Does analog move more air. . . ?

[AtoDeficient]

Comparing Pat Benatar to Nickelback doesn't tell you anything about the different mediums used

I just want to clarify for those who weren't reading carefully, or misunderstood.. .

I never compared Pat Benatar's analog recordings to Nickelback's CDs. . . I compared Pat Benatar's Greatest Hits cassette released whenever the album was released to the Pat Benatar's Greatest Hits CD released whenever it was released on CD. .

I mentioned Nickelback as an example of what can go wrong with digital compression/mastering/volume wars, etc.

Thank you for letting me clear that up.

 

[Farview]

Neil Young Message

VP

Again, a guy trying to explain an emotional response with a psuedo-technical explanation.

The only thing higher resolution digital audio can do is give us access to higher frequencies and a lower noise floor. 16 bit 44.1k already has better frequency response and dynamic range and noise floor than cassette tape. The only thing that even 2 inch tape possibly captures better is frequencies above 20k.

Hopefully, since hi-rez audio is going to be all about fidelity, the mastering process won't be used to squash the crap out of everything to make it really loud. That is what the problem is with the commercially available CD's. That doesn't have anything to do with the inherent fidelity of the medium, it has to do with the decisions of the producer and mastering engineers putting the product out that way.

 

[Victory Pete]

Wrong, OP asked an objective, comparative question about analog vs. digital that is verifiable via experimentation. It did need some interpretation; I take "moves more air" as "accurate LF response". That is somewhat open to conjecture, but whatever the definition, it's not a subjective artistic question.

But he does say:

The answer is no, at least not because of the medium. Digital can capture more dynamic range than analog, that's provable. Even CD digital can capture and play back higher frequencies than cassette. So what he is experiencing certainly isn't a lack of fidelity on the digital side of things.

Can one analog recording move more air than another digital recording, sure. But that has more to do with the decisions made by who ever mixed it than it does the recording medium. Comparing Pat Benatar to Nickelback doesn't tell you anything about the different mediums used. Even the RHCP example isn't that great because they weren't recorded at the same time, in the same place, by the same people (engineer, producer, etc...) So that isn't a great comparison either.

Nope, "Accurate" was never mentioned. As far as "Moving more air" Air itself is not moved by sound. it is its pressure that is increased and decreased by a certain amout of PSI. measured in Decibels.

VP

 

[mshilarious]

2 - We have concluded that analog sounds more "pleasing" which does not translate to accuracy.

It *can* be more pleasing to some. Personally, I don't like it, I think the good LF things it does can be done by saturating transformers without subjecting the audio to excess hiss, HF loss, and flutter. People ought to give that a try; use good-sounding nonlinear analog circuits and a digital recorder like a tape machine if that's how you like to work.

3 - We have (almost) concluded that digital is more accurate. mshilarious has graciously proposed a test that I'm for.

I've already shown that CD-quality audio is far more accurate than cassette. If I had larger machines I would test them too (I am happy to mail the test waves on CD to Mr. VP if he is willing to post the resulting trips through all of his tape machines) but all I have other than the Tascam deck is a Porta, which I suppose I could test at 3.75ips, it should test a bit better (I did that test long ago but I'm not sure where those results are, it would be four years ago or so).

The candle test is not an accuracy test per se, I will explain why. When you have a very dynamic source, you are describing a source with a very fast rise time, a very sudden, large, somewhat sustained change in pressure. We can approximate that initial transient as a single square wave for purposes of analysis. A square wave contains a fundamental and every odd-order harmonic above--now a real kick drum is not a perfect square wave source--far from it--so it can have even-order harmonics, and it is not a strictly harmonic source (it will have multiple harmonically unrelated fundamental tones, plus overtones), but play along for a moment.

If we then lowpass that square wave we chop off some of the higher harmonics, which changes the shape of the wave (note the example I posted above). That can actually increase (!) the peak value of the wave. So in that sense a lowpass filter applied to a given wave can cause an increase in driver excursion on playback. What we'd really need to do is measure not peak candle flame motion, but RMS, which would be an annoyingly hard thing to do.

