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

[Tim Gillett]

Beck,
A few questions have been forming in my mind for some time and seem to have gelled in the last couple of days. So here we go.

Many of your posts seem just good helpful information and guidance on use and maintenance of analog tape gear and I'm sure it's much appreciated. You've helped me out more than once.

But it's no secret there are other of your posts which take things to a very different place. Your criticism of digital audio goes much, much further than anybody else's posts on this forum and amounts at times to a very serious criticism of the entire digital audio industry. There are allegations of corporate malpractice, fraud etc etc.
This is very serious fare, far too big for the analog only forum or the homerecording.com site.
What do you plan to do with this stuff? Who are the people you are trying to reach? Is it all in dead earnest or are you joking? What are we supposed to make of it? Why apparently post it only on a tiny speck of a self help forum?

I'd welcome your comments.

Regards, Tim G

 

[ofajen]

I mentioned Aspen Pittman's comments on op amps a few days ago. I've become more skeptical as I've begun to look into the issue more, but the research has been very interesting. If you're interested in audio performance issues in solid state gear (digital and analog), there is a good forum that started up recently on ProSoundNews. I'm not sure if it's kosher to post the URL here, but PM me and I'll send you the reference, or you can look for Bruno Putzeys. As far as the tube vs. solid state thing, there doesn't seem to be as much clarity. I suspect John La Grou is the first person I'll pester next week, since he's done so much work on making accurate solid state gear (Millennia Media) and now also makes tube gear.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Dr ZEE]

... there doesn't seem to be as much clarity.

If anybody on ProSoundNews, ProWeb, Millennia Media Web and alikes are confused or need a dose of clarity - send them over here. It's free and no stress. John, Aspen, Bruno, Ivan, Miki, Rob, Ralph - any name is fine, everybody and anybody is welcome.

 

[Dr ZEE]

... far too big for the analog only forum ...

Nop.
No job too small, no job too big over here.
***********

This is very serious fare, ...

wooooooooooo! scaaaaaary. whoooooooooo.

 

[Dr ZEE]

.. very serious criticism of the entire digital audio industry. There are allegations of corporate malpractice, fraud etc etc.

Beck! Watch out. A few questions have been formed for you:

 

[evm1024]

In a free market....

SNIP!

....and amounts at times to a very serious criticism of the entire digital audio industry. There are allegations of corporate malpractice, fraud etc etc.
This is very serious fare....

SNip!

I think that is is well known that the entertainement, video, music industry is designed to extract the most money for the population of the world as possable. All the while investing the least that gives you the returns you want. Buy low, sell high.

That the industry is able to sell MP3, iPods and pass them off as hi-fidelity is not corporate malpractice, fraud etc. It is some astute marketing. You are free to set up your own recording company and let the market choose.

 

[evm1024]

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

Just call me Ethan

 

[ofajen]

If you're interested in audio performance issues in solid state gear (digital and analog), there is a good forum that started up recently on ProSoundNews. I'm not sure if it's kosher to post the URL here, but PM me and I'll send you the reference, or you can look for Bruno Putzeys.

Falken has reminded me that there isn't a restriction on posting links to other forums (at least in practice), so here you go, this is Bruno's new forum:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/f/45/344/

As you will see from his introductory post, he's a solid state guy, I believe with considerable tenure at Philips, and claims no more expertise about tube gear than the average bear. Dan Kennedy recommended him as someone who knows what he's talking about and is willing to talk about real issues with semiconductors, feedback and reality, but also warned that he is "brusque".

BTW, John La Grou has a couple of interesting articles on his site that show his original design philosophy (as accurate as possible, designed for acoustic and especially orchestral use) and his considerations on use of different components and topologies for most accurate sound:

http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml

http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml

I'm really interested in his perspective because he's obviously done some of the best work in building high performance solid state preamps that are highly accurate and now he also sells tube preamps and gear where both solid state and tube paths are included, which is aimed more at the rest of the market (pop, rock, jazz, rap, etc.) that is more interested with subjectively good, creative sound than strictly accurate, representational sound. I'm curious as to his thoughts on the differences in accuracy and to what degree they can be quantified and compared and to what degree that is still beyond our ability and off into the subjective realm of choice of color.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[cjacek]

Just call me Ethan

Will do!

 

[Tim Gillett]

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 ?

