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

[Dr ZEE]

Are you guys still at it?.

I'd say, not really

I know there is a huge difference in sound quality between consumer analog, semi-pro and fully professional analog formats.

Jeff, would you mind to clearly define consumer analog, semi-pro and fully professional analog formats. That is three things to define, (seriously, no jokes - no crap... )

there are still a very healthy number of pro studios that work with analog at that level because of the undeniable fact that professional level analog does sound great..

I would not argue the fact that there's a healthy number of pro-studios that work with analog (or to be more specific - OFFER analog recording service), but I would not conveniently narrow ("focus") the reasonings for why they do so to a single one, - "great analog sound" that is. Pro studios have many other reasons for what they do and how they do it. "What sounds best" may be one of them, however it is rarely the prime reason and quite often is not the reason at all. And thus, the fact(s) of what ever people do in their pro studios and how do they do it can't back up nor dismiss a point from neither side in the "great A vs. D debate" (or any debate in that matter, unless the debate is about what people do in pro studios )

Is either technology a perfect medium for flawlessly capturing sound? No.

Agreed.
May I add, though? Flawless capturing of sound and music recording/production are not the same 'things'. Under circumstances, flawless capturing of sound may be included in the music recording/production process but it is NOT the base of it and absolutely not a required part of it.
Music recording/production (and I mean production of musical recordings for pleasing enjoyment use, not 'other forms of use') meets its goal perfectly when the process is based on analog technology. That is a fact and a proven one. Music recording/production the process of which is based on digital technology is yet to prove its ability to meet the same goal, and in that regard it's long over due, I must add.

/respects

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Jeff, would you mind to clearly define consumer analog, semi-pro and fully professional analog formats. That is three things to define, (seriously, no jokes - no crap... )

No problem.

Consumer grade Analog;
Any form or format of compact cassette, 8-track cartridge, L-cassette or open reel format that runs at 7.5ips with 1/4 track - 1/4" tape formats or slower/thinner.

Semi-pro grade analog;
Any narrow grade tape format that runs at 15 ips that shares the same track width as 1/4 track - 1/4" consumer formats.

Fully pro Analog;
Any open reel format running at 15 -30 ips that uses the 1/2 track - 1/4" format or thicker excluding 2" - 24 track on 2" tape which has been deemed a fully professional format by the industry's manufacturers and end users.

Cheers!

 

[Dr ZEE]

No problem.

Consumer grade Analog;
Any form or format of compact cassette, 8-track cartridge, L-cassette or open reel format that runs at 7.5ips with 1/4 track - 1/4" tape formats or slower/thinner.

Semi-pro grade analog;
Any narrow grade tape format that runs at 15 ips that shares the same track width as 1/4 track - 1/4" consumer formats.

Fully pro Analog;
Any open reel format running at 15 -30 ips that uses the 1/2 track - 1/4" format or thicker excluding 2" - 24 track on 2" tape which has been deemed a fully professional format by the industry's manufacturers and end users.

Cheers!

Roger that.
cool!
So...ooooo, there's somewhat rather noticable difference in sound quality between recording that were made on machines with some difference in track width/tape speed. And if the difference in track width/tape speed between two machines is significant - the difference in sound quality is huge.
Cool! That's the beauty of real world things, I suppose. Bigger things that move faster do better.
Cool.

It would be double or tripple cool if somehow knowing all that would keep smile on my face and, consequentially, earphones on my head longer than for 15-20 mins or so when listening to the latest CD from the artist I actually Love to listen to. But nop, no such effect.
Now you can guess what I have to say to the millions of current digital users out there who love their methodology. If you can't, then forget about it, it does not matter.
So skipping what I have to say to them, let me tell you what I have to ask them about. Here I go:
"Hello, users! I have a question for you. I understand that you love the methology and all that. But where is the smile on YOUR faces? Or is it a new style of expressing the joy, that comes in the pack with your methology (technology, I suppose)?"
**********

ps, seriously, Jeff, I 'm not arguing with you, really. I know what you are saying. I'm just stressing the unstressable.

