Does analog move more air. . . ?

[AtoDeficient]

I know that I prefer the sound of analog, in particular tape. I can listen to analog as long as I want, but digital gives me a raging headache in just a couple oh hours (digital fatigue).

I so agree. . And there has to be something in that.. . The math, the facts, . . It just seems that "digital accuracy" is a lie, in that it moves the numbers, when music is numbers, but it doesn't move the air when music is air.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Not true in either instance. Regardless of what the plug-in peddlers tell you, you can't truly and accurately model an analog device.

There are a variety of behaviors that are not only not fully understood but very difficult (if not impossible) to measure either (such as scrape flutter -- the exact frequencies of the distortion depend upon an unpredictable combination of physical interactions).

Scrape flutter is just one example.

So, if you can't predict how it is going to sound and behave (after 50 years of trying), and you cannot measure exactly what changes are occuring in the sound, what makes you think you can emulate it?

What you can emulate is the specific sound and behavior of a specific 'performance' or a specific set of 'performances' of the deck(s), tape(s), etc. ... that is all.

Additionally, digital can only emulate artifacts, it will never replicate continuous sound as analog can.

Digital cannot become analog; it is self-limiting.

You're telling me if you heard an A/B comparison of a mix, you would be able to tell the difference (at least...say... 80% of the time?)

I have found that I can get a desired analog EQ with digital. It just takes me longer to get that sound. True, those 3-4 plug-ins are not that analog EQ, but they are so close to it that I can not hear the difference, nor can the average listener. Only people with AMAZING ears could tell. And even then, it would be difficult.

The sound between analog emulations and true analog is so close, it's pretty much pointless to record on analog to "get a sound digital can't." I would only mix on analog because I like turning actual knobs, and I can get a desired sound right off the bat.

The argument that analog has a continuous sound and no samples as opposed to digital is not really valid.

EDIT: Valid isn't a good word. It's just not a good argument is all I can say.

 

[mshilarious]

Ok, so then the frequencies that digital captures is almost limitless on the recording end. . . So I have to assume that the "loss" that I hear from digital media, the thinness, the shallow, non-room-filling sound must be a by-product of the digital mastering process. . . compression / over-compression?. .

I think that is highly likely. When I went to CDs in 1989, most of the classical stuff I bought was rereleased back catalog that was ADD or AAD. Some of it, however, was DDD. There is practically no way for me to tell the difference other than knowing upfront which performances are older. Like Wanda Landowska, for example . . . I doubt that anyone wants to emulate those pure analog production values . . .

All of the rock CDs I have from the '90s are fine, I can listen all day long with no troubles.

On the other hand, bad stuff started to happen in the last 15 years or so. Take Al Green's "I Can't Stop" (2003), for example. The story was they went back to the original studio, players, techniques, whatever. I can't listen to a single track of it, the kick drum sound makes me ill. Sad because the songs are really good.

Note that I wasn't into the Reverend until the '90s, so I've probably never heard pure analog Al, but all of the old classic stuff as well as some of the '80s gospel music he did sound fine (other than the extremely unfortunate '80s vintage production decisions, they are eye-rolling but not illness-inducing).

So I think digital has given people tools that they are abusing. Nobody really complained about digital in 1997 even though the prosumer-grade converters then were much worse than today's by easily measurable standards. They were happy to be recording 16 tracks! Which still largely wasn't possible in analogland because the multitrack desks were still too expensive for most hobbyists.

You might say that digital is the greatest thing that ever happened to analog, because it made magnetic tape affordable . . .

 

[Victory Pete]

What I'm trying to get at is, and I'm not sure how to clarify, so please bear with me, . . .

I hear and feel a fullness and depth and a complete range of frequencies from tape and vinyl sources that I don't hear from CDs, and it seems to me that if I really am hearing it, and not imagining it, then the speakers are also reproducing a wider, fuller range of frequencies. . .

I understand that a high digital sample rate should be a truer representation of the source material. . . But it seems to me that something, somewhere in the digital process, whether it happens in the mastering studio or what, I don't know, it seems to my ears, and my brain and my body, that digital media doesn't reproduce the whole range of frequencies, but "just enough" to satisfy the average listener, etc. .

For an example, years ago I was listening to a Pat Benatar Greatest Hits that I happened to have on cassette and CD. . The difference between the two was HUGE. HUGE> . . . My room was rocking with the tape going. But it was just loud music on CD. . . But why?

And yes, the harshness, and the brittle highs that digital reproduces should really be unacceptable, but somehow it has become acceptable. . .