Still, that doesn't worry me too much because both tape and digital signals will be applied through the same lowpass filter: the crossover on the way to the woofer. I could bypass the crossover (which I might do), but the response of the woofer drops steeply above 5kHz anyway. So I already know the candle isn't going to be subject to anything different in terms of HF energy from tape and digital sources--the only way to do that is to use a full-range driver, and those have such significant limitations that the result of the experiment would be in question.

I do know that the LF energy of the tape source will have lower amplitude than the digital, and I also know that the tape source will have a significant amount of distortion (which will slightly flatten its peaks, that desireable compression oft referred), so I expect the digital source will have greater maximum driver (and therefore candleflame) excursion. That's the hypothesis anyway, but I may well have failed to account for something . . .

If I wanted to know which source would have greater theoretical RMS or peak driver excursion (and thus air movement) with a perfect driver (which cannot exist), I would simply measure peak and RMS values of the recorded signals, which I can do with an analog or digital meter . . . but that doesn't involve lighting things on fire, so what fun is that?

 

[Victory Pete]

I think to really be "Unbiased"(pun intended) and scientific here, one really should have experience with both mediums using "Adequate"equipment. A cassette deck hardly falls into the "Adequate" category.

VP

PS Air doesnt move because of sound. It does compress and increase its PSI for half of the waveform and then decompresses and decreases its PSI for the other half.

More PS. A tuned port on the other hand will move a small amount of air.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Yes, I should have said "Analog, to some, can sound more pleasing."

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[mshilarious]

VP, OP said cassette. I never disputed that high-quality tape recorders are capable of high fidelity recordings; I do dispute any statement that digital recording is lower fidelity. Prove it, I'll send you the CD with the test waves I used on the cassette deck, all you have to do is playback that CD, record its output on your decks, route the decks' output back to the best ADC you have (44.1, 96, whatever you like) and post the resulting .wav files. Very simple, very repeatable, easily analyzed.

The signals are:

100Hz sine
1kHz sine
200Hz square (can be lower if you like)
white noise (full spectrum bandwidth for the selected sample rate)
mixed 18/19kHz sine

If you want 24/96 source files for the test waves I can do that too, let me know how you'd like to receive them. I have an FTP server I can post stuff to as well.

I am all about testing, I test analog circuits every day. Just tested a few a couple of minutes ago . . .

 

[Victory Pete]

I'm wondering if there has ever been a scientific study on whether analog recordings actually, literally move more air than a digital recording . . . That is, push a wider range of sound waves out of your speakers. . .(This isn't another A vs.D debate, I'm looking for facts here, and we all know analog sounds) better, but does the science and math prove that it sounds better? . . .

When older albums were "remastered for CD" did they dither-down, or eq out the "fullness of sound"? . .

I'm not a sound engineer. . I'm actually an un-sound engineer. . . Does digital record "thinner"? . .. Does tape "add" a fullness?

Why am I asking ? . . . Because my vinyl and tapes sound so much better than any CD I own, and my speakers, any of them, and I have alot of them (it's an obsession) seem to actually move more air when playing back in an analog format, than a CD. . .

Am I making any sense? . . . Any sense ay all? . . . Anybody? . .

If this was covered in another thread, I apologize. .. I wouldn't know how to search for it. .

VP, OP said cassette. I never disputed that high-quality tape recorders are capable of high fidelity recordings; I do dispute any statement that digital recording is lower fidelity. Prove it, I'll send you the CD with the test waves I used on the cassette deck, all you have to do is playback that CD, record its output on your decks, route the decks' output back to the best ADC you have (44.1, 96, whatever you like) and post the resulting .wav files. Very simple, very repeatable, easily analyzed.

The signals are:

100Hz sine
1kHz sine
200Hz square (can be lower if you like)
white noise (full spectrum bandwidth for the selected sample rate)
mixed 18/19kHz sine

If you want 24/96 source files for the test waves I can do that too, let me know how you'd like to receive them. I have an FTP server I can post stuff to as well.

