SteveMac
New member
evm1024 said:
It'd be ironic, if when it got to that point it introduced.........hiss...
A Thread to Continue discussing Tim Gillett's Recollection of Another Discussion
- Status
It'd be ironic, if when it got to that point it introduced.........hiss...
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
EVM,evm1024 said:
Are you talking about a very special case of trying to replicate totally the actual aural experience a person had when listening to a person speaking in front of them (or some similar voice or music)?
Years ago, engineers tried to record the sound of a symphony concert using a "dummy head" with microphones attached inside the ear canals of the dummy head, and then played the recording back, perhaps through headphones, perhaps through speakers, I'm not sure.
Is this the sort of thing you are talking about?
Cheers Tim.
evm1024
New member
Its called biaural recording and I am mot talking about that.
Tim,
Not talking about any special case. These phase relationships are there in any recording and with any number of mics and mixes. They lose their spatial relationships if you make micking and mixing too complex. And the recording shows it.
You said that there is no vertical information in sterio. I've shown that there is vertical information. I think that you are limiting yourself in what you think is important to sound reproduction. Many very highly skilled recording artists and engineers do. I'm suggesting that in order to explain the observed facts we need to look more closely at those things that we do not think are of importance.
Something is there in digital that causes a specific set of brain patterns that resembles the same patters as anger and frustration. I can find the cite to the paper if need be. But that is not important. What is important is that many people think that digital sucks. I wonder why and what we can do about it. I like computers.
One thought is that the brain is using the encoded (by the phase relationships) spatial information to try to deduct the topology of the space that the sounds were recorded in. Of course the brain does not know that this is a recording. It takes it at face value. And that the brain thinks it has a lock on the space and then the (at this time) unavoiadable phase skew blows the topology model out of the water. Perhaps this restart of topology construction is happening hunderds of times a second or only a few. Very noticable by some and not at all by others. (Ex wife cannot tell the difference between sterio and mono for example....)
I'm not pimping analog, very few are on this list. Are you a digitial missionary?
Tim Gillett said:
Tim,
Not talking about any special case. These phase relationships are there in any recording and with any number of mics and mixes. They lose their spatial relationships if you make micking and mixing too complex. And the recording shows it.
You said that there is no vertical information in sterio. I've shown that there is vertical information. I think that you are limiting yourself in what you think is important to sound reproduction. Many very highly skilled recording artists and engineers do. I'm suggesting that in order to explain the observed facts we need to look more closely at those things that we do not think are of importance.
Something is there in digital that causes a specific set of brain patterns that resembles the same patters as anger and frustration. I can find the cite to the paper if need be. But that is not important. What is important is that many people think that digital sucks. I wonder why and what we can do about it. I like computers.
One thought is that the brain is using the encoded (by the phase relationships) spatial information to try to deduct the topology of the space that the sounds were recorded in. Of course the brain does not know that this is a recording. It takes it at face value. And that the brain thinks it has a lock on the space and then the (at this time) unavoiadable phase skew blows the topology model out of the water. Perhaps this restart of topology construction is happening hunderds of times a second or only a few. Very noticable by some and not at all by others. (Ex wife cannot tell the difference between sterio and mono for example....)
I'm not pimping analog, very few are on this list. Are you a digitial missionary?
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
A digital missionary?
EVM,
Yes there are people who think digital audio recording sucks. I too wonder why and part of my learning curve on this column so far has been to experience the depth and the passion of some who feel that way. But also to discover that they can hate it for different reasons, some of which seem to cancel each other out.
For example to say digital "leaves something out" is quite different from saying it "adds" something, though I confess it could do both.
I tried very hard to avoid direct analog/digital rivalry in my posts by referring to the "standard' of comparison, namely the waveform that entered the recorder. That didnt go down too well. Some seemed happier forgetting about that (in contrast to yourself) and making it a comparison between recordings. But both recordings will be imperfect!
But for me this is the doozy. To complain that digital is "too accurate", I confess is too much for me! What do they WANT it to do to the waveforms that entered its inputs? Not be accurate to them? To such people, I have nothing to say, for there is nothing left to say.
