A Thread to Continue discussing Tim Gillett's Recollection of Another Discussion

[Beck]

But if you stick with it [Analog tape] because you think its transparent sound is superior to the transparency of digital recordings then I suggest a reality check might be a good idea.

Explain your reasoning behind that statement. Be as concise as possible – one or two paragraphs should do it. We’re not looking for 500-word posts here, but just a simple clarification.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I suggest a reality check might be a good idea.

*****
I do it all the time, however, my reality-checker tool-set may not be (and I assume is not) the same. Thanks God, we still can choose our "tools"

 

[SteveMac]

The problem I have with some of Tim Gillettes posts is I keep getting the impression that he thinks we are deluded and is trying to catch us in a lie. I don't really care what he thinks, but I just want to assure him that we are not trying to pull one over on him.

 

[cjacek]

The problem I have with some of Tim Gillettes posts is I keep getting the impression that he thinks we are deluded and is trying to catch us in a lie.

While some of Tim G's posts are very interesting, I got the same impression.

 

[Beck]

The problem I have with some of Tim Gillettes posts is I keep getting the impression that he thinks we are deluded...

That about says it. In the final analysis, it’s just trolling. Some of them just work harder at it than others. They seem to be drawn to this particular forum… often the same person with different user IDs, so there are actually less of them than it seems.

The techie that I am, my degree is actually in social science, so I find the interactions in this cyber reality all the more amusing, and am always mindful of them… mine included.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Explain your reasoning behind that statement. Be as concise as possible – one or two paragraphs should do it. We’re not looking for 500-word posts here, but just a simple clarification.

Tim B,
I went on to suggest there is VERY little between the two ways of recording, at their best.
I dont know what else to say. A/B double blind listening tests? What would you or others prefer?
The benchmark is the original source. If neither recording differs appreciably from that source, then it follows neither differs appreciably from one another. How can I say it more simply?
Before digital became mainstream, analog tape was getting closer and closer to reproducing the source perfectly. Then digital came along and itself got closer and closer to doing the same. That means analog and digital were actually getting closer and closer TO EACH OTHER. I suspect the advent of digital spurred analog makers to work even harder and so the sonic gap got even smaller. Today we have better analog audio tapes than we ever had, and machines capable of exploiting that.

To try and suggest analog and digital are markedly sonically different today seems the lie to me. Both can be stunningly good.
I can almost sense the pressure here to "come clean" and "admit" they are noticeably different but I'm sorry, I think they are very close -except for the saturation phenomenon. What else can I say?

Regards, Tim G

 

[Dr ZEE]

A/B double blind listening tests? What would you or others prefer?

First of all: test listening to what? Some random sound? A tone? Single ride cymbal hit? Orchestra? Full band recorded and mixed both ways? Or what?
If music production would be just about recording a single tone and get done with it, then there would not be much to blah about.
But then, ok, let's say we put aside the complexity of music recording production (forget about the fact that we are music recordists and the baggage that comes with it ) and just try A/B something (what ever it may be) blindly. The problem is that such "test" will not reveal the devel, regardless of the "result" of that test.
I have no idea how to express it, but I'll try (speaking of wasting of time ).
That next to non little difference between "two" becomes painfully (or say deadly) evident in accumulative manner. First you start feeling uncomfortable (feeling that something is not right, but not sure), then irritated, then you feel pain and anger (something IS most definitely wrong!) and then you can't stand it any more (scream: "I've had it!") and shut the source of the pain off.
So what it is? I'll leave it to scientists (not to say, that I expect them to figure it out, simply because figuring it out does not pay anybody's bill, so it ain't gonna happen).
All I know is that digital recording (especially! if the multi-stage production process of complex recording (like band/orchestra etc) was done digitally) has a very little amount of deadly poison in it which is not instantly evident.
Bad Analogy.: It's like a micro amount of KCN (Potassium cyanide) in the bottle of wine (cheap or gourmet, it does not matter). It may present gentle amount of almonds flavor, but it is known fact that not every person can taste/smell it.
Well, digital sound does not kill anybody, but in the bigger picture (imo!) it already getting close to killing the art of music recording. Maybe it's already done. I still can purchase from time to time a new release that I can sort of appreciate for its content, but not for its sonic. Not as I used to. And, no, it's not me (not age, not brain damage, not bad ear, not my attitude etc. ,) - it IS the sound that is no damn good.

