?

From Scholz' perspective....everything he says is 100% valid to him, in his environment...and that's all I see him stating, and he's not telling people what they should do. That is something that happens every day, and certainly on audio forums!

"I think Ernie Ball strings suck and every time I used them, they feel and play like crap."

Should that type of statement not be allowed so that someone else doesn't get their own opinions poisoned by someone else's personal opinion?
Good luck trying to prevent that type of stuff.
Opinions are everywhere, and in the audio world most are heavily subjective...the point I've been making...and unless YOU try something hands on YOURSELF, simply going by what others have said is then your own risk.
I know everyone can't try everything in order to formulate every possible hands-on experience...but then you have to be careful in how you attack those people's views who ARE speaking from their hands-on experience.

 

[PRHunt]

Heck...at one point he even says that 24bit digital audio is pretty good, and he mainly had issues with the 16bit stuff, and I believe he was specifically referring to how the Boston albums sounded when first put out on CD...back when digital absolutely sounded like shit.

But did early digital sound bad because it was really that bad sounding, or because audio engineers at the time did not understand how to use digital appropriately? eg not understanding digital clipping, trying to run hot audio signals, etc.

I find this 1984 article quite interesting: Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

I think it is fair to say that digital audio has advanced significantly since then.

Paul

 

[Lt. Bob]

I think digital DID sound bad back then. For one thing the converters were crap compared to current converters.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I believe he was specifically referring to how the Boston albums sounded when first put out on CD...back when digital absolutely sounded like shit.

Scholz obviously included the original remastering of his own albums in his comments on CD's but he was referring to 44.1/16 generally. If he was only referring to the remastering of his own albums he could easily have said so. He didnt. Clearly his comments were general swipes at the CD as an audio format. In the same way he was comparing digital to analog tape as a recording format. And that was in 2006.

At another point he mentions modern 24 bit workstations. I think he meant 32 bit floating point...

At one point he even gets sample rate and bit rate confused, saying that 16 bit messes up the high frequencies! I think he meant to say 44.1khz, not the 16 bits, messes up the highs, a point incidentally which has already been covered in this thread.

His saying that 24 bit audio sounds pretty good - which it most definitely does - doesnt make all the other crazy things Scholz said right.

And it doesnt stop there. There is inconsistency in what he says. After Scholz slams CD's in general saying they ruin the stereo image, he does, as you say, give somewhat the opposite impression, that it's not the CD format which is at fault -whether 44.1 or 16 bit or both - but that it was just the original remastering of his own albums which was what he was on about. So if that's what he thinks, why didnt he just say that? So easy to make that clear. The article has been out for 6 years. No chance to make a clarification in all that time? Maybe he did.

Remastering has only ever been as good as the original source material, the equipment used and the skill of the engineer.

Rather one is left with the impression on the one hand that Scholz regards the CD as a seriously flawed audio format, which ruins the stereo image, but on the other hand, that because of his genius, Scholz is able to transform even the humble CD into something that sounds "pretty good", but only when he is at the controls of the remastering project... it seems. Funny that.

I have to admit that carrying that feat off would have to be genius - even a miracle.

Remember he said that 44.1 can "only" resolve a 10khz wave into two or three samples. That applies to all CD's and all 44.1 recordings, not just to the CD's on which his early remasters were released. How is he going to fix that fatal flaw? If 44.1 is not enough samples, it's not enough samples. Nothing you, I or anyone else can do - even a genius - will fix that.

Or maybe -just maybe- the CD audio format itself was good all along and didnt need fixing.

And what other motive might Scholz have for saying that? As gekko rightly observed in the post you supposedly agreed with:

There is a benefit to the person who makes a declarative statement like "you have to use Marshalls". The listener (who may be even less wise) is impressed by the superior knowledge of the speaker, and goes out and buys a Marshall, thus reinforcing the speakers view and validating that declaration.

In this case it's not a Marshall amp but Scholz's own recorded product which was being marketed. Since it has to be on CD - or does it? Scholz could have opted for SACD or DVD A - Scholz has to now say the CD is fine. What choice is now left for Scholz? What else can he say?

 

[PRHunt]

I think digital DID sound bad back then. For one thing the converters were crap compared to current converters.

In reference to the article I cited above, however, I just thought it was interesting that even 38 years ago, a 16 bit digital conversion loop was inaudible when switched in and out of playback in a high-end analogue playback system.

While I can't dispute that early digital recordings may sound like ass to some listeners, I can't help but suspect that this may be due to process rather than the technology.

What I find heartening about discussions like this, however, is that there are obviously still plenty of engineers who are passionate about high quality sound - regardless of whether they use digital or analogue recording technology.

Paul

 

[miroslav]

But did early digital sound bad because it was really that bad sounding, or because audio engineers at the time did not understand how to use digital appropriately? eg not understanding digital clipping, trying to run hot audio signals, etc.

It just sounded bad back then.

The whole digital clipping and hot audio thing is more of a later development, going hand-in-hand with the so-called "loudness wars".

 

[Tim Gillett]

But did early digital sound bad because it was really that bad sounding, or because audio engineers at the time did not understand how to use digital appropriately? eg not understanding digital clipping, trying to run hot audio signals, etc.