Am I a "digital missionary"? My crime on this column seems to have been to say that with the best analog and digital recordings I was quite happy. Do you think that makes me a digital missionary? In the minds of some regulars on this column, apparently yes.
I would rather suggest the hornet's nest that my comment stirred up was due to the small number of Analog tape fundamentalists in this column...The irony for me is, I love analog tape probably as much as they do, if not more.
We seem to be in essential agreement. I'm happy to continue the exchanges if you like.
All the best, Tim.
BTW, I know it's the obvious question, and dont laugh, but was your ex possibly deaf in one ear?
EVM,
Yes there are people who think digital audio recording sucks. I too wonder why and part of my learning curve on this column so far has been to experience the depth and the passion of some who feel that way. But also to discover that they can hate it for different reasons, some of which seem to cancel each other out.
For example to say digital "leaves something out" is quite different from saying it "adds" something, though I confess it could do both.
I tried very hard to avoid direct analog/digital rivalry in my posts by referring to the "standard' of comparison, namely the waveform that entered the recorder. That didnt go down too well. Some seemed happier forgetting about that (in contrast to yourself) and making it a comparison between recordings. But both recordings will be imperfect!
But for me this is the doozy. To complain that digital is "too accurate", I confess is too much for me! What do they WANT it to do to the waveforms that entered its inputs? Not be accurate to them? To such people, I have nothing to say, for there is nothing left to say.
Am I a "digital missionary"? My crime on this column seems to have been to say that with the best analog and digital recordings I was quite happy. Do you think that makes me a digital missionary? In the minds of some regulars on this column, apparently yes.
I would rather suggest the hornet's nest that my comment stirred up was due to the small number of Analog tape fundamentalists in this column...The irony for me is, I love analog tape probably as much as they do, if not more.
We seem to be in essential agreement. I'm happy to continue the exchanges if you like.
All the best, Tim.
BTW, I know it's the obvious question, and dont laugh, but was your ex possibly deaf in one ear?
ausrock
Well-known member
"My crime on this column seems to have been to say that with the best analog and digital recordings I was quite happy."
OK, a question..........in these circumstances, were you aware of any "difference" between the analogue and digital recordings? By "difference", I mean anything that may be relevant to the current discussion.
"Do you think that makes me a digital missionary? In the minds of some regulars on this column, apparently yes."
The manner in which you have (at times) posted could lead a person to this conclusion.
OK, a question..........in these circumstances, were you aware of any "difference" between the analogue and digital recordings? By "difference", I mean anything that may be relevant to the current discussion.
"Do you think that makes me a digital missionary? In the minds of some regulars on this column, apparently yes."
The manner in which you have (at times) posted could lead a person to this conclusion.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
ausrock,
1.Was I aware of any difference? No.
2. The manner in which .... Can you cite a specific example?
regards,Tim
1.Was I aware of any difference? No.
2. The manner in which .... Can you cite a specific example?
regards,Tim
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
ausrock,
While working in the garden, I realised my answer to 1. might need a qualification.
No, for all practical purposes of listening to and enjoying the music.
Yes, possibly, because if I wanted to hear a "difference" I know enough about the two different ways of recording, to know where to go looking to find a difference, and it will be there for sure,, whether or not I can hear it in a normal listening context.
Hope this is fuller, even if not as straighforward.
Cheers Tim
While working in the garden, I realised my answer to 1. might need a qualification.
No, for all practical purposes of listening to and enjoying the music.
Yes, possibly, because if I wanted to hear a "difference" I know enough about the two different ways of recording, to know where to go looking to find a difference, and it will be there for sure,, whether or not I can hear it in a normal listening context.
Hope this is fuller, even if not as straighforward.
Cheers Tim
evm1024
New member
engineer vs artist
Hi Tim,
There are engineers and artists. An engineer can perform and an artist can record. You appear to be an engineer.
For you (it appears) getting the most accurate capture and reproduction are (unquestioned?) the goal and the end of your recording process. I as an engineer can identify with that.