/later

 

[evm1024]

taken at face value

Tim B,
I went on to suggest there is VERY little between the two ways of recording, at their best.
I dont know what else to say. A/B double blind listening tests? What would you or others prefer?
The benchmark is the original source. If neither recording differs appreciably from that source, then it follows neither differs appreciably from one another. How can I say it more simply?
Before digital became mainstream, analog tape was getting closer and closer to reproducing the source perfectly. Then digital came along and itself got closer and closer to doing the same. That means analog and digital were actually getting closer and closer TO EACH OTHER. I suspect the advent of digital spurred analog makers to work even harder and so the sonic gap got even smaller. Today we have better analog audio tapes than we ever had, and machines capable of exploiting that.

To try and suggest analog and digital are markedly sonically different today seems the lie to me. Both can be stunningly good.
I can almost sense the pressure here to "come clean" and "admit" they are noticeably different but I'm sorry, I think they are very close -except for the saturation phenomenon. What else can I say?

Regards, Tim G

Taken at face value as a sincere post I can respond by saying that it is easy to fall into the trap of numbers and "closeness". Digital recording has made great strides in producing great numbers. Low THD, low noise, etc. It is almost the same as the original preformance by all measurments that we feel are significant. You can say the same about tape. Low distortion , low noise etc.

And there lies the first step to overcome. Not all differences (from the original) are of the same weight. Human hearing is not well understood. Engineers (I am an engineer) look as those numbers and say Cool really close. And yet the human hearing detects and reacts to 7th harmonics that are 70 dB down. And some part of the brain says yuck. Nyquist tells us that we need only sample at twice the frequency to recover the frequency. But not the phase and not any other quality of that frequency. And the brain says this high frequency mess has no phase coherency and its making me angry.

As a side, If some alien looked down on earth and measured the differences between men and women they might conclude that the differences are less than 1% and are insignificant and thus stick a bunch of guys in a room and say breed please....By the same token thay cond conclude that they made an error and that those differences significant and then place 5 guys and 5 gals inthe same room and say breed please and still end up with a bunch of pissed off people. Simply because love and compatability are things that we don't know how to measure.

There are many things in human hearing that we do not know how to measure or that we even need to measure....


The second thing to think about is that the music industry is moving the fidelity down. They do not want listeners with golden ears. They would rather you all downloaded songs individually and listened to it on your ipod for $15.99 (not everyone of course). It is about maximizing profit.

Regards

 

[evm1024]

A ver y good analogy!

First of all: test listening to what? Some random sound? A tone? Single ride cymbal hit? Orchestra? Full band recorded and mixed both ways? Or what?
If music production would be just about recording a single tone and get done with it, then there would not be much to blah about.
But then, ok, let's say we put aside the complexity of music recording production (forget about the fact that we are music recordists and the baggage that comes with it ) and just try A/B something (what ever it may be) blindly. The problem is that such "test" will not reveal the devel, regardless of the "result" of that test.
I have no idea how to express it, but I'll try (speaking of wasting of time ).
That next to non little difference between "two" becomes painfully (or say deadly) evident in accumulative manner. First you start feeling uncomfortable (feeling that something is not right, but not sure), then irritated, then you feel pain and anger (something IS most definitely wrong!) and then you can't stand it any more (scream: "I've had it!") and shut the source of the pain off.
So what it is? I'll leave it to scientists (not to say, that I expect them to figure it out, simply because figuring it out does not pay anybody's bill, so it ain't gonna happen).
All I know is that digital recording (especially! if the multi-stage production process of complex recording (like band/orchestra etc) was done digitally) has a very little amount of deadly poison in it which is not instantly evident.
Bad Analogy.: It's like a micro amount of KCN (Potassium cyanide) in the bottle of wine (cheap or gourmet, it does not matter). It may present gentle amount of almonds flavor, but it is known fact that not every person can taste/smell it.
Well, digital sound does not kill anybody, but in the bigger picture (imo!) it already getting close to killing the art of music recording. Maybe it's already done. I still can purchase from time to time a new release that I can sort of appreciate for its content, but not for its sonic. Not as I used to. And, no, it's not me (not age, not brain damage, not bad ear, not my attitude etc. ,) - it IS the sound that is no damn good.

