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

[Tim Gillett]

Daniel for you to express your problems with DIGITAL AUDIO on a DIGITAL AUDIO forum could not be more appropriate. Again, how can you not understand that? What is your problem?

Regards, Tim G

 

[cjacek]

One question BEGS to be aswered: Why does someone, who is obviously gaga over digital, find the need to post their outrage, or whatever it is, in the Analog Only forum, all the way down, at the bottom of the page, in the "Archives and Others" category ? Jesus, find a place of your own already!

 

[cjacek]

Daniel for you to express your problems with DIGITAL AUDIO on a DIGITAL AUDIO forum could not be more appropriate. Again, how can you not understand that? What is your problem?

What problem would that be ? If it's to ask for opinions on better A/D/D/A converters than yeah, it's appropriate but that's not my problem with digital. Digital is my problem with digital and THAT is not something I'd share in an inappropriate forum. What, to be pointed out as a troll ? ...and rightfully so! One has to pick an appropriate audience for that type of talk and the Analog Forum is that place.

 

[cjacek]

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!

I have to learn to be more obedient! Hehe

 

[Tim Gillett]

What problem would that be ? If it's to ask for opinions on better A/D/D/A converters than yeah, it's appropriate but that's not my problem with digital. Digital is my problem with digital and THAT is not something I'd share in an inappropriate forum. What, to be pointed out as a troll ? ...and rightfully so! One has to pick an appropriate audience for that type of talk and the Analog Forum is that place.

Daniel,
So digital is your problem with digital BUT to say that on a digital forum would be inappropriate? How kind and generous of you to avoid hurting the sensitive feelings of those on all those other forums. Goodness, you might also end up persuading more to discover that all digital recordings take the life and soul out of music That just wouldnt do, would it?

Actually I dont think they'd mind you posting what you've already posted here at all. They wouldnt be offended. What they might think of your view is something else again though. They may be too polite to say so to you directly though.

If you're right, we all have everything to gain and nothing to lose by you posting to the very people who according to you most need to discover what you've discovered. Where's your confidence? Why dont you back yourself?

So for whose benefit is it that you choose not to post on those forums what you openly post here? Only you can answer that.

Anybody who skims regularly through the forums here, and I suspect there are a lot, even if they're not signed up contributors, probably already knows what you think of digital. Again, the problem as I see it is you're repeatedly posting these views on a forum which was not set up for digital topics, and refusing to post on the correct forums. That seems inappropriate.


regards,
Tim G

 

[Tim Gillett]

One question BEGS to be aswered: Why does someone, who is obviously gaga over digital, find the need to post their outrage, or whatever it is, in the Analog Only forum, all the way down, at the bottom of the page, in the "Archives and Others" category ? Jesus, find a place of your own already!

Daniel you as a regular reader here should well know my life has been analog tape machines and still is though these days digital also plays a big part. This is not the only homerecording.com forum I read and contribute to but given my background it is perhaps the most natural one for me.

I dont care whether this forum has top billing, bottom billing or is anywhere in between. It's just natural for someone like me to be a part of it.

There is a UK vintage site with a vintage tape recorder forum on it. Of course, I'm a regular on that too. Incidentally there are rarely, if ever the sorts of incredible fights that happen on this forum. Why that's so is perhaps a study in itself.

To love analog tape I dont have to hate digital. I love them both. I do not apologize for that and neither should I have to in the slightest, not to you or anyone else.

Neither you nor anybody else "owns" this forum in spite of the sometimes outrageous way a few people behave as if they do.

Regards, Tim G

 

[evm1024]

A very to the point observation

RawDepth has a number of very good points in this comment. I have specifically extracted the one below. (actually 2 quotes)

SNIP!

The digital was quicker and more apt to turn harsh and ugly.

SNIP!

I like both for different reasons. I use both for different reasons. They are both better for different reasons.

RawDepth

I think that the point made is that the distortion artifacts of digital are more grating on human audio preception. I hope that we can agree that if you drive digital to a non linear region that the resultant waveform is harsh. This is not a defect but rather an observation of how we hear.

