“The Superiority of Analog Audio Tape”

[Tim Gillett]

"and then become the norm."
Yes Ethan, your'e right. Analog tape right now is "the norm" in both home and pro studios.
Yeah right.
That's why digital recording takes up such a tiny segment of the space on homeecording.com or prosoundweb or what have you. And analog still dominates the discussions. How could I have missed that? My sincere apologies.
Regards, Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

Ethan, I realize you probably meant "the norm" relative to the current digital technology. But the fact is analog holds a smaller and smaller slice of the market at both home and pro ends. That doesnt mean analog is bad but to say digital is not at least the sonic equal of analog tape right now, is just silly.

Any future digital norm, if it is indeed needed at all, will supercede not analog but a previous digital norm.


Tim

 

[evm1024]

Ethan, I realize you probably meant "the norm" relative to the current digital technology. But the fact is analog holds a smaller and smaller slice of the market at both home and pro ends. That doesnt mean analog is bad but to say digital is not at least the sonic equal of analog tape right now, is just silly.

Any future digital norm, if it is indeed needed at all, will supercede not analog but a previous digital norm.


Tim

My first thought was "Aw come on Tim don't be that way" But then you did correct your comments in the second post. thanks!

I'm not suggesting that Tape is the dominant format. I think that we all know that. Digital has a very large number of things going for it. And as you notes it is the dominant format.

The thrust of the paper was that top level tape is sonically better than top level digital at this time. (In a "just" world Beta would have won over VHS.)

I wrote about a time in the future when Digital overcomes the problems that it has now and becomes everything it should be. As it stands digital at least in the form of CD has shortcomings that are quite annoying to some people. These are real. And of course other people (like my ex who could not tell the difference between stereo and mono) are not bothered.

Tape did not have to overcome these problems. The distortions in tape for the most part are not grating on peoples minds.

Take care.

 

[Tim Gillett]

My first thought was "Aw come on Tim don't be that way" But then you did correct your comments in the second post. thanks!

I'm not suggesting that Tape is the dominant format. I think that we all know that. Digital has a very large number of things going for it. And as you notes it is the dominant format.

The thrust of the paper was that top level tape is sonically better than top level digital at this time. (In a "just" world Beta would have won over VHS.)

I wrote about a time in the future when Digital overcomes the problems that it has now and becomes everything it should be. As it stands digital at least in the form of CD has shortcomings that are quite annoying to some people. These are real. And of course other people (like my ex who could not tell the difference between stereo and mono) are not bothered.

Tape did not have to overcome these problems. The distortions in tape for the most part are not grating on peoples minds.

Take care.

Ethan,
Again, reminds me of discussions here with you and others many months ago.

In any discussion we must compare apples with apples.
CD is an end user medium. Its analog equivalent was LP's and pre recorded cassettes. Maybe 8 track cartridges.

Some people apparently dislike the sound of CD's. Do they mean in comparison to LP's and pre recorded cassettes?

Higher quality digital pre recorded media are available such as SACD and DVD A. Interestingly, almost nobody buys them. Why do you think that would be?

Months ago in these columns I mentioned an audiophile I know who, having collected a large number of premium classical recordings on CD, one day said he was dissatisfied with the sound of his CD's and sold the lot, or most of them, keeping his large vinyl collection.

I was out of touch with him for some time and recently caught up with him again. He has now changed his mind and now accepts CD sound totally, buys CD's again, and makes his own CD's from selected LP's he owns complete with declicking etc.

What happened here? I often wonder. The CD's couldnt have changed. It must have been his own attitude that changed.

Which attitude was right? The earlier or the later? You be the judge.


Cheers Tim.

 

[Beck]

... But the fact is analog holds a smaller and smaller slice of the market at both home and pro ends. That doesnt mean analog is bad but to say digital is not at least the sonic equal of analog tape right now, is just silly.

I don't think we could ever use a term like "sonic equal" in comparing analog tape to digital. They are completely different sonically speaking. There are some things analog can do that digital can’t and visa versa.

Quality holds a smaller and smaller slice of the market in many industries. The, "Everybody's doing it" argument is the weakest of all when used to prove the true superiority of anything.

More Americans shop at Wal-Mart than anywhere else, and buy cheap Indo/Asian copies of the superior domestic products we bought 20 to 30 years ago. It's very easy to see how much we've lost in so many other areas. You wouldn't have to know anything about recording to know that the industry has declined.