You have "Golden Ears".

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

I so agree. . And there has to be something in that.. . The math, the facts, . . It just seems that "digital accuracy" is a lie, in that it moves the numbers, when music is numbers, but it doesn't move the air when music is air.

Pretty soon we will see "Pure Digital Toilet Paper" being marketed.

VP

Well TP is digital, even when empty=0

 

[Victory Pete]

I think it is an inherent flaw in the A/D and D/A converters.

VP

 

[AtoDeficient]

I'm gong to do a simple experiment with speaker and a candle, and I'm going to record it with a . . .

digital camera.

 

[lonewhitefly]

You're telling me if you heard an A/B comparison of a mix, you would be able to tell the difference (at least...say... 80% of the time?)

I have found that I can get a desired analog EQ with digital. It just takes me longer to get that sound. True, those 3-4 plug-ins are not that analog EQ, but they are so close to it that I can not hear the difference, nor can the average listener. Only people with AMAZING ears could tell. And even then, it would be difficult.

The sound between analog emulations and true analog is so close, it's pretty much pointless to record on analog to "get a sound digital can't." I would only mix on analog because I like turning actual knobs, and I can get a desired sound right off the bat.

The argument that analog has a continuous sound and no samples as opposed to digital is not really valid.

EDIT: Valid isn't a good word. It's just not a good argument is all I can say.

It's perfectly valid as that is essentially the difference between digital and analog.

Digital emulations emulate only artifacts. If all you know of analog are artifacts, you will probably think it sounds like analog.

The problem is it's not a simple matter of picking out which is which in a blind test (especially not a test which uses mp3 examples). The difference is subtle but the analog would generally be more engaging ... but you may not notice at once.

I'm not saying I have 'golden ears' and can tell the difference in A/B examples. It depends on the material itself and how it is presented to me.

I'll bet if I made a recording myself using my normal all-analog equipment vs. using a computer with all of the plug-ins emulating my equipment (most of which don't exist anyway, but that's another issue), I would be able to tell you which was which within a few seconds.

I think the lack of realism in digital multiplies in layers and becomes more apparent with overdubs & also more apparent the more you listen.

The only real comparison would be an all-analog recording (complete mix) vs. the exact same all-digital recording ... almost impossible to set up such a test.

Hybrid setups introduce too many variables and you can't tell what you're hearing ... this includes listening to mp3 clips online vs. an actual tape master.

 

[Chilljam]

I'm gong to do a simple experiment with speaker and a candle, and I'm going to record it with a . . .

digital camera.

If you 'feel' more and the music hits you harder when listening to a track... that is PURELY the low-end frequencies. Boost up between 50-100Hz by 12dB on your CD player, now you will feel the music from the CD more! Sure it will sound like sh!t but you did say you weren't comparing the sound quality but simply which one 'moved more air'.

The reason why you feel your cassette recording is moving more air is because it probably has a louder low-end (or relatively louder compared to the high frequencies) because of mixing/mastering EQ or the frequency response in record and repro of the cassette or the head bump or any one of these things or many more.

There is no fundamental phenomenon that makes analog 'move more air'. Putting a candle in front of a speaker is not a good test. The only legitimate test to prove analog moves more air than digital is to record a signal... then (perfectly) split it into two, one going to an analog recorder with PERFECTLY flat frequency response and another going to a PERFECTLY flat digital recorder then output both of these to the same set of speakers/amp and then compare. Since both machines are flat, that will mean they are truly transparent and the only variable between the two signals is the fact that one is stored as an analog signal whilst the other is converted to 1s and 0s... but since both have PERFECTLY flat playback and response (for the test to be valid) then they will sound exactly the same.

Of course given that such a test is impossible, I'll go back to what I originally was going to write... if you like what the cassette or vinyl is doing more than the CD then listen to that and enjoy it. The less you know about the 'touchy-feely' aspects of recording (warmth, 3rd order harmonic distortion, roundness, fullness, clarity) the more you can enjoy the music.

 

[mshilarious]

So I got bored and did some loop tests tonight, a rather ordinary 2003-vintage PCI card converter (Steinberg VSL2020) vs. a Tascam CD-A500 loaded with a fresh Maxell XLII (yes, consumer-grade tape, not pro-grade 1/2" or anything like that; this is a playback media test). I could have used the RME ADI-8 DS that I normally use to feed the VSL2020, but that would have been cheating, I wanted lower-quality digital.

Of course, the VSL2020 was used to measure the Tascam, so I compared the Tascam playback with a VSL2020 D/A/D loop. The L/R differences for the Tascam were 0dB vs. +6dB (the max) on its record level meter; the VSL2020 is the same level for each.