/respects

 

[The Ghost of FM]

"Hello, users! I have a question for you. I understand that you love the methology and all that. But where is the smile on YOUR faces? Or is it a new style of expressing the joy, that comes in the pack with your methology (technology, I suppose)?"
**********

ps, seriously, Jeff, I 'm not arguing with you, really. I know what you are saying. I'm just stressing the unstressable.

/respects

Every generation has their share of fans and critics of not only the music but the way in which it was put together and delivered to them.

Currently we have millions of music consumers listening to music on ipods with 2 dollar earphones or 10 dollar PC speakers and all of this listening is provided via heavily compressed mp3 files so what can be said of the current music buying public is that they're far more interested in the music and far less interested about what level of quality its being delivered to them in.

If we time warp back a few years when analog was the standard for recording, we saw teenagers listening to the music through 5 dollar AM transistor radios and 20 dollar plastic turntables that had less range and dynamics then what a current ipod and earphones can deliver.

It almost begs the question; why are we beating each other up over how our recording regimes are flawed in one way or another when in almost all cases the end consumer isn't getting the full experience of all our collective hard work as musicians and engineers in any case?

There was a brief time in our recent history when listeners spent real money on decent home stereo gear and made it part of their lifestyle to sit in their recliners and actually listen to the quality of what was being offered to them but even that recent generation of consumers is a dieing breed.

Our lifestyles these days demand too much of our free time to allow us to just sit there any more and simply be entertained and awed by the quality of our productions. Anyone with that amount of spare time probably won't have the coin for the proper playback equipment and the quality environments to put them in. At this stage of the game, the automobile is our best shot a getting a few minutes of listening in while we drive to work to keep paying the never ending stream of bills in our mailbox.

It's all rather moot, I fear.

Cheers!

 

[Tim Gillett]

See my post #79

Cheers Tim G

 

[Dr ZEE]

Currently we have millions of music consumers listening to music on ipods with 2 dollar earphones or 10 dollar PC speakers and all of this listening is provided via heavily compressed mp3 files so what can be said of the current music buying public is that they're far more interested in the music and far less interested about what level of quality its being delivered to them in.

those speakers more likely are less than 5 cent, actually, if any at all.
A Consumer pays 200 bucks or so for a soap-box with 3/4 of a stale apple on it. A consumer has bought a $1,000 "top of the line" computer ten years ago, then he/she did it again 7 years ago, and again 5 years ago, and again 2 years ago, and last night again, and so will be upgrading again soon. To get what?!!!!!!!!! Have you said: "Bills keep coming..." - No sh*t, man

Consumer does things, you know. Consumer shops and grabs what's on the shelf. It was like this since day one, I suppose.
Are we discussing here how to fill (and what with) those shelves so to make the most out of consumer's behavior?

... why are we beating each other up over how our recording regimes are flawed in one way or another when in almost all cases the end consumer isn't getting the full experience of all our collective hard work as musicians and engineers in any case?

Maybe because we are not discussing how to fill those shelves so to make the most out of it.
Yes, people used to spin cheap plastic record players then and they do listen to (apparently not so cheap!) little boxes with "wide range and wopping dynamics" in it, yet with nothing spinning in it , - argggghhhhhhh, they are consumers, what do they know. Right?
O.K. Forget about 'them'.
The 'issue', as I'd put it, is this:
I've got here $2,400 Fully Professional CD Recorder/Player and it was knocked Out like a rookie in the first round by a Consumer Format (yep, one of those ) Reel-To-Reel machine that was built thirty years ago as one of those things to fill the shelves. I've paid half of the f*ng i-Pod's price for that machine.
Now, my "fully professional one" has never recovered after the punch. I've told him: "That's alright, dude. Just live with yourself. We are what we are, you know. Some of us are champs while others are those who have tried."
As for me, no I'm not beating myself up (nor am I beating anybody else) , I'm just pissed.
And I never even held 2" tape in my hand. Imagine if I did.

oh boy.....