I have contended in the past that humans have millions of years of listening to faint sounds that are masked by the sound of the wind and so on. Out brains have significant capabilities to recover the sounds form this backgrouund noise.

I postulate that analog recordings artifacts are of a form that our brains are comfortable dealing with and are (for the most part) handled with out stress. And that digital recording artifacts are "new" to our brains and we have not found a way to deal with them without stress.

I clear example of this is in digital TV vs Analog TV. When the frame rate in digital tv fails we get bars and pixilation and in general a "harsh" image that is annoying while the introduction of noise to analog tv produces "snow" which is easily ignored. We still see the picture. (apples and oranges of course. Don't look at the details but rather look at the relationships)

Clearly from my viewpoint there will be a day when the bit depth and sampling rate of digital will be great enough (along with the supporting circuitry) to present to the human ear recorded sounds that retain ALL the information in the original sound without adding a "digital" sound.

In the early days of CD I thought that DDD recordings would be the height of recording clarity. I quickly found that ADD sounded better and that AAD was even better. But still not up to AAA even with the clicks and pops.

For the most part a recording type is judged not by what you capture but what you recover.... Be it a CD or an ipod. With that in mind it is easy to see that CD quality is lacking. THis is clearly obvious if we were to take a high quality master analog recording and burn it onto a cd that in A/B testing the two are easily distinguishable. Were cd "quality" to live up to the marketing then we would not be able to hear a difference.

So what is "digital" sound? I really do not know. It does go back to how humans process what they hear not what they actually hear. Hearing in interperated. As an example picture the face of someone you don't know. It may b e dirty or of low resolution (due to dirt on their face or whatever) and you will have some "feeling" about them. Now take that same face and add a few small oozing open sores. And now think about your feelings again. Quite a difference. the point being that in sight as well as hearing we make judgements of the rightness of what we see and hear. Does this apply to the digital/analog debate? Who knows. But we do make those judgements without regard to our awareness.

Just a thought or five....

 

[A Reel Person]

All I have is,...

'20Hz~20kHz Flat Response!'
'105db dynamic range!'
'Zero Tape Hiss!'
(and)
'A Hifi mastering medium so accurate as to reveal flaws in the original tape source material!'

 

[FALKEN]

I thought it was a well known fact that tape sounds better but digital recording makes workflow easier and quicker for commercial studios? Nowadays even if a commercial studio has a tape machine they still have flying faders with recall, and assistants to write down all of the settings on the outboard, which all has to be stepped, for "recall purposes". at least that is repeated all of the time on some other forums. ? is there even really a debate on the sound quality? I thought all of the top producers prefer digital setups because of what is possible with them, not for the sound. Especially considering the "talent" level of current pop stars. is this even a debate?

 

[Dr ZEE]

'20Hz~20kHz Flat Response!'
'105db dynamic range!'
'Zero Tape Hiss!'
(and)
'A Hifi mastering medium so accurate as to reveal flaws in the original tape source material!'

That is a Nice Hardcore Data, Dave!
***************
now, let's set couple of sm57, an overhead, stick another to the cab, hang another infront of the poet's nose, grab the sticks, grab a strat, grab a bass and what not. And let's rock'n'roll. Let's See how it goes then. Hey, if you master it well it may even sound just as great as the best selling new releases that can be found at BestBuy and Amazon. Hallelujah. Hallelujah!

***************
Oh, mama! Oh, How sweet those original flaws were. Remember when you were young.... like the sun. Reveal me, reveal, baby.
***************
And, Daniel! Would you just go away already!? Your place is - the second row in General Discussions forums heh heh heh How pathetic!
YO! Gillett (aka, Mr. Good Gear and Know How ...sure sure )! Leave Dan alone, you old smelly bastard.

 

[Dr ZEE]

But we do make those judgements without regard to our awareness.

