Digital vs. Analog: Tell Us Something We Haven't Heard

[Tim Gillett]

Daniel,
It's fine to talk about your listening experience but people have their own experience of listening too.
Millions upon millions of people right across the globe have happily embraced CD audio for decades, listening to music and speech from every genre of music, from hip hop to classical baroque and everything in between. THEY dont feel the life and soul of their favourite music has been mutilated by even CD audio, which is admittedly a compromise audio format.
Then experienced audio people debate about the sonic differences betwen 44.1 and higher sampling rates but the fact they debate it suggests they debate about small differences. They dont discuss whether CD audio removes "the life and soul of the music", as you say.
I respectfully tried to discuss with you the technical and conceptual issues which you raised in the other thread but you didnt even acknowledge my post. What am I supposed to make of that?

To give you the benefit of the doubt I can only think you have had a bad experience of dubbing analog to digital, probably due to poor equipment or lack of understanding how to use it. It's easy to go out and buy a quality music CD but harder to make a good A/D conversion oneself although I hardly think it's desperately complex either. Countless home recordists as well as seasoned professionals at all levels simply dont have the problems you seem to have had with digital audio's sonic qualities.
What sort of digital recording equipment were you using? The soundcard, the software. What did you play it back through? Did you have adequate help in setting up the gear?
Your vagueness in describing "the difference" doesnt help either. Phrases like "the life and soul of the music" give no clue. Was there background noise, was there distortion, of the highs, mids, lows, lacking highs, lacking lows, poor in stereo image, etc etc. Try to be specific.

My experience at first was disastrous because I used the existing cheap soundcard in a PC and the recordings were crap. Only some years ago when I went to a customer's home studio with decent digital gear did I hear the real thing. I listened to the digital playback of an analog tape source and there was no difference I could pick and I've been listening critically to music and audio for many many years.
I've spent the intervening years transferring a great amount of old analog tape recordings, for myself and others, to digital. I use good gear, know how to use it, and the results are fine. There just isnt an issue. How could your experience be so radically counter to that of most people in the world, whether consumers, audio pro's or home recordists? That is the question I ask myself and maybe the question you might also ask yourself.

regards, Tim G

 

[Dr ZEE]

Digital becomes analog when it leaves the speakers.

Actually when it leaves the D/A converters

Actually nothing becomes anything neither when "it" enters what ever, nor when "it" exits what ever. Entering and exiting also are just words. Nothing "enters" (arrives to) anything , nor anything "exits" (leaves) anything.
Speaking of reality, that is.
We call it "digital", while in reality all it is - a "f*ked up analog system" which was developed for and has found its good way into audio recording and, consequentially, - music recording/production and distribution and then took over (all for a "good" reason, of course).

/WAR (the lost one, that is )

 

[Dr ZEE]

Millions upon millions of people right across the globe have happily embraced CD audio for decades, listening to music and speech from every genre of music, from hip hop to classical baroque and everything in between.

THEY dont feel the life .Tim G

BOTH statements above are 100% true!

 

[Tim Gillett]

Oh yes, I am well aware of what clipping is. I too have been in the live PA business for over twenty years. I have done both FOH and monitor world many many times. One of the hardest lessons to learn is about proper gain structure. Some guys never learn it.

I do understand your point but, I don’t know if it is necessary. I had all faders on unity. Are you saying one mixer had an advantage over the other? And besides, wasn’t that exactly the whole point? My experiment only showed that one of the mixers had more apparent headroom before audible clipping occurred. Perhaps the analog circuitry provided some kind of absorption or cushion to mask it. I don’t know, but if it did, isn’t that a good thing?

As a side bar note:
I am no expert at recording but, if you find you need to boost any frequency by more than 10db, shouldn’t that be a red flag that poor choices were made during tracking? I hope it never comes to that.