/respects

 

[Beck]

Yeah we’re still at it.

There are usually several things going on in any one thread though. It’s not simply an analog vs. digital debate, if even that at all. We have a troll happening, some house keeping going on, some off-subject humor and diversion… a little bit of everything.

Some of us are taking it a bit less seriously because of the troll factor, and others (namely the troll) taking it all too seriously, believing that someone can actually “win” one of these discussions.

If/when there are genuine analog vs. digital debates I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. None of us agree 100% on the details, so it’s good to kick around. Plus, there are no brochures, catalogs, or advertisements for analog anymore, so many people in a home recording forum wouldn’t even know it’s an option if there wasn’t a discussion about it somewhere. People can actually pick up some leads to follow up on during these discussions.

The said troll still hasn’t answered the initial question at the top of this thread, but insists that each and every question/comment he makes be studied like the Torah and addressed, even though doing so will just lead to him dodging and changing direction each time his central argument crumbles. Narcissism in action… it’s never pretty.

At this point there is no debate… just a game of Battleship.

Some good comments here and there and obviously some sincere people, but as a whole it’s a train wreck. Yeah ok, still a chance for me to study human behavior, which I enjoy. And heck, other members are getting other things out of it, since we’re not all the same.

We may even be helping the government fight the war on terror or something. I’ve considered the possibility that the troll might be a piece of software designed by the Pentagon along the lines of a chess-playing computer. I’ve observed that he (it) has learned our arguments and terminology over time and is spiting back other member’s comments from previous threads as though they are his own thoughts. He (it) is turning the arguments around, but is definitely trying to appear as though it’s introducing concepts and terminology that we’ve in fact taught it. Kind of fascinating really. Another thing that lends support to this hypothesis is that only a machine would work so tirelessly for something other than sex.

 

[arjoll]

Are you guys still at it?
Here's my two cents on the whole analog vs. digital great debate;

Couldn't have said it better myself. I've never really 'got' these analogue/digital debates, they seem to be rather tedious.

BTW you're looking a lot younger these days....

 

[arjoll]

Fully pro Analog;
Any open reel format running at 15 -30 ips that uses the 1/2 track - 1/4" format or thicker

Sweet! My 32 is now fully pro

 

[Dr ZEE]

At this point there is no debate… just a game of Battleship.

and it's a lost one,

 

[Beck]

Is either technology a perfect medium for flawlessly capturing sound? No. Both have flaws and most of those flaws are in the ways we capture via microphone, process and alter and mix through less then perfect monitors and listening environments which don't really reproduce the same reverberant qualities that the original instruments and the spaces they were captured in. When we can faithfully capture that, we'll have made a significant step toward higher fidelity. Until then, we're just fooling ourselves.

This is good stuff because it brings up a fundamental difference in outcomes one person may desire to another for music.

I see the transparency/accuracy angle spoken of here quite often, but I don't really believe in it myself.

IMO, we got to a point in music production where what was coming off the tape sounded better than what was going on it, and certainly in many cases better than what the room sounded like.

While we might say the original sound source is the basic starting point, it is more applicable for sampling single voices to build an instrument, such as a digital piano. This may be where the obsession originated. Since modern digital was really a spin-off of the sampling revolution which preceded it, that would make sense.

However, for a piece of music neither analog nor digital recording/reproduction can truly recreate a live environment. And we don’t necessarily want it to. For example, I’ve rarely been to a rock concert in my life that sounded as good as the band’s studio album. The “religious” experience of the concert makes up for it to a degree, so it’s just a different way of experiencing music. In the worst case the music is a mushy unintelligible disaster and you couldn’t pick out the lyrics to save your life, if you didn’t already know them from the album.