The artist on the otherhand does not want to have accurate reproduction. That is of secondary importance. They want musical reproduction. Their recording is an expression of their art. Thus the recording process becomes a part of the musical instrument and the performance.
TOm Slotz (sp) is a really great engineer. As was noted he did not want to recap and bring the recorder/desk back up to spec. Why? Because repeatability and predictability is more important to him. Once recaped it is a new machine that needs to be relearned.
To address the 2 questions:
I as do many people can hear differences between analog and digital recordings.
Secondly, no one needs to point out where you have said things that make them think that you might be a digital missionary. TO have someone say that to you should be enough to cause you to think about it....
PS
My EX had normal hearing (better than mine) but still could not hear the differences between sterio and mono. After listening for about 30 minutes she did say that she might hear something different.
Hi Tim,
There are engineers and artists. An engineer can perform and an artist can record. You appear to be an engineer.
For you (it appears) getting the most accurate capture and reproduction are (unquestioned?) the goal and the end of your recording process. I as an engineer can identify with that.
The artist on the otherhand does not want to have accurate reproduction. That is of secondary importance. They want musical reproduction. Their recording is an expression of their art. Thus the recording process becomes a part of the musical instrument and the performance.
TOm Slotz (sp) is a really great engineer. As was noted he did not want to recap and bring the recorder/desk back up to spec. Why? Because repeatability and predictability is more important to him. Once recaped it is a new machine that needs to be relearned.
To address the 2 questions:
I as do many people can hear differences between analog and digital recordings.
Secondly, no one needs to point out where you have said things that make them think that you might be a digital missionary. TO have someone say that to you should be enough to cause you to think about it....
PS
My EX had normal hearing (better than mine) but still could not hear the differences between sterio and mono. After listening for about 30 minutes she did say that she might hear something different.
B
Beck
Guest
evm1024 said:
Very true.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Hi EVM,
Just finished the lawns.
The tag, engineers vs artists is not one I would normally use about myself as I feel I'm equally both. I could never make up my mind which one was more "dominant" in my personality.
I remember playing guitar, bass and singing harmonies for a recording session in one of our town's top studios in the 80's. (studio B actually, we couldnt afford A) But though my role there was only as a muso, the engineer in me couldnt help be in awe of the gear in the studio and wanting to learn more about it. And I did learn more.
I have always had the view that the technology should be the servant of the art, not the other way around. In my now 20 years as a maintenance technician for analog recording gear in my town, I think that is my reputation, even though some tech heads interpret that as meaning I am "weak" on the technical side.
With artistic clients I dont use technical language if at all I can avoid it.. But it often makes me seem hesitant in speaking with them as I am often struggling to put technical concepts into everyday language, when they ask me a question. In that context, people can think I'm slow! But I'm being "slow" for them!
This can be a source of misunderstanding. Just because I am good at appreciating and playing music, must I therefore be a weaker engineer? Being good at the equipment side must mean I must be a muso with tin ears and no artistic "feel"? Who made that assumption and why?
I seem to have developed two distinct sets of friends, one the artist types, who often are weak on the engineering side, but that's fine. When together, we talk art as well as eveything else people normally talk about.
The other the engineering types, who interestingly often seem poor artistically. If they learned to play a musical instrument in their childhood, they often did not keep it up. Of one such man, his wife once said to me one day, "yeah, he used to hit all the right notes, but it sounded like he was doing a purely technical exercise. There was no heart or soul in it."
Interestingly too, he was one of many who when CD's came in, got rid of every analog tape and vinyl he had. A connection there perhaps? But I know another who did the exact opposite. Sold all his CD collection, convinced it was irredeemably distorted. He refused to listen to it. Went 100% back to analog recordings. I can only think both were not artistically that interested or gifted. Perhaps both had the same basic issue. For them , the medium WAS the message.
