Good lord analog wins!
- Thread starter jake-owa
- Start date
jake-owa
Banned
I disagree strongly. I think that analog audio will always be comparible to analog photography. Digital may someday (not soon) be as detailed and natural as it's analog counterpart but even then I will still like to have tapes around.Lt. Bob said:I do agree with Bruce.......the current digital technologies are excellent....especially when you get to 24/96k and the SACD is supposed to be great also. And certainly it has made multi-track recorders affordable for everyone. The thing about 16/44.1k is that it's 25 year old computer technology and, of course, 25 year old tech is obsolete. As the market moves to higher sampling/resolution rates.....clearly the differences become inconsequential.
But when you have over 6000 albums....well clearly that's gonna be my main medium.
Don't tell us what you have heard is supposed to be Bob, tell us what you've heard yourself man.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
OK,.....well to tell the truth....to me the analog (vinyl) almost always sounds better. Now remember, we're talking about 16 bit/44.1 sampling rate here. And you can make a very strong argument that the old 'Red Book' standard is inferior to good analog. Note that I said good analog. I can take one of my records and record it to CD thru my tascam burners' 24 bit A/D and I always hear a slight loss in resolution. It just doesn't have as much 'air' for lack of a better word.jake-owa said:
I understand that there are people who deny that such subtle things exist and some even get mad about it for some reason....but all I can say is that I know what I hear and I can't ignore my own ears, ya' know? You can make a strong argument that analog has greater resolution than 16/44.1. It absolutely has a greater dynamic range.
I don't have enough experience with the more modern formats such as SACD or 24/96 to be able to comment but Stereophile's various reviewers, whom I trust and respect, have all said that the newer formats manage to capture those elusive subtleties that 16/44.1 misses. And these are people who have been staunch analog supporters because of the sound......so if they say that 24/96 can capture the details as well as analog; I have to believe there's something to it. I've learned an enormous amount about sound from that magazine and the website.
I don't care to get in arguments about the subject though.....the fact is that all of the gear we have available to us now is easier to work with;....has way more features,......and is cheaper by orders of magnitude than what was available to us 33 years ago when I first started recording.....and I'm enjoying the progress.
I have a wonderful VPI turntable and a semi-expensive stand-alone phono stage and I guaruntee you that if you've never heard vinyl on a good rig, you'll be shocked at how good it sounds; but who the hell can afford a good 2" machine and the constant stream of expensive-ass tapes it gobbles up? Not me, that's for sure.
For some reason though, talking about analog vs digital arouses the same sort of emotions as religious discussions....I don't know why.
jake-owa
Banned
Good post Bob.
ANY versus debate will do that man....it's just that I wasn't intending a debate.
I dig digital in fact I have a slogan that goes under my logo that goes a bit like this...
OtherWorldsAudio
Digital is the Goddess, analog is king....forget about that bulshit, open your mouth and sing.
ANY versus debate will do that man....it's just that I wasn't intending a debate.
I dig digital in fact I have a slogan that goes under my logo that goes a bit like this...
OtherWorldsAudio
Digital is the Goddess, analog is king....forget about that bulshit, open your mouth and sing.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
LOL ......I wasn't referring to you Jake........I was talking about the musical community at large. I've seen people write Stereophile just outraged that anyone would even suggest that vinyl has any worth at all. It's really funny in a disturbing sort of way. I mean, why would it elicit that strong of a reaction....after all, it's just tech-talk.
But I definitely didn't mean you were being too emotional.
Now.....tell me about that avatar. Oh never mind....I see you've already addressed that in the other thread.
But I definitely didn't mean you were being too emotional.
Now.....tell me about that avatar.
Oh never mind....I see you've already addressed that in the other thread. 
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
I think one of the little side issues that rarely comes up in these discussions is relativity and experience.