/later

No Dr Zee,

This is a very good analogy. Digital does have some KCN in it. If we look very hard at it we can see the KCN but we say that this is not significant. And indeed if you have your ipod stuck in your ears as you are flying down the road with the windows of your car open the wind will flush it all away.

But if you sit in your listening chair and focus on the music something in your brain will cringe.

I stopped listening deeply for hours at a time about the time that I switched over to CD. It took me years to realize that it was not age or time of family that caused me to stop listening....

 

[themaddog]

If you want to notice a huge difference in A/B'ing a digital recording and an analog recording, do the following.

1- Record two tracks. Two "doubled" guitars would work great here.

2- On both tracks, set opposite pans (hard left and right).

3- Mix the recordings.

The analog recording will have a MUCH wider stereo image than the digital one. Don't believe me? Try it out.

-MD

 

[SteveMac]

I still can purchase from time to time a new release that I can sort of appreciate for its content, but not for its sonic. Not as I used to. And, no, it's not me (not age, not brain damage, not bad ear, not my attitude etc. ,) - it IS the sound that is no damn good.

/later

Even Tom Petty's new CD, which was produced by Jeff Lynne, who I think uses tape, or used to, sounds kind of funny.




BTW Tim Beck, you should write a book. If the guy who wrote "guerrilla recording" could you certainly could.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Even Tom Petty's new CD, which was produced by Jeff Lynne, who I think uses tape, or used to, sounds kind of funny.

God knows what and how things get really done nowdays on the way from a performer's mic to your player (what your player may be, btw ).
Also, there are way much more "heros of recording of not so distant past" that have been sucked up into the digimare black hole, than I wish to witness. Also, Most of those never got out of it . And (as example), what can be more puking, than hearing(reading) a "word of wisdome" from Alan Parson about how great the digital technology is and all the chuck_full_of_crap_tools available and how much different and better "Dark Side of the Moon" would be if it was recorded/produced today. ?Arghhhhhhhhhhhh Yak-Sh*T
Remember that Jeff's line:
"One day you're a hero
Next day you're a clown
There's nothing that is in between
Now you're a 21st century man."
?

 

[Dr ZEE]

...some alien ... stick a bunch of guys in a room and say breed please....

ahhhhh. Now I know, that aliens ARE here.
**********

It took me years to realize that it was not age or time of family that caused me to stop listening....

YES! that what it takes as I see it. Also, you gotta be a person who happen to be a recorded-music-listening-holic, another words, (for what ever reason)listening to recorded music must be important to you, so you notice some sort of "emptiness" after you stop listening and ask your self "Why?", "What the hell is happening here?".

/respects

 

[cjacek]

If the guy who wrote "guerrilla recording".

Yeah, looking back now, that book was really atrocious. Well, certainly not that bad, especially for a newbie but, really, it was hyped up way too much and under delivered ....

 

[SteveMac]

Yeah, looking back now, that book was really atrocious. Well, certainly not that bad, especially for a newbie but, really, it was hyped up way too much and under delivered ....

Yeah, there might of have been some ideas in it, but it was pretty much what you already knew. But, I'm sure it helped somebody.

 

[Beck]

To try and suggest analog and digital are markedly sonically different today seems the lie to me.

They are completely different technologies. It should be no surprise that they sound different to so many people, no matter what the bit depth or sampling rate of digital. It’s quite possible that the technology has limitations that cannot be overcome with current design models.

I can almost sense the pressure here to "come clean" and "admit" they are noticeably different but I'm sorry, I think they are very close -except for the saturation phenomenon. What else can I say?

Fine, but that's not the sort of statement that causes friction in discussion forums. I started this thread with a quote where you basically said anyone who preferred analog to digital for "transparent" recording must have some reason other than a good one for holding such a view.

Yes, we all feel pressure to conform. Just ask the majority of those that have accepted the doctrine of digital accuracy through nothing more than social osmosis.