It's a social observation. Recording industry standards are not established in a vacuum. It has less to do with the technology we are capable of, and everything to do with what consumers are settling for. The latter dictates the choices we have unless we venture beyond convention, which is what this forum is all about.

There are certain phases that industries invariably go through. It doesn't matter if the product is chicken nuggets or recording equipment. Innovation gives way to cost cutting and compromise. White meat gives way to fat and gristle.

Those of us that were recording in the days of innovation and excellence are more acutely aware of this current era of compromise and counterfeits.

Much of what digital can do is still only on paper. The masses aren’t storming the gates and demanding something better. Only a relatively small band of discriminating individuals demand something better, which is historically nearly always the case… whether that’s better government, better recording equipment or better chicken nuggets.

Fine wine is not the wine of the masses. Those that taste fine wine do so in the intimate company of their peers. What most people are drinking will never be palatable, even if that means on occasion one drinks alone.

Any future digital norm, if it is indeed needed at all, will supercede not analog but a previous digital norm.

I’ve been hearing something like that since at least 1989. Take a snapshot of any time during the digital revolution and you will see two main contradictory themes, and a disclaimer. How familiar one is with this dichotomy will depend on how old one is, how long one has been in the recording industry, and how much one has been paying attention.

1. “Digital is completely accurate… what goes in is exactly what comes out.”

2. “Future digital technology will fix sonic problems with current digital technology and it will be even better (Read: What comes out will be even more like what goes in than what went in…or if you will, even more exactlyer?)

3. Nothing stated in number 2 should be construed to imply an admission that digital has ever been less than perfect.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim B,
A slight change of emphasis, but can you supply the references to those three numbered claims in bold type? Can you give us actual quotes and cite the sources? Please note, I'm not saying they werent said.

regards, Tim G

 

[cjacek]

can you supply the references to those three numbered claims in bold type? Can you give us actual quotes and cite the sources? Please note, I'm not saying they werent said.

Oh, enough with the references already! Are you trying to box people in a corner or somethin'? What's your agenda? I've heard this kinda stuff said all along during the 80's, starting when the CD came out and it's nothing new. Next thing you know I'll be asking for references as they pertain to every thing you say or ask!

 

[MCI2424]

Ethan,
Again, reminds me of discussions here with you and others many months ago.

".....Higher quality digital pre recorded media are available such as SACD and DVD A. Interestingly, almost nobody buys them. Why do you think that would be?"......


Cheers Tim.

From my perspective, DVD A or SACD may sound great, but do I really want to buy yet a third copy of "Dark Side Of The Moon"?

People simply don't want to replace their entire collection again. They already got reamed going from LP to CD.

 

[musicalpoetman]

Tascam 16track 1" tape [or similar!!]

HELP!! I'm looking for a studio in the UK where I can check some archive master tapes 1", 16 track, and poss re-mix + dump to digital format. Anyone any contacts??!! Thanks ~ Peter <mananaman007@tiscali.co.uk>

 

[Dr ZEE]

Much of what digital can do is still only on paper.

Not just on paper, but on paper and in red and in bald and those papers are all over.
Those papers also serve as references for guys who are in the corner by their own free will, or better yet to say - guys who are in the corner due to deficiency of will to get out of it.

btw, I have a friend of mine who used to switch girlfriends on a monthly or so base and he used to make up stories about the cars he "owns". Now he's married with two kids and no more "car stories". Attitude!!!!? Who knows. You be the judge. But at least I can use my ol' buddy as a refernce, and why not, it makes a point, or does it ?

They are completely different ...

EXACTLY! And the only reason I get sucked into A vs. D blah blah is because Digital "keeps claiming" that is is the same as Analog. I would "give it up" if the claim was just "Digital is Better", I kind of don't mind that. It IS better, alright, - for many things, that is (we can list them all , can't we? ). But it is no way in hell is the same as analog. Never was, never will be.
No way in hell. How do I know? - I've checked it out, that's how.

/uh, later

 

[MCI2424]

Not just on paper, but on paper and in red and in bald and those papers are all over.
Those papers also serve as references for guys who are in the corner by their own free will, or better yet to say - guys who are in the corner due to deficiency of will to get out of it.

btw, I have a friend of mine who used to switch girlfriends on a monthly or so base and he used to make up stories about the cars he "owns". Now he's married with two kids and no more "car stories". Attitude!!!!? Who knows. You be the judge. But at least I can use my ol' buddy as a refernce, and why not, it makes a point, or does it ?