As you've cited Tom Scholz, I can understand this in the context of say an analog machine whose Dolby recording card critical timing caps are out of whack, but just happily so are the Dolby playback card caps out in exactly the same way. The result, the machine plays back its own recordings faithfully, with proper tracking even though they wont replay well on a properly calibrated machine with the correct cap values. (there will be some compromise of s/n but it may not be huge and may go unnoticed)
But I think that's a rare case. More a serendipity. To your point, once that machine was recapped it would be no different re its faithfulness. It would no longer play faithfully or enjoyably the tapes it once recorded, but now, it will still make faithful recordings and as a bonus, they can be played back on other calibrated machines anywhere in the world.
For me, a recorder that faithfully replays the electrical signal coming into it, is the artists' friend and servant. The artist and engineer can use all manner of other devices to manipulate and modify what they want to record and the recorder wont give a fig. It just goes on doing its job.
I cant remember a single case of a muso bringing a recorder to me where he was unhappy with the fact it was properly calibrated. His unhappiness could always be traced to the fact it was not performing to its design specs. And that to me just seemed natural.
OK, you and other people hear the difference between analog and digital recordings. Ultimately I cannot make a comment on that without also listening to what you are listening to, but for me, the technology is the servant of the music and like A Reel Person I have no problem with the sound quality of my digital setup, and it meshes beautifully with my analog gear. I could not be happier with it.
Does that mean I have low standards? You are free to draw that conclusion if you like.
Cheers, Tim.
Just finished the lawns.
The tag, engineers vs artists is not one I would normally use about myself as I feel I'm equally both. I could never make up my mind which one was more "dominant" in my personality.
I remember playing guitar, bass and singing harmonies for a recording session in one of our town's top studios in the 80's. (studio B actually, we couldnt afford A) But though my role there was only as a muso, the engineer in me couldnt help be in awe of the gear in the studio and wanting to learn more about it. And I did learn more.
I have always had the view that the technology should be the servant of the art, not the other way around. In my now 20 years as a maintenance technician for analog recording gear in my town, I think that is my reputation, even though some tech heads interpret that as meaning I am "weak" on the technical side.
With artistic clients I dont use technical language if at all I can avoid it.. But it often makes me seem hesitant in speaking with them as I am often struggling to put technical concepts into everyday language, when they ask me a question. In that context, people can think I'm slow! But I'm being "slow" for them!
This can be a source of misunderstanding. Just because I am good at appreciating and playing music, must I therefore be a weaker engineer? Being good at the equipment side must mean I must be a muso with tin ears and no artistic "feel"? Who made that assumption and why?
I seem to have developed two distinct sets of friends, one the artist types, who often are weak on the engineering side, but that's fine. When together, we talk art as well as eveything else people normally talk about.
The other the engineering types, who interestingly often seem poor artistically. If they learned to play a musical instrument in their childhood, they often did not keep it up. Of one such man, his wife once said to me one day, "yeah, he used to hit all the right notes, but it sounded like he was doing a purely technical exercise. There was no heart or soul in it."
Interestingly too, he was one of many who when CD's came in, got rid of every analog tape and vinyl he had. A connection there perhaps? But I know another who did the exact opposite. Sold all his CD collection, convinced it was irredeemably distorted. He refused to listen to it. Went 100% back to analog recordings. I can only think both were not artistically that interested or gifted. Perhaps both had the same basic issue. For them , the medium WAS the message.
As you've cited Tom Scholz, I can understand this in the context of say an analog machine whose Dolby recording card critical timing caps are out of whack, but just happily so are the Dolby playback card caps out in exactly the same way. The result, the machine plays back its own recordings faithfully, with proper tracking even though they wont replay well on a properly calibrated machine with the correct cap values. (there will be some compromise of s/n but it may not be huge and may go unnoticed)
But I think that's a rare case. More a serendipity. To your point, once that machine was recapped it would be no different re its faithfulness. It would no longer play faithfully or enjoyably the tapes it once recorded, but now, it will still make faithful recordings and as a bonus, they can be played back on other calibrated machines anywhere in the world.
For me, a recorder that faithfully replays the electrical signal coming into it, is the artists' friend and servant. The artist and engineer can use all manner of other devices to manipulate and modify what they want to record and the recorder wont give a fig. It just goes on doing its job.
