Tom Scholz and analog tape as EE

[Tim Gillett]

WOW...Tim finally got it.

Trying to come to some clear, absolute conclusion via forum debate is often futile and pointless when talking about other people's views without experiencing first-hand what they experienced.

Tom Scholz just let out a sigh of relief .....

Yeah, talk is cheap.
Let us know when you set up that end-all double blind test......

No, Tim already knew it. He just expressed it now. Is Miroslav lecturing Tim on not jumping to conclusions?

You should know properly done controlled double blind listening tests take a lot of work, skill and and expense to arrange. You should know it's not within my or your means to arrange them.

That's why for those practical reasons I generally I trust the double blind tests done by reputable, well resourced people.

-So the 1982 Boston Audio Society tests mentioned by Paul Hunt in this thread.

-Then the 1982 test reported in Gramophone which I cited in this thread.

-Then the much more recent David Moran/Brad Meyer test on higher sample rates reported in the AES journal:

The Emperor?s New Sampling Rate -- Are CDs Actually Good Enough?

And Miroslav you or anybody else here are free to cite whichever other test result you choose. I havent seen one yet.

Respecting the work and the test results of others who did have the capacity to arrange such tests doesnt mean I totally abandon my own private judgements but neither do I automatically reject conclusions different from my own as conspiracies or just "their private experience".

And neither do I need to in my case. The double blind listening test results I have read about tally well with my own private listening tests, understanding and experience. If there was a difference, I'd want to find out WHY my experience was so different to that of the various people in those tests.

As I said, there is no conflict between the tests and my listening experience. I dont have that problem. If I saw that disparity I hope the last thing I'd do is stand on my private dignity and say "I know what I hear" as if that settled it forever. I hope I would want to understand WHY my listening experience was so different from all those other listeners in those reputable double blind controlled tests...

But then that's just me...

 

[ido1957]

Sir and/or Madame, You Win the Internet!

 

[miroslav]

Tim

If you need or prefer to use that type of stuff to formulate your views about audio, rather than coming to your conclusions/choices based on your own hands-on experience....fine.
It's your need to somehow prove that you're making the better choice based on some, IMHO, absolutely meaningless tests from 30 years ago that I find odd...though again fine, but then there's no need to keeping beating it out on the forums.

Just make your choices and move on. Go and record something with your adopted approach....whatever it is. That's what I and some others have been saying. It's NOT important what you are using and even LESS important what approach or gear someone else is using....just go and use it!

Instead, you constantly come back to this stuff...thread after thread. It's been going on for some time now.
You peppered the Analog forum with this stuff...now here you are again.
When will you reach a conclusion and just go with it without more never-ending debates in order to acquire more validation about your choices?

 

[miroslav]

Sir and/or Madame, You Win the Internet!

Go bump that Obiden thread again in the Cave...

 

[ido1957]

You guys all remind me of Tom Cruise in Rock of Ages.

 

[ido1957]

Go bump that Obiden thread again in the Cave...

Good to know the Pubs are paying attention

 

[miroslav]

Haven't seen it...but I know basiclaly what it's about.




Every Rock Star story ever told....

 

[Lt. Bob]

Tim

If you need or prefer to use that type of stuff to formulate your views about audio, rather than coming to your conclusions/choices based on your own hands-on experience....fine.
It's your need to somehow prove that you're making the better choice based on some, IMHO, absolutely meaningless tests from 30 years ago that I find odd...though again fine, but then there's no need to keeping beating it out on the forums.

Just make your choices and move on. Go and record something with your adopted approach....whatever it is. That's what I and some others have been saying. It's NOT important what you are using and even LESS important what approach or gear someone else is using....just go and use it!

Instead, you constantly come back to this stuff...thread after thread. It's been going on for some time now.
You peppered the Analog forum with this stuff...now here you are again.
When will you reach a conclusion and just go with it without more never-ending debates in order to acquire more validation about your choices?

another excellent post ..... you're on a roll!

It's one thing to have an opinion ... and to be really sure about your opinion ...... and to be passionate about it.
But really ..... after expressing it in the strongest way you can , what's left?
Either you made a good case for your postion or you didn't and no one's going to change their view anyway.
Once that's over it's time to do some recording ....... no more beating a dead horse for me.

 

[grimtraveller]

A little light relief !