The very process of multitracking is unnatural. Digital reverb only simulates acoustical environments, as do springs and plates. Audio production is designed to fool the ear into thinking it’s somewhere else, and even to filter out objectionable sonic characteristics of a live environment. The human imagination is a significant and indispensable part of the equation, so psychoacoustics trump acoustics in this quest for “That Sound.”

But then, IMO, there’s nothing like a live symphony or a choir in a large, acoustically planned church. And it’s amazing how we can capture this basic experience with a stereo pair and a 2-track. It won’t be like in the church, but it still sounds beautiful. Slap on a pair of quality headphones and you have an entirely different experience than the live church or reproduction through speakers.

Thus there is no one size fits all solution to ALL music. This is one reason why I generally reject the conventional notion of pro, semi-pro, etc, except for line levels and general robustness for commercial use. When it comes to sound quality I think that’s very subjective. Did the Ramones really need their music captured on a Studer 24-track? Did most early Rap? Does Fergie? A 4-track cassette is more like it, and we’d be none the wiser.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Beck,
I have an apology to make. In an earlier post I said I expected to find (after having chased up the reference) that you would have misquoted Tom Scholz in your post #25. My assumption was that such a talented engineer man as he could not possibly have said what he said about phase angles and stereo image. Surely Beck had misquoted him.

Well my assumption was not correct. I chased up the 2003 Guitar player article on the net and there it was, as you had quoted it.
Again, my apologies for any slight here.

Of course that doesnt change the essential issue for me and in a way makes it worse. For now it seems confirmed Tom Scholz himself is criticising digital sound in a way that seems absurd, at least to me.
I still think it's possible Scholz was misquoted in Guitar but I guess the quote has been around long enough that if Scholz had been unhappy with it he would have had it corrected.

In another post I've invited EVM to comment on the quote as it seems an important statement and from what I know EVM would have a good handle on the subject area.

There you go. An apology, something that every so often I need to do in my my life. You havent asked me to apologize for it though you could have and would have been within your rights.

Tim G

 

[Beck]

Fair enough, Tim G.


Scholz is only one of many recognized authorities that prefer analog tape. He is a vocal analog proponent, so that isn’t the only reference you’ll find. But the guy is also well-versed in using digital tools. He can obviously afford and master whatever technology he chooses.

My preference doesn’t stand or fall on what Scholz or anyone else does, or says, but it’s important to realize that tape is a modern tool used by some of the best in the business.

The point of citing someone like Scholz in the analog vs. digital context is that so many people in the amateur recording community are unaware of the professionals that are still using analog tape. It is to counter the notion that a prevailing convention is necessarily superior in quality simply because it is dominant.

Analog is thriving as a tool in the pro world of recording. My feeling is… why should home recordists be kept in the dark about it? They often don’t learn about it at all, partly because magazines like Electronic Musician and Sound-on-Sound are product oriented. There’s no profit in last year’s products for them.

I’ve been reading about and discussing the proposed reasons digital sounds the way it does since about 1989. Scholz’ or my interpretation of why digital sounds bad isn’t nearly as important as the fact that our ears tell us it does.

I have definite ideas about what Scholz is talking about in this particular case, but it’s really just an aside. He’s an expert witness, so to speak.

For every hypothesis, someone comes along and shoots it down with a laboratory test, and then someone else comes along and questions the science behind the tests, and no one agrees.

If one does think it sounds bad, it would be strange to say, “I’m going to keep using digital anyway until someone can explain why it sounds bad.” It would be like demanding that someone prove your house is on fire by measuring, smoke and heat levels before you would agree to get out. Some things you just know… or don’t know, I suppose.

Scholz could have put it in more artistic terms like Gary Wright did in 1995:

"I simply prefer analog to digital. The only way I can explain it is with an analogy of rubbing your fingers over velvet or silk. You can feel a textural difference between the two fabrics. Well, I hear a textural difference between analog and digital recordings. There's a certain amount of tape compression and harmonic distortion that occurs in the analog realm that is very pleasing to my ear."