I cant remember a single case of a muso bringing a recorder to me where he was unhappy with the fact it was properly calibrated. His unhappiness could always be traced to the fact it was not performing to its design specs. And that to me just seemed natural.
OK, you and other people hear the difference between analog and digital recordings. Ultimately I cannot make a comment on that without also listening to what you are listening to, but for me, the technology is the servant of the music and like A Reel Person I have no problem with the sound quality of my digital setup, and it meshes beautifully with my analog gear. I could not be happier with it.
Does that mean I have low standards? You are free to draw that conclusion if you like.
Cheers, Tim.
B
Beck
Guest
Tim Gillett said:
Shows some promise...
I hope this means you’re ok now with “analog only guys” on a home recoding forum being au fait with the latest digital technology, and possibly even quantum physics.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Beck said:Shows some promise...
I hope this means you’re ok now with “analog only guys” on a home recoding forum being au fait with the latest digital technology, and possibly even quantum physics.
Beck,
I would be more than happy with that situation but under present constraints I doubt it will ever be more than a flash in the pan.
The main contributor to this situation appears to be yourself and a few hangers on. I refer to the incessant and achingly cyclical digital bashing, or, to use my term, analog tape fundamentalism.
In such a relatively short time for me, it has become predictable, uninformed, dogmatic. You yourself seem to be the master of the selective quote, and of the same few quotes. You selectively quote those you support as well as those you oppose. Neither is acceptable.
This latest episode seemed to start with your selectively quoting Tom Scholz but my delving back into older debates long before I appeared just reveals the same tired arguments going round and round.
I'm sure there will be others to take my place, as I took the place of earlier frustrated posters, whose comments posted even years ago, I find largely spot on.
I will chase up the 2003 Tom Scholz interview in full and expect him to make more sense than what your scissor and paste mutilation probably did for his reputation..
That you can be so dogmatic, so closed off and so cock sure you're right, scares me a little and can even make me ill. But I have to concede it's possible you simply cannot see any further than you apparently can and it's nobody's fault.
Whether you come to a better mind on this or not, Tim B, I wish you well.
Tim G
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
What exactly analog gear? What machines do you use?Tim Gillett said:
****
p.s. I am afraid I know the answer already. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Beck is right!Tim Gillett said:
I say so not based on what he was posting on this board in respect to analog vs digital "stand-off", but based on the fact that what he has posted on this board in respect to analog vs. digital "stand-off" was confirmed by my personal experience, which confirms back that conclusions I have drawn from my personal experience are cock sure RIGHT!
*********
p.s.
When one quotes he/she selects a passage from another source to be presented with attached reference to the source. "Quoting" means "Selecting", and so "selective quoting" (if there was such thing) is (would be) "selective selection"Tim Gillett said:
Potentially (in theory) selective quoting as a form of quoting could be viewed as unacceptable activity if such activity was possible (or say, identifiable).One can not single out a buttery butter out of an array of butter bars.
/wishing you well too
Attachments
B
Beck
Guest
Dr ZEE said:What exactly analog gear? What machines do you [Tim G] use?
****
p.s. I am afraid I know the answer already. Hopefully I'm wrong.
MCI JH2424... what else?
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
hmmmmm. .... Who said: "One can't read milk on butter?"
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Beck said:MCI JH2424... what else?
Hehe
evm1024
New member
Say what?
Tim G,
What happened there? It appeared that you were coming around and then you were doing some badmouthing. The list responded in kind....
This is the analog forum. the people here have a lot of reasons for wanting to do analog. They come here to share their experiences with analog. Do try to respect that.
We (I count myself as an analog person) tend to object to analog snobs and to people who intend to show us the error of our ways (digital missionarys). you have stated a few things quite strongly and in the form of TRUTH. Perhaps you overstated.
I like the mechanics of reel to reels. I find it soothing. Then again I like doing the dishes by hand.
