Does analog move more air. . . ?

[Farview]

Cymbals sound harsh and distorted on Digital, not smooth and detailed like on Analog.
VP

Only if you record them that way. Analog tape will tend to soften things like that, only because it can't follow the transients as well and the high end gets rolled off with continued playbacks.

 

[Farview]

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 you are looking at it from the wrong angle. If the frequency range of digital goes from DC to half the sample rate, then it isn't missing anything. You might want to ask what vinyl is adding to the sound, or how it is shaping the sound.

It's pretty obvious that digital is more accurate, it can be proven in any number of ways. So it stands to reason that analog adds something or at least shapes the sound in a pleasing manor.

 

[Farview]

I've never recorded digitally, so I don't have any experience there. . . But like I've said somewhere else before, I like the first Nickelback CD, but unfortunately I can't listen to it at all. . . I'm hoping they re-release a version that doesn't hurt my head and insult me as a consumer. . .

And apart from being offensive to my ears physically, it doesn't matter how much you turn it up, it doesn't shake the room, it just gets louder. . THAT is what I'm getting at, that CDs just get louder, while cassette or vinyl get louder AND shake and rattle and move . . . stuff.

That's the mastering. With digital, you can smash the crap out of the music to get it really sound. You can't go that far with vinyl without making the needle skip.

That's not a digital vs. analog thing, it's a mastering decision thing. Digital doesn't have as many physical limitations as vinyl or tape, so you can go much farther with some things.

 

[Farview]

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.

You are also comparing standard mastering practices from 30 years ago (Pat Benatar) to what the norm is today.

It's not that it's digital, it's what mastering engineers do to it (mainly because they are asked to by the band/record label, I don't know any mastering engineers that like smashing the crap out of the audio).

If you find a CD that was actually pressed in the late 80's and early 90's, before the digital limiters became the thing, the CD's were much better sounding, much quieter and were obviously more detailed than the tapes or records.

In the mid 90's, the tools that allowed CD's to get louder and louder and louder started to be used, and the loudness war has been raging ever since.

 

[mixsit]

You are also comparing standard mastering practices from 30 years ago (Pat Benatar) to what the norm is today.
..snip ahead...
..If you find a CD that was actually pressed in the late 80's and early 90's, before the digital limiters became the thing, the CD's were much better sounding, much quieter and were obviously more detailed than the tapes or records.

Would I be correct in thinking (..remembering) that we could also get bit in regards to 'the sound of digi/cd where the cd's back then were sometimes touted/released "Direct from the original masters!"- without regard to the fact that those masters were 'tilted towards compensating for the mediums at hand, and the vinyl everyone would compare them to also had another layer of mastering to optimize it for that.
Lots of 'apples to zebras' comparisons can happen..

 

[Victory Pete]

Only if you record them that way. Analog tape will tend to soften things like that, only because it can't follow the transients as well and the high end gets rolled off with continued playbacks.

Whether I had recorded them or I am listening to a commercial CD, cymbals sound harsh. On recordings I have done on my Analog Decks they sound fine until I record to DAT or CD, and especially if I "Rip" it to my computer.

VP

 

[mixsit]

..On recordings I have done on my Analog Decks they sound fine until I record to DAT or CD, and especially if I "Rip" it to my computer.

That particular bit is interesting. I guess any and everything can be said to make some mark on things.
Just to jump from fine to harsh' though..? Hmm.
(I'll skip 'rip for my purpose here as I'm not really up on what may or may not get envolved in that process.

 

[mixsit]

Interesting too what people zero in on though. OP hears 'more low air movement on cassette, I hear the
notes and space flutter.

I bought a turn table a few years back, not highbrow, just advised as a decent bottom-good enough' one. I ended up going all the way back to the manufacturer trying to determine if it was defective (not up to spec) 'cause I couldn't hang with the pitch instability. I ended up happy with that basic servo- Technics (that is supposedly/arguably inferior in other ways.
I'm consistent I spose

 

[Victory Pete]

That particular bit is interesting. I guess any and everything can be said to make some mark on things.
Just to jump from fine to harsh' though..? Hmm.
(I'll skip 'rip for my purpose here as I'm not really up on what may or may not get envolved in that process.

Yes, sounding "Fine" is the way the cymbals actually sound.

VP

 

[AtoDeficient]

Well the fact that the digital vs. analog debate is still alive and well 30 years later must mean something . . I think that in itself answers my original question. . .

 

[Farview]

Well the fact that the digital vs. analog debate is still alive and well 30 years later must mean something . . I think that in itself answers my original question. . .

No, because it has become a somewhat religious debate with each side declaring that the one they like is 'better' and/or 'more accurate'.

Along the way, you have people comparing a 30 year old Pat Benatar cassette with a Nickleback CD. Assuming that the sound difference is largely caused by the difference in the recording medium is just silly. It ignores the difference in production techniques, style and the intention of the artist to have a good sounding record or a loud CD/mp3.

That's like saying the main difference between a 57 Chevy and a 2112 Ferrari is the use of carbon fiber in the body panels.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

You are also comparing standard mastering practices from 30 years ago (Pat Benatar) to what the norm is today.

It's not that it's digital, it's what mastering engineers do to it (mainly because they are asked to by the band/record label, I don't know any mastering engineers that like smashing the crap out of the audio).