The irony here is apparent; the reality check is most needed by those that regard digital as the sacred audio reference without question. The digital revolution began as a social movement. For the average guy on the street any technical considerations go only as far as the catalog, the brochure, and the salesman.

For many of us, leaving the digital church and going back to analog started with that reality check you speak of. Having made choices based on objective means we are the reformed and enlightened. To make a true choice you must first be willing (and able) to question convention.

The perception of digital sterility or coldness is a worldwide phenomenon. Thus, no double-blind A/B tests with a cracker in between are necessary. We are far beyond that stage. For those of us that can hear harshness in digitally sampled high frequencies, the decline in the sonic quality of popular music is the evidence. It was first perceived in real-world listening environments, not in laboratories, and so the real world is where it stands or falls.

Digital accuracy is your premise... a fundamental misconception that precludes objectively. You’ve said it many different ways in many different posts, but in the end it’s all you’ve said… and we’ve heard it all before.

 

[cjacek]

To try and suggest analog and digital are markedly sonically different today seems the lie to me.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous stataments ever said on the "Analog Only" board .... Oh Lord, have mercy!

 

[SteveMac]

I stopped listening deeply for hours at a time about the time that I switched over to CD. It took me years to realize that it was not age or time of family that caused me to stop listening....

Man, I think you're right.

 

[Tim Gillett]

They are completely different technologies. It should be no surprise that they sound different to so many people, no matter what the bit depth or sampling rate of digital. It’s quite possible that the technology has limitations that cannot be overcome with current design models.



Fine, but that's not the sort of statement that causes friction in discussion forums. I started this thread with a quote where you basically said anyone who preferred analog to digital for "transparent" recording must have some reason other than a good one for holding such a view.

Yes, we all feel pressure to conform. Just ask the majority of those that have accepted the doctrine of digital accuracy through nothing more than social osmosis.

The irony here is apparent; the reality check is most needed by those that regard digital as the sacred audio reference without question. The digital revolution began as a social movement. For the average guy on the street any technical considerations go only as far as the catalog, the brochure, and the salesman.

For many of us, leaving the digital church and going back to analog started with that reality check you speak of. Having made choices based on objective means we are the reformed and enlightened. To make a true choice you must first be willing (and able) to question convention.

The perception of digital sterility or coldness is a worldwide phenomenon. Thus, no double-blind A/B tests with a cracker in between are necessary. We are far beyond that stage. For those of us that can hear harshness in digitally sampled high frequencies, the decline in the sonic quality of popular music is the evidence. It was first perceived in real-world listening environments, not in laboratories, and so the real world is where it stands or falls.

Digital accuracy is your premise... a fundamental misconception that precludes objectively. You’ve said it many different ways in many different posts, but in the end it’s all you’ve said… and we’ve heard it all before.

Tim B,
Let's grant for the sake of the topic that what you say is right. That digital audio technology at present doesnt nearly match analog tape technology in terms of transparency.

What is your feeling about that state of affairs? Would you like it to change? Would you really look forward to the day when digital was on a par with analog tape's transparency and you could happily embrace the conveniences of digital without the penalty of compromised digital audio quality?

If you can say an unqualified "yes" to that question then I have nothing else to say and we're all happy. If you cannot, then maybe there is something more going on here than a simple, honest dissatisfaction with the transparency of digital audio recordings in their current form. But I hope it's the former.

Regards, Tim G

 

[themaddog]

Tim B,
Let's grant for the sake of the topic that what you say is right. That digital audio technology at present doesnt nearly match analog tape technology in terms of transparency.

With all due respect, I don't think transparancy is the correct term for this description. However, I've no subsitute terminology to offer.

All I can relate is that different mediums will always sound unique to one another. A vinyl record sounds different than tape, which is going to differ from a compact disc.

To this end, different tapes have differing sonic qualities. This is one of the neat things about analog!

At the same time, although digital should have more consistancy (whether it's a 16-bit/44.4 khz .wav file stored on a CD, DVD, hard disk, etc.), the difference in sound varies greatly on the playback mechanism: some CD players sound significantly worse than others, playing back the exact same CD.

My whole point is true "transparancy" will never exist, on any format. Something will always hinder this perception of transparancy, somewhere in the signal chain. This could be the medium itself, or any other factor.

-MD