Any Thread in This Forum = Analog vs Digital

[JimmyS1969]

It just amazes me how much bad info can be believed as fact by some. And then to tell it like it is fact?

I don't usually facepalm, but this warrants one. Or a few.

 

[JimmyS1969]

I don't think it's a "vintage aircraft" thing. Analog captures the feel, not only what you hear. Digital is a picture of the sound that has been cropped, so to speak. Importantly, analog masters can be reworked 50 years later, if the tapes were kept safe or safely copied. Digital masters degrade, and that's it. No way to stop it. No way to remaster old digital recordings, I've been told. And the government (digital preservation publications) played a bunch of ten year old CDs, and no matter what they did, 4% would not play. At all. Spooky, but true. Digital is all about making extra copies. If you have a vinyl product kept safely, it will be there, exactly the same, in a hundred years. Is there any disagreement on these things?

^This just doesn't even make sense....

 

[Bobbsy]

It just amazes me how much bad info can be believed as fact by some. And then to tell it like it is fact?

I don't usually facepalm, but this warrants one. Or a few.

This whole thread started with the question (and I paraphrase) "why, in every thread about how much we love analogue, do digital-heads invade and spoil our fun?". This is why.

I've said it many times already but I'll repeat myself again. It's purely a personal preference how you prefer working, analogue, digital or a mix of the two. If somebody posts "I prefer analogue because I think it sounds better and I like the tactile sensations of turning reels and moving faders" I'd actually agree with some of it and certainly not join the thread to argue.

The trouble for me comes when totally inaccurate clap trap about what's wrong with digital is posted. Elsewhere in this very forum is another topic that started with 3 photos of digital waveforms that "proved" digital couldn't sound anything like the original. The only problem was that the waveform photos were completely borked and proved nothing at all. What was being shown was simply wrong. However, the trouble is that, like it or not, the whole of the HR forum is read by beginners some of whom, seeing "real pictures" would have accepted that thread as fact and believed for ever after that a digital waveform is in some way distorted making it sound wrong.

It's on these cases--when somebody goes beyond personal opinion and makes spurious technical claims--that I'll dive in and hopefully set the record straight. And I'll keep doing this whenever somebody, accidentally or deliberately, posts inaccurate information.

Me? I started recording sound several decades before digital existed and had great fun with reel to reel recorders, sticky tape and mixers. However, once digital appeared, FOR ME is was a liberating experience. I could suddenly do things that I just didn't have the time or resources to do in an analogue world. I embraced digital full on (though, even so, I didn't sell most of my analogue gear for another ten years because I couldn't bear to part with it) and have never looked back. However, that's MY opinion and I'm not trying to argue that one system or another is better--just that digital suits me.

But, anyhow, that's why so many analogue threads get "invaded". They go beyond statement of opinion and use made-up "facts" which are just plain wrong. Once anyone does that, they'll have a problem.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Must spread rep before......

False information will never be allowed at this site. Any subject matter such as this, must be based on fact.

There is a 'what works best for me' level of personal preference, whether analog or digital. But none of us that are here to help new members, will allow completely ridiculous BS to infect this forum. The rest of the internet can do that as they please....

 

[Ainaudio]

none of this is true.

I am not here to battle with you.
I am here only to say what I hear, see, know, understand and think after 45+ years in Pro audio (and other sectors of highest quality audio).
There are many things I do not know deep enough, can not fully understand, or can not base on theoretical and/or measurement facts, but have my ideas about.
It does not mean that ideas are NOT true until someone can verify or change my thinking to another way, if you can - please do it !
But please do not base it ONLY on dry theory and/or measurements, it is only side info.
If theory/measurements can not find problem in audio, but I can hear and feel it - theory and/or measurements are wrong...
Our case we have not even touching energetics and some other things included with analog audio signal, but missing in digital "description".

 

[CrowsofFritz]

LOL!



This guy has got to be the funniest troll I've seen in a while. It's so well done. Exaggerating just enough but still subtle enough that some people will believe the stupidity of it all.

"45+ years in Pro audio (and other sectors in highest quality audio)"

BAHAHAHA!