Gary Wright, Electronic Musician magazine, October 1995

Or just matter of fact like Ira Seagal did in 1997:

“This is unfortunately a complicated and controversial topic, but those fortunate enough to be able to discern the differences continue to use analog recording tape to master music. We do believe that pressing CDs from an analog master tape is going to produce as full, rich and sweet a recording as the digital playback medium will allow. This method of digital pressing from an analog master is championed by a great many labels around the world, small though they may be, whose primary objective is nothing less than the finest possible quality of music capturing and reproduction for their valued clients."
Ira Segal
Journal of The Audio Engineering Society (AES) - 1997

Or like George Graves said I in 1998:

"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."

--George Graves, Chief Engineer - Lacquer Channel Mastering, Toronto
Professional Sound Magazine, April 1998

Or like Elliot Scheiner said it in 2003.

" I grew up and learned analogue and I'm an analogue geek. It's not that I'm kicking digital, but analogue has a much better sound. When you are able to A/B analogue and digital, which we could do in this case, there's simply no comparison. The top end is so sweet and beautiful. I've never heard anyone say about digital, even at 24-bit/96kHz or 192kHz: 'Isn't the top end as sweet and beautiful as you've ever heard?' You don't because digital just doesn't sound that way."
--Elliot Scheiner - Sound on Sound Magazine, Aug 2003

Scheiner was working with Steely Dan on an album at the time of this quote. As you know, Steely Dan was one of the first groups to embrace early digital with the guidance of Roger Nichols.

The point of learning what some of these guys are saying about analog and digital (most recently Bob Dylan) is it should make people stop and think – investigate further.

 

[SteveMac]

In my personal experience I just find that analog beats digital in just about everything. Including drum machines and keyboards. I know that digital has come closer to recreating the actual sounds of drums and piano but the analog equipment to me still seems richer and more musical. With a piano particuarly, the digital sounds are pretty close but in the end you still want a real piano. My latest frustration is with my Kurzweil, I find the piano sounds unusable most of the time. Some of the other sounds are pretty good though.
I should add that none of the digital equipment I've owned has been actually top of the line either. I think the POD sounds pretty good.

 

[Dr ZEE]

But the guy is also well-versed in using digital tools.

Mastering skills in using digital tools - that's what it takes nowdays to TRULY appreciate what analog recording/processing does offer and choose analog over digital without carrying in your mouth the disturbing flavor of self-deficiency as a producer. So you can sing with confidence:
"I've got the right one, baby,...
Uh-Huh!"

 

[Tim Gillett]

OK,
I guess it comes down to how we use quotes. For me, I seem to take a different approach.
The Scholz quote was and is important to me given my background.The Scholz quote moves into the science of human hearing. It's not just expressing a mere "preference" for one type of recording over another. That's the key.

The Scholz Guitar Player quote seems to have a basic flaw of logic in it for anyone with a modest of understanding of audiology (the science of hearing). And my understanding in that area is modest, I admit, but I do have it.

Humans MUST be relatively insensitive to simple delay of high freq's to lows because we accept it without much problem in analog electronic amplification, including analog tape. It happens all the time.

3M seem to have been referring to that delay. But Scholz seems to assume they are referring to delays we hear when a sound coming to us is off to the left or the right, a quite different scenario.

3M couldnt have been referring to that second scenario as it has been so well known for many many years (long before digital sound) that sensing such delays is quite important to our sound localisation abilities, as with animals. (Again Scholz is absolutely right about THAT= it's just the context that he seems to get wrong)

Now with those aspects of human hearing in mind, go to recorded sound, notably stereo.

Designers of pro analog tape gear were very careful to preserve time accuracy between left and right channels(because they understood exactly the truth of what Scholz says, long before he was around.)

Designers of digital recorders had exactly the same understanding and were ALSO very careful about phase acuracy between left and right channels.