No signal chain, or part of the chain, no matter what it is, should be pushed beyond its design limits, unless you are doing it deliberately for the effect. Not all gear clips at the same point. Generally the better the gear the less likely to clip but of course that's only one part of a good unit's specification. There's no point in having it clip 10db higher than the other links in the chain because clipping is clipping. The weakest link does the damage. Usually one tries to fix that one weak link so all links in the chain are matched.

Re your last point, yes I could wish it never comes to that but it often does, at least in my work. Much of my work these days is transferring, as carefully as I can, old analog tape recordings to digits. The recordings can be up to 50 years old, done on poor gear, by people who often didnt have a clue. Eq is often the last resort to restore, hardly hi fi sound, that's impossible, but some semblance of intelligibility to disastrously bad audio. eq is the standard first port of call for with these types of low grade recordings. One is looking to get a reasonable balance betwen the various frequencies so one part doesnt overwhelm the other. Especially crucial for speech intenlligibility.
Sometimes more than 10db eq is needed.
Much of the time, one goes for cutting the too loud freq's, not boosting the weak as it avoids the risk of digital clipping. But the same principle has applied in analog for decades too. Nothing new there.

Cheers Tim G

 

[cjacek]

It's fine to talk about your listening experience but people have their own experience of listening too.

..and I'm not trying to take that away from them. Just commenting on my own experience.

Millions upon millions of people right across the globe have happily embraced CD audio for decades, listening to music and speech from every genre of music, from hip hop to classical baroque and everything in between. THEY dont feel the life and soul of their favourite music has been mutilated by even CD audio, which is admittedly a compromise audio format.
Then experienced audio people debate about the sonic differences betwen 44.1 and higher sampling rates but the fact they debate it suggests they debate about small differences. They dont discuss whether CD audio removes "the life and soul of the music", as you say.

Too many variables here. Many have not even heard good analog reproduction like that of vinyl and tape and yet many more "consumers" just bought the lie that the CD was / is, including myself. Others have embraced the CD format for completely other reasons. But to say that if a majority buys or embraces a certain technology, that it must be good, is silly. I don't place too much faith in consumers. Most drink from the same water hole.

I respectfully tried to discuss with you the technical and conceptual issues which you raised in the other thread but you didnt even acknowledge my post. What am I supposed to make of that?

If you're talking about the Bob Dylan posts, then I did answer you. Were you not satisfied with my response ?

To give you the benefit of the doubt I can only think you have had a bad experience of dubbing analog to digital, probably due to poor equipment or lack of understanding how to use it. It's easy to go out and buy a quality music CD but harder to make a good A/D conversion oneself although I hardly think it's desperately complex either.

I think I'm fine.

Countless home recordists as well as seasoned professionals at all levels simply dont have the problems you seem to have had with digital audio's sonic qualities.

The same can be said of the "countless" who DO have a problem with digital.

What sort of digital recording equipment were you using? The soundcard, the software. What did you play it back through? Did you have adequate help in setting up the gear?

"Adequate help ?" ... hmm .... I think I manage fine. Thanks.

Your vagueness in describing "the difference" doesnt help either. Phrases like "the life and soul of the music" give no clue. Was there background noise, was there distortion, of the highs, mids, lows, lacking highs, lacking lows, poor in stereo image, etc etc. Try to be specific.

I can't be specific because I don't know what "specific" objects are missing when converted into digital but fact is that digital does toss out info, very much unlike analog. Can it be the frequencies which we cannot consciously hear or even detect by our gadgets that are responsible for the "life", that analog captures, yet we cannot hear but rather feel it ? I don't know but I do know the experience is different from digital to analog.

My experience at first was disastrous because I used the existing cheap soundcard in a PC and the recordings were crap. Only some years ago when I went to a customer's home studio with decent digital gear did I hear the real thing. I listened to the digital playback of an analog tape source and there was no difference I could pick and I've been listening critically to music and audio for many many years.

No doubt better gear makes a difference but I can't comment as to why your perception is different to mine and others on this board.