YES! It has been so since the beginning of times and shall be so. No DATA can nor will change this.

 

[Tim Gillett]

evm and others,
Whatever we think of digital, shouldnt we be posting all this stuff on a forum about digital? There are already many such forums on homerecording.com

regards, Tim G

 

[Beck]

evm and others,
Whatever we think of digital, shouldnt we be posting all this stuff on a forum about digital? There are already many such forums on homerecording.com

regards, Tim G

No,

The reason many people are even interested in analog is because of disappointment with digital technology. We’ve heard that expressed many times. The fact that so many people have gone back to or stay with analog equipment in a digital world is in and of itself a statement.

There are reasons people choose big lumbering analog machines over the prevailing cheap and easy digital technology. The decision is as much a rejection of digital as it is a vote for analog. You would have us eliminate what is often the first conversation in the process of exploring analog alternatives.

An informed choice between two alternatives involves a rejection at some level of the one not selected.

There is no better place than an analog forum to discuss and even lament with like-minded members about the state of popular music. That conversation is as valid as any other. To go trolling on other forums would be doing what you are doing here… proselytizing.

So, contrary to what you keep insisting, the regular members here aren’t stirring up or starting anything. This is our little analog oasis in a bbs that is primarily DAW driven. As others have tried to tell you in various ways, and even different languages, this is a forum for analog issues, which clearly (to an orderly mind) concerns progress or lack of progress in digital technology -- THE VERY REASON TECHNICALLY ASTUTE PEOPLE ARE STLL USING ANALOG.

 

[Beck]

RawDepth has a number of very good points in this comment. I have specifically extracted the one below. (actually 2 quotes)



I think that the point made is that the distortion artifacts of digital are more grating on human audio preception. I hope that we can agree that if you drive digital to a non linear region that the resultant waveform is harsh. This is not a defect but rather an observation of how we hear.

I have contended in the past that humans have millions of years of listening to faint sounds that are masked by the sound of the wind and so on. Out brains have significant capabilities to recover the sounds form this backgrouund noise.

I postulate that analog recordings artifacts are of a form that our brains are comfortable dealing with and are (for the most part) handled with out stress. And that digital recording artifacts are "new" to our brains and we have not found a way to deal with them without stress.

I clear example of this is in digital TV vs Analog TV. When the frame rate in digital tv fails we get bars and pixilation and in general a "harsh" image that is annoying while the introduction of noise to analog tv produces "snow" which is easily ignored. We still see the picture. (apples and oranges of course. Don't look at the details but rather look at the relationships)

Clearly from my viewpoint there will be a day when the bit depth and sampling rate of digital will be great enough (along with the supporting circuitry) to present to the human ear recorded sounds that retain ALL the information in the original sound without adding a "digital" sound.

In the early days of CD I thought that DDD recordings would be the height of recording clarity. I quickly found that ADD sounded better and that AAD was even better. But still not up to AAA even with the clicks and pops.

For the most part a recording type is judged not by what you capture but what you recover.... Be it a CD or an ipod. With that in mind it is easy to see that CD quality is lacking. THis is clearly obvious if we were to take a high quality master analog recording and burn it onto a cd that in A/B testing the two are easily distinguishable. Were cd "quality" to live up to the marketing then we would not be able to hear a difference.

So what is "digital" sound? I really do not know. It does go back to how humans process what they hear not what they actually hear. Hearing in interperated. As an example picture the face of someone you don't know. It may b e dirty or of low resolution (due to dirt on their face or whatever) and you will have some "feeling" about them. Now take that same face and add a few small oozing open sores. And now think about your feelings again. Quite a difference. the point being that in sight as well as hearing we make judgements of the rightness of what we see and hear. Does this apply to the digital/analog debate? Who knows. But we do make those judgements without regard to our awareness.

Just a thought or five....

A lot of good input there EVM… as I expected.

One thing in particular that has been a point of interest to me for a few years now is how digitized sound affects the listener emotionally. Of most interest to me are segments of the population that are unable to identify the source of the stress, but feel stress nonetheless.