And talking about the brain as processing power! Lololol.

AinAudio, you get the troll-of-the-year award in my book.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

SO DAM TRUE

If you're being serious, you've just lost any tiny sliver of credibility regarding your knowledge of the other side you have left.

 

[Bobbsy]

I am not here to battle with you.
I am here only to say what I hear, see, know, understand and think after 45+ years in Pro audio (and other sectors of highest quality audio).
There are many things I do not know deep enough, can not fully understand, or can not base on theoretical and/or measurement facts, but have my ideas about.
It does not mean that ideas are NOT true until someone can verify or change my thinking to another way, if you can - please do it !
But please do not base it ONLY on dry theory and/or measurements, it is only side info.
If theory/measurements can not find problem in audio, but I can hear and feel it - theory and/or measurements are wrong...
Our case we have not even touching energetics and some other things included with analog audio signal, but missing in digital "description".

I can only claim 40 years in professional audio but I've been through the sometimes painful transition from analogue to digital, often requiring the burning of a lot of midnight oil to try and keep up with the science and technology.

Based on that, I agree with my higher-ranking namesake, Lt. Bob. Your previous post was about as wrong as can be.

I'm not even going to try and persuade you otherwise--there's too much background knowledge of Nyqust theory and too much math involved. (My midnight oil, remember?)

However, the one thing I'd say to you is to do your listening test and trust your ears. However, arrange them so they are a true blind test where somebody else is pushing the buttons so you can't possibly know what you're hearing at any given time. It is all to easy to persuade oneself that we're hearing things that aren't there. I'll go farther, in fact...it's impossible NOT to have preconceptions when you know what you're listening to. I've done it to myself--and have had the red face when I couldn't reproduce the results when somebody else behind a curtain was controlling what I was listening to.

By all means prefer and use analogue. There are certain programme sources where I convince myself I prefer the analogue sound--but that's because of the analogue technology itself, not faults with digital. But don't try to justify it because of extra conversions or whatever. That part, as Lt. Bob says, simply isn't true and stating it as fact is all too likely to find its way into the analogue vs. digital folklore.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

I don't think it's a "vintage aircraft" thing. Analog captures the feel, not only what you hear. Digital is a picture of the sound that has been cropped, so to speak. Importantly, analog masters can be reworked 50 years later, if the tapes were kept safe or safely copied. Digital masters degrade, and that's it. No way to stop it. No way to remaster old digital recordings, I've been told. And the government (digital preservation publications) played a bunch of ten year old CDs, and no matter what they did, 4% would not play. At all. Spooky, but true. Digital is all about making extra copies. If you have a vinyl product kept safely, it will be there, exactly the same, in a hundred years. Is there any disagreement on these things?

Here is a great read for you and everyone else (but specifically you). I would recommend reading everything but the most relevant info starts on page 12, #4.

As it states, a CD-R should last 100-200+ years! Are you sure you weren't using CD-RWs? And besides, if I wanted to get another 100 years out of the master (which would be longer than I live anyway), all I would have to do is pop in a CD, something that only costs 10 cents, and wait a minute or two and I'm done. None of this, while it is analog vs. digital, pertains much to the analog vs. digital debate most people talk about anyway.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.05/docs/CDandDVDCareandHandlingGuide.pdf

 

[Bobbsy]

Hey, thanks CrowsofFritz. A quick skim tells me that's going to be fascinating reading.

Since this is the Analogue forum, I return the favour with a copy of the British Library manual for audio restoration and archiving--in this one, although digital is mentioned, they concentrate more on analogue:

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesoundrestoration.pdf

 

[CrowsofFritz]

No problem!

And another fun fact in there I thought was interesting. The article was written in 2003 and it predicted in the near future that blue laser technology will soon become the norm. Blu-Ray may not be overwhelmingly popular yet, but it's getting there!

Okay, enough with the thread derailment.

 

[Greg_L]

Here's a fact - analog's batshit crazy whacked out nutcase per user ratio is way higher than with digital.

 

[Steenamaroo]

 

[Greg_L]

This thread would be better in dubly.