I've spent the intervening years transferring a great amount of old analog tape recordings, for myself and others, to digital. I use good gear, know how to use it, and the results are fine. There just isnt an issue. How could your experience be so radically counter to that of most people in the world, whether consumers, audio pro's or home recordists? That is the question I ask myself and maybe the question you might also ask yourself.

I don't think my experience is radically counter or unique. There are countless others, from every walk of life who prefer analog and even more so, leaving digital to embrace analog.

 

[ofajen]

I don’t blame you for feeling put out after coming here with your best shot only to learn that what you have said is considered by myself and others to be nothing more than urban legend. It is you that must give and take… be willing to allow others to speak freely about your contributions to the forum. It will be critiqued and may even be dismissed as simplistic and uninformed. You should then be prepared to defend it, while demonstrating a depth of understanding and using sound reasoning.

Sure, being human, we can’t help but react when we get our toes stepped on. So people should present sound argumentation or nothing at all. And I don’t mean present an opinion we all agree with; I mean present evidence with resources other than rumor and anecdotes to back it up..

The last comment I made was merely to make note of Aspen Pittman's comments about the superiority of quality tube gear to op amp based circuits w.r.t. accurate presentation of dynamics and how the more accurate dynamics of digital gear makes the deficiencies of op amps more apparent. My crime was to fail to provide appropriate references to JAES articles showing that he is right.

Guilty, as charged. I don't know whether he's right or not, yet.

But go back and read the thread. Dr. Zee didn't even discuss that specific point at all, but ended up posting a picture of Charlie Manson with "digital" on his forehead. You dismissed it as the earliest form of propaganda to sell the "digital vaporware" back in the 1980s but you also presented no data, just your opinions. I've talked to Aspen Pittman and he's no dummy and knows a significant amount of the relevant physics regarding sound and electronics.

People talk all the time about high frequency response. I would like to see the research on the importance of accurate dynamics in recording gear and whether there are significant differences between tube circuits, discrete transistor circuits and op amp circuits. Pittman has done a little, and I imagine I can find folks who can give me more references on the subject if I can spare the time. No doubt Aspen has an interest in putting forward that point, since he sells tubes, but it still might be an important factor in the psychoacoustics of recording. Don't forget, there is a whole world of folks who hold the superiority of tube gear over transistor gear as a religion.

You've convinced me. The time I've wasted on this type of thread would be better spent doing the research.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Dr ZEE]

... you also presented no data, just your opinions. I've talked to Aspen Pittman and he's no dummy and knows a significant amount of the relevant physics regarding sound and electronics.
Otto

You see, that's what I'm talking about. Tim Beck said something - that's no data, that's just an opinion. Aspen Pittman said something - that's a whole different story. Otto talked to Aspen and he was witnessing the data erupting out of Aspen's mouth and ears like there was no tomorrow. But of course.
Here you have it, Beck.

I've talked to my mother in law last time, and le'me tell you - she's no dummy. She IS a walking and talking Data herself in the house. Amen.

/later...
and, yes - WAR!
and here's Data:

 

[Beck]

The last comment I made was merely to make note of Aspen Pittman's comments about the superiority of quality tube gear to op amp based circuits w.r.t. accurate presentation of dynamics and how the more accurate dynamics of digital gear makes the deficiencies of op amps more apparent. My crime was to fail to provide appropriate references to JAES articles showing that he is right.

Guilty, as charged. I don't know whether he's right or not, yet.

But go back and read the thread. Dr. Zee didn't even discuss that specific point at all, but ended up posting a picture of Charlie Manson with "digital" on his forehead. You dismissed it as the earliest form of propaganda to sell the "digital vaporware" back in the 1980s but you also presented no data, just your opinions. I've talked to Aspen Pittman and he's no dummy and knows a significant amount of the relevant physics regarding sound and electronics.