I can accept the possibility early digital gear had poor stereo phase coherence -it was hardly a mature technology-give it a break-but it would have been something the designers were keenly aware of and frustrated by. No way can such a weakness of design give satisfying stereo results. Not then, not now. Not in analog, not in digital.
The point is not which gear that has the fault, but the fault itself that's crucial.

I feel it's also possible 3M were referring to a stereo phase error in their digital system that (they felt, rightly or otherwise) was so small that humans were not very sensitive to it. I dont know. I would have to read the brochure Scholz was referring to.
On this it's important to note, analog tape also has stereo phase errors -always. It's the degree that matters. It's not all or nothing. Engineers and techs have to work within an acceptable tolerance. There is no other way. when your machine comes back from the tech it's not perfect. It's within tolerance.

But equally that was a long time ago. We're not talking today about 3M's early digital technology but today. I have this growing sense of Scholz being a bit like my idol, the tennis great, Bjorn Borg, who in later years refused to play with any racquet but a wooden Donnay, long after everybody else had gone for the more powerful later models. More sad than anything else.

I've expressed my strong desire for at least one other person to comment, possibly EVM, but any number of others, who are qualified to do so. It's not a crime to not be conversant with this technical side but it is not good form to ridicule someone simply because they are.


Beck I can get confused at your own perspective. Perhaps it would help if you could clarify the various elements that seem to join together to make you so anti digital. There seem elements of dislike for modern recording practices (which I totally share), a dislike of the tendency for money to dominate decisions in the industry these days (which I totally share) etc etc.

Then strict antipathy towards digital sound recording quality at its best doesnt seem to sit well with the view that a hit record is a mark of success, and that that should be able to be made on a Fostex as well as a Studer (which again I agree with) You seem to veer from golden ears punctilliousness as the standard one minute to "is it a hit record?That's all that matters" sort of view and back again.
Again, it depends on what we are discussing. I think we need to flag just what our intention is at any given time, for the sake of clarity. We've been through this before perhaps. I can understand where you are coming from in both cases but we need to be clear which context we are talking about at any given moment: The industry? A hit record? Golden ears? All very different things, and while related, not to be confused with each other.

best wishes, Tim G

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I've spoken in an a previous post in this thread about why I liked analog and why I felt more comfortable using it to work productively in a working environment. In other threads I've probably discussed what it is about digital that I find hard to adjust to as far as the tactile issues were concerned about missing the feel of discrete knobs and switches, each dedicated to their own singular function.

What I have avoided talking about is what I find displeasing in the sound of many all digital recording because I don't have the scientific numbers to back up my subjective feelings about that listening experience.

For me, it comes down to digital being a bit too clean for its own good. While we all strive for clarity and definition in our recordings, I guess I have heard too many bad examples of this goal in digital that leaves many recordings sounding like everything is in focus to the point that much of the mystery of the finished product is removed. I find that's what makes me tire of listening to many digital recordings so quickly is that the magician's tricks are all revealed as the recording is played out.

I think back to so many older analog recordings and being puzzled as to what a certain strange instrument sound was or what a particular line of lyric was because of the smearing effect that analog seems to possess along all of it being slightly masked by noises of hiss, hum and other sporadic events like ticks and pops that masked very slightly, exactly what was going on.

Our human vision also seems to work in this way of focusing on what we want to see clearly and the rest being blurred so that our brains can concentrate on the things it needs at each particular moment in time. When we have face to face conversations with people we want to see their lips move along with hearing their voice and all of that pallet of senses is what makes the conversation a complete one. We may glance away to focus on other objects or parts of the person's body to gain additional feelings about what is really being meant but even that basic interaction requires a plethora of events to take in to have it all make sense to ourselves in our own personal way.

Why I used the vision example in the last paragraph was because I equate many digital recording as though our eyes are seeing everything, all at the same time and with the same sharpness and that reality can be overbearing on our human senses which like to be more selective and focus on the things that are of our own choosing.