EXACTLY! And the only reason I get sucked into A vs. D blah blah is because Digital "keeps claiming" that is is the same as Analog. I would "give it up" if the claim was just "Digital is Better", I kind of don't mind that. It IS better, alright, - for many things, that is (we can list them all , can't we? ). But it is no way in hell is the same as analog. Never was, never will be.
No way in hell. How do I know? - I've checked it out, that's how.

/uh, later

To be completely fair, 20 years ago Studers and the like were "high end" machines out of the reach of the avarage home recordist. TASCAM and FOSTEX were the only base for the home recordists to formulate an opinion of analog recording.

The high end digital recorders of today are out of reach of the home recordist, but sound really good. The RADAR Nyquist system being the state of the art here.

When time goes by and these systems become used (like the Studers today) and affordable, they will take over in the home recording market. Right now, the digital recording systems available (affordable) to many are complete crap for sound. Until someone hears a digital recorder at the high end, there is your basis for formulating an opinion of digital recording. Comparing a Cakewalk system with a soundblaster card to a similar (cheap) system will only sour people.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Comparing a Cakewalk system with a soundblaster card to a similar (cheap) system will only sour people.

First:
There's no such thing as "Cakewalk system". Check your references, will you.
There's such thing as 12-Tone System and so is Twelve Tone Systems, Inc - the company, that makes no systems, but makes variety of music production/recording/editing related software.

Second:
I never had any soundblaster cards anywhere around, and so have no clue about it (them) and so no complains there nor any kind other comments about it (them) what so ever.

Third:
The things that REALLY and surely sour (or better say- sore) people are: their own misery, self-implicated by laziness, lack of curiosity and convenient volunteer disregard to the obility of their mind.

/later

 

[evm1024]

ah hem

Having been around 20-30 years ago and having helped in a minor way the creation of a recording studio of High quality in the Portland area I can say that it was founded on Tascam 8 track and 2 track recorders.

 

[evm1024]

High end digital systems do exist (of course!) and some "home" recordests will pony up the bucks for them.

High end digital is what? 24 bits at less than 100 ksps ( kilo samples per second, I don't know please feel free to correct this).

In any case I cannot think of any person who listens to this for pleasure. It all gets down converted to a CD and thus the limits of the CD come into play.

As a side note I use a 10 mp digital camera but my home printer does not do anywhere this resolution. Wet chemistry photos still rule! My astrophotos (I've got a few published) are typically shot with hypered 2415 and there is nothing that comes close to that resolution in the digital world. Analog again trumps digital

 

[MCI2424]

First:
There's no such thing as "Cakewalk system". Check your references, will you.
There's such thing as 12-Tone System and so is Twelve Tone Systems, Inc - the company, that makes no systems, but makes variety of music production/recording/editing related software.

Second:
I never had any soundblaster cards anywhere around, and so have no clue about it (them) and so no complains there nor any kind other comments about it (them) what so ever.

Third:
The things that REALLY and surely sour (or better say- sore) people are: their own misery, self-implicated by laziness, lack of curiosity and convenient volunteer disregard to the obility of their mind.

/later

1. A "Cakewalk System" would be Calewalk (or Sonar) software loaded on a computor with the proper interfacing.

2. I never said you had any of this

3. The rest of my post has info as to why digital does not get a fair shake these days. Some here may benefit, some may not

4. No real need to check my references as I own and use Cakewalk 9.0 and Sonar. None of these can be run outside of a system (computor, soundcard, MIDI, etc)

Cheers!

 

[MCI2424]

Having been around 20-30 years ago and having helped in a minor way the creation of a recording studio of High quality in the Portland area I can say that it was founded on Tascam 8 track and 2 track recorders.

That is great. Lots of people use lots of different tools in making money. I am only referring to why digital gets a bad rap based on cheap systems available today.

The high end analog market is much different form the lower end market (I have had almost all of them at one time or another).

I have used a RADAR Nyquist and a very nice Pro Tools system. They sound great. People can argue until the cows come home, but the good engineers make great recordings on them.

I think my point has been lost somehow.

Anyway, good luck going '"round the world"

 

[evm1024]

That is great. Lots of people use lots of different tools in making money. I am only referring to why digital gets a bad rap based on cheap systems available today.

The high end analog market is much different form the lower end market (I have had almost all of them at one time or another).

I have used a RADAR Nyquist and a very nice Pro Tools system. They sound great. People can argue until the cows come home, but the good engineers make great recordings on them.