People talk all the time about high frequency response. I would like to see the research on the importance of accurate dynamics in recording gear and whether there are significant differences between tube circuits, discrete transistor circuits and op amp circuits. Pittman has done a little, and I imagine I can find folks who can give me more references on the subject if I can spare the time. No doubt Aspen has an interest in putting forward that point, since he sells tubes, but it still might be an important factor in the psychoacoustics of recording. Don't forget, there is a whole world of folks who hold the superiority of tube gear over transistor gear as a religion.

You've convinced me. The time I've wasted on this type of thread would be better spent doing the research.

Cheers,

Otto

Well, that was me that put the pic of Manson with Geraldo... a picture speaks a thousand words, you know.

There is no way Dr ZEE is going to get credit for my creative genius... he has his own to worry about. But we do that all the time here to lighten the mood. Of course those not familiar with certain elements of American culture will miss the joke and may take offence where none was intended.

It was also me that gave you the positive rep in that thread for contributing, even though I had to disagree by putting on my historian hat and reporting that I had heard that all before and more years ago than I care to admit.

Reporting one's past experience is a perfectly valid contribution to a discussion. Being a witness to an event and watching it develop should be invaluable to those that didn’t live through it.

I don't think we want this to become a MENSA convention here, following Robert's Rules of Order, just simply a bit more friendly. That’s what I would like to see anyway. Some say it can’t be done because this is homerecording.com, and its reputation precedes it.

But me being stubborn and Scottish (was that redundant?) I don’t like to give up just because everyone else has become jaded and lost their will to try.

Time is always better spent researching, as I have said many times in this forum. These forums should only be jumping off points for serious students of music to investigate further. I encourage people to read, learn and do.

By the way, I don’t disagree with Pittman's assessment of the differences between tubes op-amps and discrete designs. I do see the interaction and historical chronology from a different perspective.

Some of the finest consoles in the early days of digital consisted of discrete circuitry… no op-amps at all. The digital revolution was solely responsible for the tube renaissance. It seems the minute we began using digital we began trying to fix it with even older technology.

Tubes were not employed to rescue us from op-amps, but rather from something the digital process itself was adding. This is difficult to even consider for anyone whose premise is digital accuracy.

I don’t have anything against you Otto, and my dry sense of humor has gotten me in trouble before. I’m just calling it how I see it. I don’t mind anyone questioning my reasoning with something I may have missed… and I hope you don’t take it personally if I disagree and offer an alternative explanation based on my experience.

Regards,
Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

There is no way Dr ZEE is going to get credit for my creative genius...

DAMN IT!

 

[cjacek]

what trolls and hecklers are you referring to?

It's pretty easy to spot them. Just look for those who come here, to the ANALOG ONLY forum, and spew about digital, its superiority, question members' judgments about their choice over digital, bash their analog gear and philosophies and generally treat some of our knowledgeable and creative members as mental defects. Sure, we've got trolls and hecklers among us.

Whatever reply these "hecklers" receive is completely justified, imho.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I encourage people to read, learn and do.

I'd say: Do. Doing will teach you whether you ask for it or not. Doing to get something actually done will encourage (or say: force) you to learn (in a form of reading as example).
Reading and Learning just for sake of it is rather gliding on a thin ice like activity. It feels good for a moment untill you may get a bad idea to test your "foundation".
/respects

 

[cjacek]

Doing will teach you whether you ask for it or not.

...one of the best ever quotes. Good philosophy to live by.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Good philosophy to live by.

the problem is that it comes to mind by the time when there is no much remaining time to live , I mean - , or which ever way you may look at it.

 

[Tim Gillett]

It's pretty easy to spot them. Just look for those who come here, to the ANALOG ONLY forum, and spew about digital, its superiority, question members' judgments about their choice over digital, bash their analog gear and philosophies and generally treat some of our knowledgeable and creative members as mental defects. Sure, we've got trolls and hecklers among us.

Whatever reply these "hecklers" receive is completely justified, imho.