Very interesting article Paul. Thanks for posting the link. What's significant about this is the date, 1984,

What's significant about this date is that it was a thursday and I turned 21 that day !

Some readers may be unaware of the background to the "digital test" in which Ivor Tiefenbrun participated on February 23, 1984

Some readers may be unaware that it was my 21st birthday ! Thoroughly depressing period as I recall, but it picked up significantly by the end of March.

 

[Farview]

Hey...I disagree.
I mean, if a manufacturer of analog gear wants to just argue from the point of "numbers"...that's their choice and they can live or die by that....but that's NOT what people listen to or find more pleasing/preferable.
You can try and minimize it by calling it nothing more than "euphonic distortion"...but if some folks prefer it, then you need to accept it that to them it DOES sound better and not keep on trying to argue that "it can't be possible", "your equipment is broken", "it's all in your imagination"....etc.

"Better" is a personal choice thing, and you will NEVER prove it with pure numbers.
If you want to lay down a bunch of criteria about how "better" is going to be defined, and you want to use "numbers" as the absolute proof...that's a whole other argument that I don't think anyone here is making.

That's a completely different argument. Unfortunately, some people will equate something sounding better with it being more accurate, which is where arguments like this start off. Accuracy is a numbers game. Better sounding is not.

 

[miroslav]

That's a completely different argument. Unfortunately, some people will equate something sounding better with it being more accurate, which is where arguments like this start off. Accuracy is a numbers game. Better sounding is not.

And that's been my point....

When people state a preference...I would safely guess that it's about what sounds "better" to them, and not what specs out better by numbers. I don't see many immediately running tests to confirm if what sounds better to them is in fact proven with any numbers, or running out to start looking for studies to confirm their own existing views (though same apparently need that in order to even formulate their views).

Granted, the assumptions as to why something sounds better or worse may be all over the place...but you'll have a VERY hard time proving someone's views are erroneous about what they perceive as better.

 

[miroslav]

That's why these analog VS digital debates never had a clear winner, and I thought they kinda died off about 8-10 years ago. Yes, people still harbor specific views...but generally they stopped bringing the arguments to the table over and over again any time someone voiced their contrary preferences and beliefs, and most people just moved on and are now working with what/how they prefer.
IOW...most have learned to live with the fact that Joe Recorder thinks 2" 8 track is da shit...while Bob Mixer wouldn't be caught working OTB if his life depended on it.

 

[Ethan Winer]

lots of people use digital and analog too, for a reason, and it's not just because they bought the hype.

How do you know that?

If all you use are test numbers to prove why one is better than the other...that's not any kind of proof.

Sure it is! I trust you didn't miss that I said clearly, "as long as we agree that the 'fact' is raw fidelity and not euphonic distortion which is a different issue."

there is this constant thumbing-of-nose by digital proponents that analog is just about adding things like "euphonic distortion", and that while "some may like that" it doesn't mean analog beats out digital. Hey...I disagree.

If not added distortion and/or noise, and possibly a pleasingly skewed frequency response, what other difference is there? Please be very specific!

You can try and minimize it by calling it nothing more than "euphonic distortion"...but if some folks prefer it, then you need to accept it that to them it DOES sound better and not keep on trying to argue that "it can't be possible", "your equipment is broken", "it's all in your imagination"....etc.

You are confusing several different issues. We all agree that some analog gear adds distortion that some people like the sound of. And that's fine, as long as we understand this is an intentional deviation from high fidelity. But distortion is a commodity item that doesn't have to cost $2,000 per channel. A few resistors and diodes, or a simple DSP algorithm, can make a nice sounding distortion.

Sometimes the gear really is broken, and that's exactly how the original Aphex Aural Exciter came to be invented:

Waves Aphex Vintage Aural Exciter Plug-In Review

Introduced in 1975 (and the result of a “happy accident” when, upon miswiring a hi-fi amp kit, inventor Kurt Knoppel realized he was on to something), the Aphex Aural Exciter was one of the first “magic-secret-weapon-how-does-it-work” processors.

As for "it's all in your imagination," this is a separate issue and it's often valid. Only by measuring, or doing a proper blind test, can we determine that a difference even exists. Just today I read some guys arguing in a hi-fi forum whether Dolby or DTS sounds better on movie sound tracks. Both sides expressed strong opinions. Did you ever try to compare Dolby versus DTS on a DVD or Blu-ray? It's almost impossible because of the time needed to switch from one to the other and rewind to the exact place again. This is a huge problem with opinions based on informal sighted listening tests. People don't understand how easy it is for their ears to be fooled.