It appears there are others that are more sensitive and are able to identify digitized sound as unpleasant.

However, both groups are negatively affected by the sound. The difference is that one group knows what it is and the other does not.

There may be a third group that really does not perceive anything objectionable in digitized sound, but I think the larger population falls into the first two groups. I’m basing this observation on the state of popular music, or rather its decline, as I perceive it… more on that later.

I do not believe it is all physiological, but rather as you mentioned… interpretation or processing beyond the mechanical function of the ear. I’m drawing from other areas of human perception and experience to try to conceptualize it. For example, those that are emotionally in tune with themselves and those that are not. Some individuals are better at sensing their emotional state and the reasons for it than others.

For example, a person with chronic back pain may feel he is surrounded by annoying people and annoying circumstances. Another person with the same chronic condition is able to identify the pain in his back as the source of his world seeming “out of sorts.”

I began jotting down a few ideas, and it’s now slowing turning into a thesis. The general premise is that people are being more or less forced to create music that is limited and molded by subtle, but very real aural pain. (Imagine a bad Star Trek episode… first season) Thus the emphasis on thumping bass in rap and hip-hop, the rise of the sub-woofer, etc. is because digital reproduces a harsh high end.

Basically, artists and producers are unconsciously avoiding the offending frequencies and consumers are masking them with accentuated bass.

My working tile is “The Death of Beautiful Music.” IMO, what western culture has traditional defined as aurally complex and beautiful is heavily dependant on the purity of upper-mid and high frequencies. Some may assume I’m talking about classical music in particular, but that isn’t the case. Complex music runs through many genres.

I thought I might have invented the concept and the phenomenon would be named after me, but I ran across a book by Mark Katz while doing research.

I think some members here would find Katz’s book interesting. There is another book by Michael Chanan that I haven’t read, but it looks promising as well. Here are the links:

Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music
http://www.amazon.com/Capturing-Sound-Technology-Changed-Foundation/dp/0520243803

Repeated Takes: A Short History of Recording and Its Effects on Music
http://www.amazon.com/Repeated-Takes-History-Recording-Effects/dp/1859840124

Katz doesn’t specifically address my observation that rap/hip-hop and digital technology have symbiotically risen to dominance, but he does address the interaction between recording technology and the way music has evolved.

Well there you go… much more to chew on than most people are ready for, but only a small portion of what’s on my mind regarding the issue.

~Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

So it's alright to post thoughts on digital recording here? Cool!
So, hmmmmmmmmmm, here I go:
Digital SUCKS.
also, it's not a thought, but rather is a fact.

/p.s. I must be a one of those who were emotionally affected by listening to it.
In my case, actually, it was not as much due to what I hear while listening to digital recordings, but by one day listening to analog recordings and "discovering" what I've forgoten to hear when listening to music recordings period during all these years of listening to digital ones.
Am I being unjust, unreasonable and religious? YOU CAN BET I am. Right you are - I AM.
In The Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit - DIGITAL SUCKS.
Amen.

 

[cjacek]

Tim Gillett: It is not my intention to reply to each of your incessant and tiring posts anymore. You have no idea what I'm saying anyway, so why bother ?

 

[cjacek]

Leave Dan alone, you old smelly bastard.

Mike, I was on the verge of replying with something similar when you stepped in. For all its worth, thanks!

 

[cjacek]

I have specifically extracted the one below.

----edited------

Just a thought or five....

Extremely thought provoking post. Thanks evm1024 (Evan ?).

 

[cjacek]

----edited------

Well there you go… much more to chew on than most people are ready for, but only a small portion of what’s on my mind regarding the issue.

Brilliant, Tim! I'd very much like to get a copy of your paper when you're done or at least access online.

 

[cjacek]

Am I being unjust, unreasonable and religious? YOU CAN BET I am. Right you are - I AM.
In The Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit - DIGITAL SUCKS.
Amen.

....and the Congregation said .... AAAMEN!!