Daniel, remember that you are speaking on a thread specifically started up by perhaps your staunchest ally, (or are you his?) which actually invites people to contribute arguments to the analog vs digital debate (his terms, not mine) especially arguments in favour of digital's sound quality.
If you turn around and say to posters, "you cant say this on our ANALOG ONLY forum" you are contradicting Beck's INVITATION for people to do so.
Your argument is with Beck, not the posters. Wake up.
If you disagree with Beck's initiating this and other threads then you two sort it out amongst yourselves. It's not anyone else's problem.

Regards, Tim G

 

[Tim Gillett]

To add,
1. I've never said analog sound is bad. I've consistently said it is good, very good.

2. You and a few others consistently say digital sound is bad. Over and over again.

3. You say all this on a forum that is not even about digital. You bash digital on one of the few forums that is not for even talking about digital. You are on the wrong forum. Again and again.

Talk about analog issues on an analog forum. Talk about digital issues on the many, many digital forums available. Is that really too hard to understand?


Regards, Tim G

 

[cjacek]

Daniel, remember that you are speaking on a thread specifically started up by perhaps your staunchest ally, (or are you his?) which actually invites people to contribute arguments to the analog vs digital debate (his terms, not mine) especially arguments in favour of digital's sound quality.

Yes, sound arguments which enlighten the reader and not some bullshit spewed over and over by some here, in this and other similar threads. There is a difference, you know.

If you turn around and say to posters, "you cant say this on our ANALOG ONLY forum" you are contradicting Beck's INVITATION for people to do so. Your argument is with Beck, not the posters. Wake up.
If you disagree with Beck's initiating this and other threads then you two sort it out amongst yourselves. It's not anyone else's problem.

It is you who should wake up. I know what's going on. I'm not contradicting anything. It is, however, people like yourself who fail to grasp the meaning of Beck's opening post.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Your argument is with Beck, not the posters.

Nop. Not with Beck. Not with posters. His argument is rather with the post(s) (he responds to the post(s)).

You and a few others consistently say digital sound is bad

That's because it is. You gotta say what you gotta say.

 

[cjacek]

1. I've never said analog sound is bad. I've consistently said it is good, very good.

Ok, that's fine but it makes no difference to me.

2. You and a few others consistently say digital sound is bad. Over and over again.

I try to explain, as well as I can, why I prefer analog to digital. I take the effort to actually explain this in my posts, in some detail.

3. You say all this on a forum that is not even about digital. You bash digital on one of the few forums that is not for even talking about digital. You are on the wrong forum. Again and again.

Talk about analog issues on an analog forum. Talk about digital issues on the many, many digital forums available. Is that really too hard to understand?

That's absurd.

I confine my pro-analog stance (or anti-digital if it suits you better) to the Analog Only forum. I would rarely, if ever, jump to another forum with the opinions I express here. I wouldn't do it because it would not be appropriate. It is you, and a couple of others, namely MCI2424, who is on the wrong forum and not I.

Again, I talk of reasons why I prefer analog. I think that for the most part I never go out of my way to outright bash digital. That would be stupid and counter-productive. Whatever I say is in context of something.

It's actually disturbing that I have to justify my posts to you, to someone who has been continually, almost from day one, borderline harassing some of us with impertinent questions, taunts and the like.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Here's a suggestion. Why dont we suggest to the moderators opening up a separate forum specifically to discuss the analog/digital sound quality issues that so frequently seem to come up on this forum but so rarely on the others? (again, remember who instigated this thread and others in the past)

Regards, Tim G

 

[Dr ZEE]

It's actually disturbing that I have to justify my posts to you, to someone who has been continually, almost from day one, borderline harassing some of us with impertinent questions, taunts and the like.

Auch! Heh heh. Daniel! You were given the compassionate and thoughtful benefit of the doubt based on "understanding" of your "bad experience of dubbing analog to digital, probably due to poor equipment or lack of understanding how to use it" and you just blew it! Bad, bad bad!