"Better" is a personal choice thing, and you will NEVER prove it with pure numbers.

Yes, of course, and I'm sure I said that at least three times in this thread alone. That's not what we're discussing! We're discussing whether digital audio adds "damaging" phase shift, or sounds "brittle," or narrows the stereo image. It does not do any of those things, and the proof is indeed entirely in the numbers.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

For me, I hear a difference between good analog and 16/44.1 digital.

Yes, even the best analog tape systems sound different than good digital systems. Nobody disputes that. If you prefer the colored sound of analog tape, nobody can dispute that or object. Nor should they. But that's not the issue here!

There is a fair amount of evidence that having the freqs cut off at 22k causes some problems in sound and a fair amount of evidence that being able to capture higher freqs than that, even though they're inaudible, affects the freqs you DO hear.

There is no evidence for ultrasonics having an affect on what we perceive. Whatever "evidence" has been put forth in the past has been thoroughly debunked since. But I'm glad to hear your evidence in case there's something new that I missed.

I know the difference between more accurate timbre reproduction and euphonic distortion for instance.

Sure, one is a skewed frequency response and the other is added distortion.

Allow me to point out that we also have no way to judge Ethan's ears simply because he wrote a book.

I just turned 64 years old, so it would be silly to trust my ears. Even I don't trust my ears! This is why my web site articles and my book include audio files people can play on their own systems, to assess for themselves what is real or not, and what they prefer. That's all that matters, not what Ethan can hear. But this isn't about ears either. It's about science, common sense, and logic.

I can have two amplifiers which measure identical and they can sound very different from each other even though they measure identically. There's more to this stuff than we are currently able to measure.

This too has been debunked repeatedly. But again, I'll be glad to entertain your evidence in case I missed something.

--Ethan

 

[danbortz]

My two cents. I have been a radio guy since the 60's so have used several different boards/formats/recording types from analog to digital. Here's my take. Digital is so exacting and pure that to the analog user who is used to slight signal degradation...the digital format can seem harsh and unfeeling, so to speak. Just like tube board fanatics like the "warmth" of that sound...it's more the sub-harmonic hum the DOES NOT REALLY BELONG. Or does it...It's an age old arument. Like somebody mentioned earlier...it's what you prefer. If you like really PRISTINE AND THE BEST RECREATION - DIGITAL. If you like SLIGHT COLORATION AND DEGREDATION OF SIGNAL-ANALOG. Again...just my two cents.

 

[miroslav]

Yes, of course, and I'm sure I said that at least three times in this thread alone. That's not what we're discussing! We're discussing whether digital audio adds "damaging" phase shift, or sounds "brittle," or narrows the stereo image. It does not do any of those things, and the proof is indeed entirely in the numbers.

You may not be discussing it on the surface...but that's exactly what IS being discussed after the "numbers" are brought into it.
There is an attempt to user numbers to indirectly prove that digital audio is inherently "better" since it doesn't color the sound. That the accuracy trumps everything else about analog.
I think I too have said many times that someone preferring that is THEIR choice...and someone preferring the color is their choice....
...so what do you really prove with the numbers?

In your argument about high fidelity, there is an underlying attempt to use that as some sort of proof...in favor of digital.
I know that is what Tim is always after in his constant resurrections of the analog/digital debate...that if people can agree that digital is more accurate/cleaner...all arguments in favor of analog audio become just about making a "lesser/secondary" choice for the sake of "deviating" from "high fidelity".
The initial questions posed by Tim in this thread and some other threads always have that agenda...this has been a common theme with him...endlessly.

THAT is what has become rather boring to listen to and old news.
I equally agree that some analog lovers can get carried away with their hating on digital....also a boring argument.

At the end of the day..."high fidelity" is NO absolute measure of audio quality as perceived by listeners....it can only be a preference, and with audio/music, those preferences have swung in both directions over the years and to this day...and they are also relative to the type of music.