I think my point has been lost somehow.

Anyway, good luck going '"round the world"

Your are right. I see your point better on second reading. I would add Ampex and MCI to the top of the line.

Years down the line all of todays hardware will be vintage and have their own group. (I would love to have a pdp-15 for example) And it could be quite affordable.

-----------
(none of this below speaking directly to you Andy)

However, being flawed and more importantly flawed in a way that grates on some peoples ears it will not take the place that tape has at the moment. IMHO

The paper that started this thread states that tape as we know it sounds better than digital as we know it. This does not say that digital today is not very good. It really says that the faults of state-of-the-art tape are less annoying than the faults of state-of-the-art digital. DIgital of course has a whole lot going for it in ease of use and so on.

I am still amused by those who say or imply "I cannot hear the problems you speak about with digital so it does not exist". Enough people do hear it and enough are bothered by it. It is nothing like a bed of nails but more like the pea from fairy tails. Well maybe a big pea for some. This is door number 3 as noted by Beck.

As another thought, this is why when I suggest that 32 bit FP at 256k samples per second MAY have enough precision to move digital artifacts to a level below human perception is call over kill.

For me in recording and playback gear the coloration is something that I want to add not something that I have to overcome. A straight wire with memory.

Regards

 

[Dr ZEE]

I think my point has been lost somehow.

Not a chance.
Your point is the only point you inject where ever you arrive, and it is:
cheap gear -low end and bad
expansive gear - hi-end and great.
If one does not have expansive gear of the day , then he/she can not and thus should not make any conclusions about anything and his/her findings (if there are any and if such findings are being stated on this b-board) are invalid by default.
Your "point" should get lost, but, nop, - not a chance. Also, your "point" works well for people who suffer of their own misery, self-implicated by laziness, lack of curiosity and convenient volunteer disregard to the obility of their mind.
**********
btw, there's no such thing as "Cakewalk system" (Or did I say that already), regardless of what you may (or wish to) imagine about what "it" would be like.
And, no, I am not just being picky on a word here. Anyone who knows well by heart a system or two or three or few, part of which Cakewalk/Sonar software happen to be, knows well what I am talking about. And there's (or better say - can be) a lot things to be compared within a such hypothetical "system" (a "system" that can be low, mid, or high end or anything in between or a mixture) if one whishes to compare something. Have it your way. It's all good, as long it's not a "reference" from an article.
A line like "Comparing a Cakewalk system with a soundblaster card to a what ever" is shinning on and radiating a lethal dose of superficial knowledge base (softly speaking), (well, not so for a "guy in the corner", though. Of course.)
**********
now I have to make that freaking speacial note for some who rather need a note like this.
Here I go:

WE, (the folks on this board, that is), DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORAGES AND APPLES.
We ARE Grey-Haired Farmers
so, there....
you can try this sh*ty "argument" again, just don't get pissed then when reading some follow ups replies, that may smell a bit "personal". Because you are getting on my not-anymore-so-sensitive nereve!!!!!!!!!
.
/later

 

[Beck]

We keep having the same conversation. Contributions by myself and others in the past have ended the need for debating these same points over and over. Unfortunately, the information isn’t grasped by all, so for some there is no getting off this merry-go-round.

Many of us that see value in discussing D vs. A would nonetheless prefer to move on to a higher level, (discussing why digital technology has failed to meet the mark and what might be done about it). But that would probably require some members graciously bowing out and allowing others that are capable to swim in deeper waters.

We already know it has failed to deliver. And, for the one-thousandth time… we, (or at least I) am not comparing budget digital toys to the best analog has to offer, and I never have. I am always referring to the state of the art in digital technology.

But when I do cross-comparisons between the so-called pro and semi-pro it’s to point out that not only is vintage semi-pro analog leaps ahead of semi-pro digital, but it is in fact more than capable of standing nose-to-nose with pro digital formats, and surpassing them in many areas.

I can’t stress this enough. It is the most significant aspect of this debate for those making equipment and strategy decisions… especially for those that have already had a taste of digital disappointment and may be contemplating boarding the digital upgrade train to nowhere. That’s the ticket manufacturers want everyone to buy.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I am always referring to the state of the art in digital technology.

I actually rather refer to the FUTURE of the state of the art in digital technology. And in my "ball-game" I clash "it" with risen from ashes wonders of the past that never meant to be nor claimed to be "state of the art". And It does not look good for D on my ball-field. But, then again, it's my game-ball, I write the rules