Lastly, I thought hey maybe I am just measuring the quality of the Tascam's analog stages (which of course is partially true), but given that the CD-A500 is a CD and cassette player, I burned the test waves onto a CD and played that back through the Tascam (still using the line out rather than the dedicated CD out) into the VSL2020. That's the last chart where I combined four measures (recorded separately) onto a single chart. I *think* the Tascam CD should have done better on the 18/19kHz test, but I failed to dither the 24 bit test wave before I burned the CD, so some of those peaks are probably aliasing that shouldn't be there.

I was not consistent with blue vs. yellow on the charts, but I think you will be able to interpret.

 

[Blue Jinn]

There is no fundamental phenomenon that makes analog 'move more air'. Putting a candle in front of a speaker is not a good test.
Of course given that such a test is impossible,

I'm sure you could measure the air movement, but you point out how you'd need to structure such a test. I don't htink OP is comparing apples to apples, nor am I sure recording a pure sign wave as opposed to a complex performance really going to show more movement of air one way or another. I think you're right though, AFAIK cassette players generally have a crappier top end response which is why they sound bassier and hence why they move more air when playing the same source material.

 

[mshilarious]

Sorry, forgot the 18/19kHz chart:

 

[SteveM]

I'm gong to do a simple experiment with speaker and a candle, and I'm going to record it with a . . .

digital camera.

Do it! do it! do it!

 

[AtoDeficient]

Ok, well, being a hack, wannabe, self-taught live sound guy turned hack, home basement pro-sumer wannabe "studio" guy, I don't understand the graphs at all. . . But the time mshilarious spent is very much appreciated. . .

I've learned quite a bit from this thread, but the main thing that I learned, and would like to share, is that some speaker grilles are quite flammable, and certain precautions should be taken when doing simple scientific tests in your home. . .

I'm now currently in the market for some new speakers, and some new gear (quite alot of gear, actually), and a refrigerator, and a sofa, and perhaps even a new home, dependent upon the outcome of the insurance adjusters decision. . .

My neighbor's car only suffered minor water damage, however, he is still threatening to file public nuisance charges against me, as he is not a fan of Pat Benatar.

 

[SteveM]

Hope you're kidding.

 

[Corvette]

An old friend, who was at one time the chief engineer at JB Lansing, as well as a PHD from Caltech, and a professional engineer for 40 years before teaching at Cal State, shared his observations of the analog vs digital debate. “Most people just aren’t used to hearing a more complete version of the original sound spectrum reproduced”. This being said, if you expect to hear a close approximation from each format, you will probably have to adjust your EQ between comparisons.

 

[AtoDeficient]

Hope you're kidding.

No. . . I'm not kidding. . . I really am a hack wannabe. . .

But I think the truth is kind of obvious after all. . . Whether it's the boost tape gives, or the lack of boost that digital does not give, analog recordings do move more speaker, and therefore, move more air. . .

But I want to repeat the point that was made that digital fatigue is very real . . I'm going to look into that subject more. . .

 

[SteveM]

But I want to repeat the point that was made that digital fatigue is very real . . I'm going to look into that subject more. . .

It's real for me too. I've been fooling around recording on a DAW while my capstan gets fixed and it drives me nuts when I can't hear something in the mix. It goes from 0 to distortion. Even when you get it in the mix something seems off. I don't have any problem like this at all on tape. The problem never even comes up.

 

[mshilarious]

It's real for me too. I've been fooling around recording on a DAW while my capstan gets fixed and it drives me nuts when I can't hear something in the mix. It goes from 0 to distortion. Even when you get it in the mix something seems off. I don't have any problem like this at all on tape. The problem never even comes up.

Take your tracks and run them through an output transformer pushed mildly into saturation; that will do most all of the good things of tape without some of the bad stuff noted above (noise, hum pickup, intermodulation distortion). Then if you still don't like it, roll off some highs with a 15kHz corner (lowpass or shelf, your choice).

Best of all the transformer will never need maintenance

 

[mixsit]

Take your tracks and run them through an output transformer pushed mildly into saturation; that will do most all of the good things of tape without some of the bad stuff noted above (noise, hum pickup, intermodulation distortion). Then if you still don't like it, roll off some highs with a 15kHz corner (lowpass or shelf, your choice).

Best of all the transformer will never need maintenance

Isn't it fun, perhaps a slight ironic, that (sometimes) a bit more 'hair = precieved as 'resolution' or..