If you find a CD that was actually pressed in the late 80's and early 90's, before the digital limiters became the thing, the CD's were much better sounding, much quieter and were obviously more detailed than the tapes or records.

In the mid 90's, the tools that allowed CD's to get louder and louder and louder started to be used, and the loudness war has been raging ever since.

^^^THIS^^^

Compare 'Blood Sugar Sex Magic' (1991) to 'Californication' (1999)

I can listen to the former all day. I can hardly listen to the latter all the way through.

 

[mshilarious]

Whether I had recorded them or I am listening to a commercial CD, cymbals sound harsh. On recordings I have done on my Analog Decks they sound fine until I record to DAT or CD, and especially if I "Rip" it to my computer.

How do you listen to do your recordings in your car? If on cassette, how is the frequency response (-40dB at 19kHz) and flutter I measured possibly consistent with accurate-sounding cymbals? It can't be, and I doubt you bring a 1/2" machine along in your car.

So all you can do is listen to your accurately-recorded cymbals in your studio.

Which is probably also where your cymbals are . . .

Meatworld FTW!

 

[leddy]

Not that this subject needs another opinion, but I'll inject mine anyway...

This debate will slow down when (or if) higher res digital becomes commonplace. I'm not going to debate ideal sample rates, but I choose 96/24 when I record digital and use a high-quality SRC to go back to 44/16. I've run my own tests and that's what works best with the gear I have.

Digital is more accurate, provided the sample rate is high enough (with respect to the upper frequency range). I don't think 44.1 is high enough.

Tape compresses in a pleasing way that plugs can't match yet, and I don't think harmonic distortion plug ins are there either. Those artifacts are only really pleasing from real gear at the moment.

Until those things improve, the debate will have legs.

 

[mixsit]

Not to pile on at all Pete (this is sincere), would you then have things, processes what have you in your recording methods to compensate for the hit in transition to digi?

Tactfully as I can dancing around the umm.. unhappy inference that digi precludes sweet juicy wonderful sounding brass, music etc..?

Come back

 

[Bobbsy]

That's like saying the main difference between a 57 Chevy and a 2112 Ferrari is the use of carbon fiber in the body panels.

I love this quote and may be forced to steal it!

I love the sound of vinyl, at least on some albums. There. I've said it. I still dig out my half-speed mastered version of "Dark Side of the Moon" and listen to it by the light of my lava lamp.

However, I'm not going to kid myself that it's because analogue is "more accurate" or "has more high end details" or "moves more low end air". A good digital recording is more accurate than a good analogue recording. The difference is that "accurate" isn't a synonym for "pleasing to the ear". The things that make analogue sound better to some of us are FAULTS with the recording accuracy, not a demonstration of how good they are. It's a whole mix of things: analogue distortion, lack of resolution at higher frequencies, slight errors in the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis filters (for tape), errors in the RIAA curve (for vinyl), limitations in the mastering process, etc. etc. If it sounds pleasing, none of that matters--but we're on a hiding to nothing if we try to argue that analogue is better or more accurate.

A few other points:

First, I notice the OP wasn't talking about a master tape. He was talking about a cassette. Now, if he likes the cassette sound that's great for him but cassettes were pretty appallingly bad quality really. Depending on the type of tape (a commercial recording would likely be on a pretty basic oxide) the top end will sound smoother simply because it isn't there--they rolled off at about 15 or 16k. Heck, maybe they do move more air because the amp isn't "wasting" any energy trying to reproduce HF!

Second, something that nobody has mentioned is comparing live sound to the recording rather than comparing analogue vs. digital recordings. This is a far better test of accuracy--and, having done it, I can guarantee that the digital will win hands down. Played back on decent speakers in the same studio where the recording was made, the raw digital recording makes a passable imitation of the live performance. Analogue (done on a good reel to reel at a high tape speed) makes a valiant effort but doesn't do as well. And a cassette is more like listening to a 128k MP3 than reality.

Now, none of this changes the fact that analogue can be nicer to listen to. However, as soon as you move from "I like the sound of analogue" to "Analogue is more accurate" you also move from a valid opinion to pseudo technical babble.

 

[AtoDeficient]

No, because it has become a somewhat religious debate with each side declaring that the one they like is 'better' and/or 'more accurate'.

Well, yeah. . the scientific question turned into an old debate rather quickly. . .I really tried to stay out of that whole analog/digital, "better-sounding" argument. Science does not play favorites, or at least it shouldn't. . .

I was just curious to know why I'm left unmoved by today's CDs. . . You've all helped me find the answer. . .
It's because I wasn't born with digital hearing.

 

[AtoDeficient]

. . ."accurate" isn't a synonym for "pleasing to the ear".

Thank you. . . Case closed.

 

[SteveM]

^^^THIS^^^

Compare 'Blood Sugar Sex Magic' (1991) to 'Californication' (1999)

I can listen to the former all day. I can hardly listen to the latter all the way through.

Really? IMO Californication is much better album and the disc sounds better. I have both. BSSM has a couple of GREAT songs on it and the rest is crap. And I have no idea if one was recorded digital or the other. I have to assume the first was recorded on tape.








'''''''

 

[SteveM]

If it's all about being accurate then you shouldn't need any plug ins or eq. Which is bull because it's not about being accurate. It's making something that sounds pleasing. There's no doubt to me that my tape deck sounds waaaaaay better than my DAW.