I am all about testing, I test analog circuits every day. Just tested a few a couple of minutes ago . . .

Once again, please reread the OP, no mention of Cassette.

VP

 

[Farview]

I compared Pat Benatar's Greatest Hits cassette released whenever the album was released to the Pat Benatar's Greatest Hits CD released whenever it was released on CD..

I completely missed that. Were the two released at the same time? There have been a number of remasters that have completely ruined the original recordings. If you have a cassette from the 80's and a CD from the same time, the CD should sound better. If you have a Cd that has been remastered, chances are they smashed the crap out of it to get it as loud as current CDs. most of the time it sounds like crap because those songs were never mixed to be that loud.

 

[Farview]

Once again, please reread the OP, no mention of Cassette.

VP

Not in that post, but in subsequent posts we find out that he is only talking about cassettes when he says 'tape'.

 

[AtoDeficient]

You know what ? . . .
I'm no longer curious. But you guys can work it out if you like. . .

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Once again, please reread the OP, no mention of Cassette.

VP

The OP did go on to say how cassettes shake the room, and CD's are just loud.

 

[Victory Pete]

Not in that post, but in subsequent posts we find out that he is only talking about cassettes when he says 'tape'.

Where does he say "Cassette Only"?

VP

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Where does he say "Cassette Only"?

VP

He never mentioned cassette only. But he did throw cassettes into this. From the 1st page - 8th post.

Accuracy was first mentioned by mshilarious on the 1st page. But the OP said "'digital accuracy' must be a lie" on the 3rd page - 1st post, which may have sparked this thread to go this far.

 

[Victory Pete]

Analog vs. Digital is what we were talking about, all of us.

VP

 

[CrowsofFritz]

The first post was the OP wanting to know if there had been any scientific research done as to why analog sounds more pleasing.

First off, that's subjective. Some pointed out reasons why he MAY find it more pleasing.

Accuracy wasn't really something that should have been mentioned in regard to the first post. But that discussion popped up later on.

 

[Victory Pete]

The first post was the OP wanting to know if there had been any scientific research done as to why analog sounds more pleasing.

First off, that's subjective. Some pointed out reasons why he MAY find it more pleasing.

Accuracy wasn't really something that should have been mentioned in regard to the first post. But that discussion popped up later on.

Why are some of you speaking for the OP, his first post speaks for itself without further "Interpretations"

VP

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Why are some of you speaking for the OP, his first post speaks for itself without further "Interpretations"

VP

What?

I haven't interpreted anything. The first post did not say anything about accuracy. You actually said that yourself.

The first post just asked why analog sounds more pleasing to him.

 

[Victory Pete]

I'm wondering if there has ever been a scientific study on whether analog recordings actually, literally move more air than a digital recording . . . That is, push a wider range of sound waves out of your speakers. . .(This isn't another A vs.D debate, I'm looking for facts here, and we all know analog sounds) better, but does the science and math prove that it sounds better? . . .

When older albums were "remastered for CD" did they dither-down, or eq out the "fullness of sound"? . .

I'm not a sound engineer. . I'm actually an un-sound engineer. . . Does digital record "thinner"? . .. Does tape "add" a fullness?

Why am I asking ? . . . Because my vinyl and tapes sound so much better than any CD I own, and my speakers, any of them, and I have alot of them (it's an obsession) seem to actually move more air when playing back in an analog format, than a CD. . .

Am I making any sense? . . . Any sense ay all? . . . Anybody? . .

If this was covered in another thread, I apologize. .. I wouldn't know how to search for it. .

What?

I haven't interpreted anything. The first post did not say anything about accuracy. You actually said that yourself.

The first post just asked why analog sounds more pleasing to him.

I dont see the word "Pleasing" but lets move on please.

VP

 

[CrowsofFritz]

He later stated that "pleasing" was the right word and declared his questioned answered.

With that, yes. Let's move on.