AFA you reducing high-end gear to nothing more than a desire to add some distortion which can be had with just a few resistors and diodes...and that it doesn't warrant the price of high-end gear....well, I find that rather absurd, Ethan.
That view will fly easily on home-rec forums where the majority of guys are using primarily DAW rigs...and of those that have some kind of analog rig, only some have/use really high-end analog gear.
Next time you set up your booth at AES...walk up to George Massenburg or of a few of the other world-class designers of high-end analog gear and run that view by them and the people who use and buy that kind of gear.....see how that works out. Maybe head over to GS or PSW and toss it out there, and then see where it goes.....

 

[gecko zzed]

There is an attempt to user numbers to indirectly prove that digital audio is inherently "better" since it doesn't color the sound. That the accuracy trumps everything else about analog.

I don't think this is the case here. Numbers are being used here to show that digital does not degrade an audio signal. All along, the people who have been putting that case have also been saying, as you have, that a preference for a particular sound (i.e. analog or digital) is independent of accuracy.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Yes, even the best analog tape systems sound different than good digital systems. Nobody disputes that. If you prefer the colored sound of analog tape, nobody can dispute that or object. Nor should they. But that's not the issue here!

no ..... I play music live for a living nightly. I also often play sax in all acoustic jazz settings. I know what cymbals sound like live and I know better than most anyone except another really good sax player what a sax sounds like live.
I'm not a listener who wants euphonic distortions ..... I prefer recordings to sound as close as possible to what I hear live.

In general I hear more natural timbres and acoustic instrument sound closer to what i hear every night from good analog than I do from 16/44.1 digital.
I'm indifferent as to whether you believe it or not.

As for the other stuff ..... amplifiers clearly sound very different from each other.
Once again, I don't really care about convincing you so for you and I, there's really no further we can go.

I will probably get your book though .... I've researched you ...... you're fairly controversial yourself and I'm always interested in learning and I like to read.

But I care less than zero about the argument format you seem to delight in ..... but have fun!

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't think this is the case here. Numbers are being used here to show that digital does not degrade an audio signal. All along, the people who have been putting that case have also been saying, as you have, that a preference for a particular sound (i.e. analog or digital) is independent of accuracy.

I agree with Gekko here. The analog system {note, not the sound} has the kind of flaws within it that got many a producer and engineer during the 50s, 60s and part of the 70s lamenting for some kind of system that didn't {as many - not listeners- saw it} degrade the recorded sound and add things like hiss that they were often fighting to control. The search for such a system coincided with less track counts so having to bounce down was a significant factor there as the high end was constantly being compromised with bouncing.
Innovators and developers over a period developed the digital system which delivered the "accuracy" and cleanliness of sound that many had longed for during the infancy of recording, multitrack recording in particular.
But here's the funny thing, which brings to mind the old adage "be careful what you wish for". Accuracy and perfection didn't actually deliver nirvana because so many people had grown so used to the analog sound that when the alternative arrived, it felt like something vital had been stripped from much of the music. Some of it could be put down to the newness of digital. But those that carried on with analog gear saw no reason to change their work flows while others chose to change to the new medium because it offered an ease and convenience that was hard to pass up. Why continue cutting tape when buttons and undo features are there ?
It kind of reminds me of what happened to the guitar and the double bass. They were getting drowned out in bigger, louder jazzy/swing outfits and certain players longed to be able to hear themselves and be heard. Things went beyond the stage of simple pick ups fitted and soon we had electric guitars and electric basses. Which then became so popular and dealt a body blow to their acoustic counterparts. But the acoustic players were primarilly the ones that wanted to be heard. And carried on insisting that their original sounds {that many had wanted to change in the first place} were 'better'
Be careful what you wish for.


To return to Tom Scholz for a minute, when he speaks about how wondrous analog is, it's against his own personal backdrop of the inferiority of digital. It's not just about his preference and there might be a big difference between saying "I prefer this" and "This is intrinsically better". But sometimes, the line is blurred and one essentially means the other. Or am I just being cynical ? Lots of different people on all sides of the debate have widely varying views.

I think it is crucial to note that "more accurate" does not, repeat, not translate to "intrinsically better".
Parts of this thread have seemed like there were a cornucopia of crossed wires and arguments at cross purposes. But it's been quite useful in some ways.

 

[grimtraveller]

For the record

I still think Tom Scholz was a good guitarist, techno whizz, good songwriter and useful producer . "Don't look back" remains one of my favourite albums to this day, 32 years after I first got it.