I find this 1984 article quite interesting: Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

I think it is fair to say that digital audio has advanced significantly since then.

Paul

Very interesting article Paul. Thanks for posting the link. What's significant about this is the date, 1984, and that the digital recorder, an ordinary consumer VCR using the Sony F1 converter unit, was an early way for engineers to record 2 track digital cheaply and on location. It was the bottom of the range, I believe.

Here in Perth Western Australia, the very first digitally recorded album, never released on CD, only on vinyl, was recorded live on location with an F1 around 1985. I have heard a vinyl of it. In fact I transferred it to CD for the original artist who lives here in Perth. Unfortunately there was a lot of distortion on the inner grooves. I went back to the engineer, whom I also know, who originally recorded the concert live to the F1 and asked him if he still had the VCR cassette. If he had, I would have purchased an F1, repaired it if needed and made the upload directly from the original digital. Unfortunately he never kept the cassette. Once the vinyl was pressed he discarded it. Oh well.

The vinyl copy I was given was not in really bad condition so the album has been preserved which is great.

I also remember seeing and hearing an F1 around 1986 and was impressed with its relatively low noise and distortion, even though it was at the bottom of the range as far as digital audio recorders of that time.

Yes you're right. Good converters have become much, much cheaper these days. Back then you had to pay big money for quality which, as Ethan Winer says, you can get today with an inexpensive converter at your local music shop.

I'm sure there were engineers who clipped the signal, but that would make them the problem, not the gear. It would also make them pretty ignorant as engineers. "Dont clip" is Audio 101 as we know.

Cheers Tim

 

[miroslav]

Scholz obviously included the original remastering of his own albums in his comments on CD's but he was referring to 44.1/16 generally. If he was only referring to the remastering of his own albums he could easily have said so. He didnt. Clearly his comments were general swipes at the CD as an audio format. In the same way he was comparing digital to analog tape as a recording format. And that was in 2006.

At another point he mentions modern 24 bit workstations. I think he meant 32 bit floating point...

At one point he even gets sample rate and bit rate confused, saying that 16 bit messes up the high frequencies! I think he meant to say 44.1khz, not the 16 bits, messes up the highs, a point incidentally which has already been covered in this thread.

His saying that 24 bit audio sounds pretty good - which it most definitely does - doesnt make all the other crazy things Scholz said right.

And it doesnt stop there. There is inconsistency in what he says. After Scholz slams CD's in general saying they ruin the stereo image, he does, as you say, give somewhat the opposite impression, that it's not the CD format which is at fault -whether 44.1 or 16 bit or both - but that it was just the original remastering of his own albums which was what he was on about. So if that's what he thinks, why didnt he just say that? So easy to make that clear. The article has been out for 6 years. No chance to make a clarification in all that time? Maybe he did.

Remastering has only ever been as good as the original source material, the equipment used and the skill of the engineer.

Rather one is left with the impression on the one hand that Scholz regards the CD as a seriously flawed audio format, which ruins the stereo image, but on the other hand, that because of his genius, Scholz is able to transform even the humble CD into something that sounds "pretty good", but only when he is at the controls of the remastering project... it seems. Funny that.

I have to admit that carrying that feat off would have to be genius - even a miracle.

Remember he said that 44.1 can "only" resolve a 10khz wave into two or three samples. That applies to all CD's and all 44.1 recordings, not just to the CD's on which his early remasters were released. How is he going to fix that fatal flaw? If 44.1 is not enough samples, it's not enough samples. Nothing you, I or anyone else can do - even a genius - will fix that.

Or maybe -just maybe- the CD audio format itself was good all along and didnt need fixing.

And what other motive might Scholz have for saying that? As gekko rightly observed in the post you supposedly agreed with:

There is a benefit to the person who makes a declarative statement like "you have to use Marshalls". The listener (who may be even less wise) is impressed by the superior knowledge of the speaker, and goes out and buys a Marshall, thus reinforcing the speakers view and validating that declaration.

In this case it's not a Marshall amp but Scholz's own recorded product which was being marketed. Since it has to be on CD - or does it? Scholz could have opted for SACD or DVD A - Scholz has to now say the CD is fine. What choice is now left for Scholz? What else can he say?

I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it....


Tom Scholz Info

 

[Tim Gillett]

I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it....


Tom Scholz Info

I'm not defending his position. You are. Why he says his new CD releases of his albums miraculously sound "pretty good" is a mystery only for those who defend his previous strong public attacks on the CD and digital audio in general. So long as the remastering was done well, which I'm sure it was, I would expect the CD remasters to sound "pretty good".

I dont have a problem with CD's sounding "pretty good". It's been my experience for 30 years.

For me there is nothing to "get to the bottom of..."

For you?

 

[Tim Gillett]

In reference to the article I cited above, however, I just thought it was interesting that even 38 years ago, a 16 bit digital conversion loop was inaudible when switched in and out of playback in a high-end analogue playback system.

Paul

Exactly Paul.

Not sure if you've also read this review from Gramophone magazine, a highly respected UK audio journal in 1982, written around the same time as the Boston Audio Society review you cited.


Review | Sony PCM-F1 Digital audio processor | Page*138 - November*1982 - Gramophone Archive

Cheers Tim