Good analog recordings allow my brain to focus on the sounds that are of interest to my brain at any given moment in that there's enough of a smear on them that I can ignore the parts that I don't want to concentrate on and focus my ears to listen to the parts that I do.

There are no specs to bear this out, but I think it's an accurate observation of our human perspective skills.

Cheers!

 

[Tim Gillett]

Ghost, OK but you seem to be talking about so many different things here.

Saying digital (or whatever it is) is "too accurate for its own good" almost has a moral tinge to it. We say that of certain people who seem too perfectionist, too hung up on tiny irrelevent details, cant seem to see the wood from the trees, dont get the joke because they want to dot every i and cross every T, take far too long to wipe the tiniest spec from the dishes.

But the fact is technology has no personality component like that. It is a tool. It has no "personality type" at all.

The car you drive every day, if you do, is made up of an incredible number of parts, all designed with fastidious attention to detail. The ends result: basically you drive in comfort from point A to point B.

Dow we complain about the car being "too accurate" in obeying our wishes to get us where we want to go? No, we have no problem. It does what we want it to do.
So why with audio, and especially digital audio?
This is not rhetoric on my part but a genuine question and puzzlement, not just when you say it but when anyone says it.

something that's 100% accurate is just 100% accurate. It's like saying a perfect analog copy of a perfect analog master would be unacceptable simply because it is a perfect copy. But that would make the original also unacceptable!

do you see my point?

Cheers TimG

 

[Beck]

Beck I can get confused at your own perspective. Perhaps it would help if you could clarify the various elements that seem to join together to make you so anti digital. There seem elements of dislike for modern recording practices (which I totally share), a dislike of the tendency for money to dominate decisions in the industry these days (which I totally share) etc etc.

Then strict antipathy towards digital sound recording quality at its best doesnt seem to sit well with the view that a hit record is a mark of success, and that that should be able to be made on a Fostex as well as a Studer (which again I agree with) You seem to veer from golden ears punctilliousness as the standard one minute to "is it a hit record?That's all that matters" sort of view and back again.

It will probably only get more confusing for you because people don’t generally have canned perspectives. We speak a different language, conceptually. You have certain expectations that I should hold certain views because I hold certain other views. I’m not fitting into any of your current types.

I’m not completely anti-digital. I happen to prefer digital processors to create ambience over springs and plates. I personally recommend some older Kurzweil digital instruments for realism, such as the K1000/K1200 series (Not to be misconstrued to mean I like anything from the reorganized company, which is not the same Kurzweil). The Roland R8 digital drum machine is still one of the best instruments ever made.

I didn’t reject analog because of company greed back in the day, and that’s not the reason I don’t like digital as a recording medium.

Poor recording practices can make a good medium bad, and a bad medium worse, but good practices cannot redeem a bad medium.

The only reason I don’t like digital as recording medium is because I don’t like the way it sounds. In my case, the “golden ear” as you say, comes into play in detecting something digital does to the sound, not what it fails to do. There’s a big difference. Neither a Studer nor a Tascam analog deck corrupts the sound as digital does. Therefore, the differences between a Studer and a Tascam are not the same as the differences between analog and digital.

Your perception that I think any one thing is all that matters is incorrect. No one thing is all that matters. You seem to be having a hard time with complex perspectives in general.

Does that help clarify anything? I'm trying.

 

[SteveMac]

.
Good analog recordings allow my brain to focus on the sounds that are of interest to my brain at any given moment in that there's enough of a smear on them that I can ignore the parts that I don't want to concentrate on and focus my ears to listen to the parts that I do.

There are no specs to bear this out, but I think it's an accurate observation of our human perspective skills.

Cheers!

Good observation. Perhaps part of the fatigue with digital is trying to decide what to listen to rather than having it naturally chosen for you in a blend. And digital and smearing just don't go together. Too much isolation and yet everything still wears that shiney coat.