Oh, and about not hearing the differences between analog and digital. I have a friend who is colour blind. He was using a commputer monitor that had lost the green gun. It was garish red/blue and almost painful to look at. But mike was content. I asked him if the monitor bothered him and he said it looked normal to him. I told him that I thought that he was colour blind and he responded that others had said the same but that he thought that he saw colours fine.
Some people hear the differences and others not. Some people see green and others not. Mikes inability to see green did not reduce the quality of his life. But he did not see green.
Regards
PS Do you get around the Vintage wireless and Gramophone club often?
Tim G,
What happened there? It appeared that you were coming around and then you were doing some badmouthing. The list responded in kind....
This is the analog forum. the people here have a lot of reasons for wanting to do analog. They come here to share their experiences with analog. Do try to respect that.
We (I count myself as an analog person) tend to object to analog snobs and to people who intend to show us the error of our ways (digital missionarys). you have stated a few things quite strongly and in the form of TRUTH. Perhaps you overstated.
I like the mechanics of reel to reels. I find it soothing. Then again I like doing the dishes by hand.
Oh, and about not hearing the differences between analog and digital. I have a friend who is colour blind. He was using a commputer monitor that had lost the green gun. It was garish red/blue and almost painful to look at. But mike was content. I asked him if the monitor bothered him and he said it looked normal to him. I told him that I thought that he was colour blind and he responded that others had said the same but that he thought that he saw colours fine.
Some people hear the differences and others not. Some people see green and others not. Mikes inability to see green did not reduce the quality of his life. But he did not see green.
Regards
PS Do you get around the Vintage wireless and Gramophone club often?
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
EVM,
Having bounced around a few posts with you, I can now tell you are well versed in psychoacoustics and have a handle on probably many audio recording issues issues as well. That's great and it's good to be able to talk with you.
In that light would you care to comment on the 2003 quote of Tom Scholz, (post#25) re the distortions to the stereo image that he alleges digital introduces, compared to analog tape recordings?
In my reply I had to go back to the text book as I was a bit rusty on it but from what I can tell, for you, this would be a walk in the park.
What's your take on the quote in post #25.
All the best, EVM
Tim G
Having bounced around a few posts with you, I can now tell you are well versed in psychoacoustics and have a handle on probably many audio recording issues issues as well. That's great and it's good to be able to talk with you.
In that light would you care to comment on the 2003 quote of Tom Scholz, (post#25) re the distortions to the stereo image that he alleges digital introduces, compared to analog tape recordings?
In my reply I had to go back to the text book as I was a bit rusty on it but from what I can tell, for you, this would be a walk in the park.
What's your take on the quote in post #25.
All the best, EVM
Tim G
T
The Ghost of FM
Banned
Are you guys still at it? 
Here's my two cents on the whole analog vs. digital great debate;
I use analog because it's what I grew up with and I feel very comfortable and occasionally very creative with it. I love the sound of my results with it and knowing that most of the greatest recordings, done by the most respected artists in the world have also used it, makes me even more confident in staying with it.
That said, I know there is a huge difference in sound quality between consumer analog, semi-pro and fully professional analog formats. I have spent a considerable chunk of change to obtain analog gear that is closer to the fully professional end of the scale and to this day, 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.
To the millions of current digital users out there who love their methodology, I don't begrudge them their preference as that's what they grew up with and that's what they're comfortable and creative with. Every generation of folks has their own reality.
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.
Cheers!
Here's my two cents on the whole analog vs. digital great debate;
I use analog because it's what I grew up with and I feel very comfortable and occasionally very creative with it. I love the sound of my results with it and knowing that most of the greatest recordings, done by the most respected artists in the world have also used it, makes me even more confident in staying with it.
That said, I know there is a huge difference in sound quality between consumer analog, semi-pro and fully professional analog formats. I have spent a considerable chunk of change to obtain analog gear that is closer to the fully professional end of the scale and to this day, 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.
To the millions of current digital users out there who love their methodology, I don't begrudge them their preference as that's what they grew up with and that's what they're comfortable and creative with. Every generation of folks has their own reality.
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.
Cheers!
- Status