 

[Bobbsy]

See? The A to D conversion results in a distorted waveform!

 

[Steenamaroo]

You can really see it here.....

 

[miroslav]

There are many things I do not know deep enough, can not fully understand, or can not base on theoretical and/or measurement facts, but have my ideas about.
It does not mean that ideas are NOT true until someone can verify or change my thinking to another way, if you can - please do it !

Ideas are good....but if all the above is true (and for you it must be since you're the one saying it)...why do you think just having ideas makes them valid....and then the whole world has to prove that YOU are wrong, especially when most think differently than you?

Our case we have not even touching energetics and some other things included with analog audio signal, but missing in digital "description".

I'm all for letting right or wrong perceptions guide our moves from a creative/subjective perspective...but when/if you do look beyond them, you have to also trust some facts too, or least know that the facts are there....and then feel free to go with your perceptions for creative reasons.
I get the feeling you simply don't care to look beyond your perceptions.

WTF are "energetics" in audio???

Are they something like "dianetics"?
Are you related to Ron L. Hubbard?

You want to bring up quantum mechanics into a discussion about audio...but you don't want to consider understanding and accept the more basic, the more fundamental technology?????

 

[Lt. Bob]

I am not here to battle with you.
I am here only to say what I hear, see, know, understand and think after 45+ years in Pro audio (and other sectors of highest quality audio).
There are many things I do not know deep enough, can not fully understand, or can not base on theoretical and/or measurement facts, but have my ideas about.
It does not mean that ideas are NOT true until someone can verify or change my thinking to another way, if you can - please do it !
But please do not base it ONLY on dry theory and/or measurements, it is only side info.
If theory/measurements can not find problem in audio, but I can hear and feel it - theory and/or measurements are wrong...
Our case we have not even touching energetics and some other things included with analog audio signal, but missing in digital "description".

I also have 45 years in pro audio and I'm also not here to argue with you but from a factual standpoint none of what you said is accurate.
And I prefer analog and never buy CDs .... only vinyl.
I prefer the sound and am willing to pay for it.
But that doesn't change the fact that your earlier post is not accurate and I have every bit as much experience at this as you do..

 

[bern21]

What did beck say?

I enjoy both, but find that one aspect of analog that I really enjoy is the time spent rewinding the tape for a new take. In the digital world, it's there immediately. In the analog world, you have a bit of time to relax, discuss what could be changed, take a sip of whatever, and you also know that the new take must be great because it will be erased by the next take if not. Soundwise, you can have crappy digital or analog, or great digital or analog.
Records from the '60s and '70s still sound great and the music on a lot of CDs sounds like crap.

 

[Beck]

This whole thread started with the question (and I paraphrase) "why, in every thread about how much we love analogue, do digital-heads invade and spoil our fun?".

Yes exactly.

This is why.

I've said it many times already but I'll repeat myself again. It's purely a personal preference how you prefer working, analogue, digital or a mix of the two. If somebody posts "I prefer analogue because I think it sounds better and I like the tactile sensations of turning reels and moving faders" I'd actually agree with some of it and certainly not join the thread to argue.

The trouble for me comes when totally inaccurate clap trap about what's wrong with digital is posted.

But here's the thing... the music industry and forums like this are now dominated by amateurs with lots of misconceptions about many things, so inaccurate statements permeate all the sub forums on all sites on the web, music or otherwise. It would be a full-time job with lots of overtime to correct it all.

This analog forum is unique on the web. Most sites don't have a forum dedicated to analog. But whatever forums you frequent you will find the same misguided nonsense. And there are no bigger misconceptions... and just plain ignorance than there is among the average member trying to explain the pros of digital technology. No one should be trying to explain anything whatsoever on these forums unless they have a background and grasp of the technology.

MOST of what we find on the web is misconception spread like any rumor spreads. People are just talking to hear themselves talk. That's why I always say forums can be helpful to a degree, but nothing you should hang your hat on. They can be a good starting point for further research, but if one does not do that further research one will remain stunted in forum mode... never really knowing a damn thing about anything, but what they heard someone else heard.