Daniel, that's fine. You're right. I dont understand what you are saying. That, I think, has been the problem. I think part of it is language and just communicating.
When you talk about being CD's taking "the life and soul" out of the music I just dont know where you are coming from.
When I was a little boy, we only had one radio, a cheap valve model with a 5" speaker and what I now know was very poor sound and extremely limited frequency range. That was the radio from which I got to listen to the world's music. It blew me away.
I had a natural gift for music appreciation and playing music which I still have thank God . Through that crappy old Genelex, all sorts of music just reached out and grabbed me. It didnt matter if it were classical or the then early beginnings of rock and roll. I heard all the Beatles and Beach Boys music on that old piece of junk. To me, the life and soul of the composers and performers came through well enough to that little boy.
Yesterday we had the Vintage Gramophone and wireless club Xmas party. A BBQ out in the open. Someone had brought along a very old Columbia portable windup gramophone with some old 78's. We were entertained by Tommy Dorsey, Glen Miller and even Marilyn Monroe. To my ears today the sound was not exactly hifi, as you'd expect, but I could still hear the life and soul of the artists. I also learned something. Marilyn Monroe may not have been the greatest singer in the world but she sang in tune and very pleasantly. We could tell that from that jangly, scratchy 78.

I agree that at some point, massive distortion of one kind or another will just make the most compelling and joyous recording unlistenable. The pain will definitely outweigh the pleasure - and we will turn it off in disgust. But to suggest that is the case with of all formats, CD (and I always grant it is a compromise) is just baffling to this reader. If you cant hear the life and soul of the music on CD, then you come across as just so picky that it defies description.
I'm sure there is a simple explanation to this but I'm blowed if I know what it is.

Best wishes, Tim G

 

[cjacek]

We definitely may be speaking a different language but all that I can say is that Analog, especially in the year 2006, is like an alternative, small scale school vs that of the public schooling system (digital). You will always find the two sides' ongoing, opposing views as to what constitutes good or best education.

All one can ever hope for is to learn WHY each person chose option A vs that of B or vice versa, presented in a technically sound and logical argumentation, precisely the idea behind this thread. This has rarely if ever been done in that fashion, in my years on this board.

 

[Tim Gillett]

We definitely may be speaking a different language but all that I can say is that Analog, especially in the year 2006, is like an alternative, small scale school vs that of the public schooling system (digital). You will always find the two sides' ongoing, opposing views as to what constitutes good or best education.

All one can ever hope for is to learn WHY each person chose option A vs that of B or vice versa, presented in a technically sound and logical argumentation, precisely the idea behind this thread. This has rarely if ever been done in that fashion, in my years on this board.

And Daniel, for the umpteenth time, I reject neither analog nor digital. I love them both, and the musical joy both bring to me. I have never tried to persuade you or anyone else to choose between analog or digital, to love one and hate the other.

Can we say the same for certain others on this forum?

Regards, Tim

 

[cjacek]

I have never tried to persuade you or anyone else to choose between analog or digital, to love one and hate the other.

No, not directly, but many times it looks as if you're trying to "catch us in a lie", as one of our members pointed out with regard to your past posts. You incessantly try to poke holes in our arguments. We have every right given to us by way of the ANALOG ONLY forum to discuss all things pertaining to analog, which also inextricably involves anti-digital talk.

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

What did the Pro Tools engineer say to the punk kid guitarist?


























"That sucked! Come on in!"

 

[ofajen]

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

It seems I erred in speaking of a QUASI-religious attachment to a preference for analog tape recorders. Do you all have communion? "Tape of Christ"? First United Church of Ampex, Reorganized Church of the Latter Day Studer, Assembly of Otari, Disciples of Stephens? Have you sought tax exempt status?

Cheers,

Otto

 

[cjacek]

Do you all have communion? "Tape of Christ"? First United Church of Ampex, Reorganized Church of the Latter Day Studer, Assembly of Otari, Disciples of Stephens? Have you sought tax exempt status?

All of the above, Otto!

 

[cjacek]

What did the Pro Tools engineer say to the punk kid guitarist? ------->>

----------------------------->
"That sucked! Come on in!"

Very good! LOL!!

 

[Tim Gillett]

No, not directly, but many times it looks as if you're trying to "catch us in a lie", as one of our members pointed out with regard to your past posts. You incessantly try to poke holes in our arguments. We have every right given to us by way of the ANALOG ONLY forum to discuss all things pertaining to analog, which also inextricably involves anti-digital talk.

1.Of course I have debated strongly with you, as have many others. I dont apologize. Do you think I should?

2. The title Analog Only has perplexed me from day one. I feel it is too ambiguous a title because the sub title goes on to say that it's a forum for discussing problems related to analog formats and media. or words to that effect.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to take Analog Only as like "punks rule OK!!!!" or "This is anti digital territory! Be warned!" Whereas I'm sure the homerecording.com people didnt intend that at all. If they did, I feel they should say so in the explanation.
Analog Only can be seen as a mere description of the areas discussed (like Mixing/Mastering) but it can also be interpreted as a battle cry and statement of allegiance. Shouldnt we clarify with the operators of the website just what they mean by Analog Only rather than just make the individual interpretation that suits us?

It only "inextricably involves anti-digital talk" if the forum is only for people who are anti-digital and that seems highly unlikely. For example, would you ban Dave from the forum because even though he uses analog a lot, he doesnt hate digital like a few others? Of course you wouldnt and neither should you.

Regards, Tim.

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

A bit more seriously....

Any one read the Digital Audio book Sweetwater sells?

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/NikaBook/

Wow. Think reading. Goes *into* the basic physics of audio first, how we measure and view it, then rips into the history of digital conversion and the different types of convertors- and then continues into stuff I can't remember at the moment.

Really indepth look at the mechanics behind digital recording and its various challenges. One of the things I did after reading it was test all the possible clock sources in my studio to see which sounded the best. Not surprisingly the stock clocks in the Digi 002 were the worst, the ADAT XT20's were second, and the best were in my dearly departed Finalizer. For the price of the book and some fun experimentation I got a signifiacntly better sound out of the stuff I already had.

The digital clock tells the comptuer when to take samples during A/D and when to play samples during D/A. If you have any slop in your clock it will affect your sound twice. Its a very small affect but it has its biggest effect on the fasted signals- the high end.

Nyquist theory says that says that you can capture up to half of your sample rate- thus CD's are 44.1 K to hit just enough above 20K that anything above human hearing can be rolled off without distorting the audible range. This assumes a perfect clock.

On paper it seems that we have a nearly perfect audio capture system in digital- capable of reproducing the full range of human hearing with very minimal distortion. The noise floor is lower than analog tape and the dynamic range higher. Of course it sounds superior!!

Except it doesn't. Ears don't read white papers to figure out how good something sounds. They listen. And a pristine LP will shame the width and depth of a CD- for the first few plays.

Width. That's primarily in the high end detail which are *much* more directional than the lower frequency material. That's where digital starts to fall down. Its *difficult* to get the same width out of a mediocre digital system that you can from a mediocre analog one, at least in my experience.

I still record digital most of the time anyway. Can't afford tape or maintenance on the tape decks to use them as scratch pads the way I can with Pro Tools. But I've done digital mixs, using plugs for effects. and A/B'd the exact same mix bussed out to an analog board set at unity and just recreating the panning.

The analog mix sounds noticeably wider. Even on a crappy board. Use a good mixer with good EQ and even my student's mom noticed the difference between our test mixes- she said the analog mix sounded clearer and she could hear everything better.

Very informal tests, though.

I think that digital systems have trouble with the high frequencies that give us the detail and magic of a sound. They DO reproduce that information, its just more susceptible to distortions caused by the convertors, clocks, effects, and summing algorithms.

I can just load up a reel on my tape machine an go. With normal care in mic choice and placement the sound is great and mixing is easy- twist away and it sounds great. Maintaining the machine is the bitch, and noise if you aren't careful with your levels.

Digital recording equiptment doesn't need *any* care - just turn it on and go. With normal care in mic choice and placement... you get almost exactly what you hear in the mics and mixing is the bitch. Mousing around with a surgical EQ? LOOKING at your mix?! Sure you can DO more with plugs and a snappy processor, but more doesn't mean it sounds better...

But by the time it gets to the teenager's iPod... most of the sonic differences are long gone. Whatever you chose to use along the way it probably sounds good enough through the fashionable white earbuds...

Digital is all about the best convenience, not the best sound- for everyone involved.

Take care,
Chris

 

[Dr ZEE]

Otto, fish for fisherman - rabbit for hunter.
Some pray to Gods, Some Pray to Objects, Some don't pray at all, Some Make Gods out of salesmen with names like John, Aspen, Bruno, Ivan, Miki, Rob, Ralph etc.