Its really hard to judge whether old Jake here is right unless we have a true comparitive test. If you work on 2" or lets say an ATR-60/16 which is professional recorder , your going to get use to that sound, your hearing the source and you know its playback is pretty close to what you recorded. Now you take a prosumer digital system and record the exact same stuff into it. It will not sound the same, it may sound better or worse depending on the material. Most of the time a properly calibrated 1" 16 track machine will sound "better than most" of the the affordabel digital systems, with an exception of Radar or ProTool HD or any digital with converters that cost $4000 for 8 channels. But there are people who know how to squeeze pretty good results from digital that a novice could never get out of a Studer A827 and a Neve.
There is also the character of tape recording itself. Being able to take advatage of that character takes experience.
Tape costs are irrevelent to how something sounds, but you can get tape character if you want. Record the project to tape, rent some Stagetec converters and transfer to digital to use with whatever DAW you want for editing tracks...etc and then mix on a analog desk to a 1/4 mastering deck. Reuse the tape for the next guy/gal. Done it before, works fine.
Each piece of music desires to have its own character. Mic's Pre's and format choice all come into play. Ive heard some ADAT stuff that sounded exactly how it needed to be for the customer to like it. I've had stuuf done on ADAT that sounded like crap. Ive had 4 track portastudio stuff come out better than ADAT or DAW too. I hate that.
To summarize, its not a race so there are no finish lines for anyone to cross( the line is moving infinitely). Analog only wins if the end product meets the end goal. Capturing the music as the client wants it to sound on the album.
My 2 copper things.
SoMm
Its really hard to judge whether old Jake here is right unless we have a true comparitive test. If you work on 2" or lets say an ATR-60/16 which is professional recorder , your going to get use to that sound, your hearing the source and you know its playback is pretty close to what you recorded. Now you take a prosumer digital system and record the exact same stuff into it. It will not sound the same, it may sound better or worse depending on the material. Most of the time a properly calibrated 1" 16 track machine will sound "better than most" of the the affordabel digital systems, with an exception of Radar or ProTool HD or any digital with converters that cost $4000 for 8 channels. But there are people who know how to squeeze pretty good results from digital that a novice could never get out of a Studer A827 and a Neve.
There is also the character of tape recording itself. Being able to take advatage of that character takes experience.
Tape costs are irrevelent to how something sounds, but you can get tape character if you want. Record the project to tape, rent some Stagetec converters and transfer to digital to use with whatever DAW you want for editing tracks...etc and then mix on a analog desk to a 1/4 mastering deck. Reuse the tape for the next guy/gal. Done it before, works fine.
Each piece of music desires to have its own character. Mic's Pre's and format choice all come into play. Ive heard some ADAT stuff that sounded exactly how it needed to be for the customer to like it. I've had stuuf done on ADAT that sounded like crap. Ive had 4 track portastudio stuff come out better than ADAT or DAW too. I hate that.
To summarize, its not a race so there are no finish lines for anyone to cross( the line is moving infinitely). Analog only wins if the end product meets the end goal. Capturing the music as the client wants it to sound on the album.
My 2 copper things.
SoMm
DonF
Call Me "Grandpa"
The air is no different for analog than it is for digital. By "laws of physics" I was referring to the limitations imposed by the head gap and by the density of the magnetic domains on the tape. These are roughly analogous (pardon the expression) to the Nyquist limit and quantization errors in digital systems.jake-owa said:
My "laws of physics" remark was in response to wildflower soul, who stated "digital will always be limited to a sample rate, no matter how high you go" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Like analog has no limits? Every system has limits, but it seems to me that the limits of digital systems are being raised more quickly than those of analog.
None of this should be taken to mean that I don't like analog, or that I think you shouldn't use it. But I do object to broad statements like "digital is too sterile" or "analog is better than digital". Your original statement, "I could never get a rolling bass sound in digital," is perfectly OK because it reflects your experience, not just a blind judgment. You must realize, though, that there are lots of people who get really great bass sounds (at least they sound great to me!
) out of their digital systems.wildflower soul
New member
well to me analog is better for the type of music i play, and the type of music i listen to.
I like things to sound more raw, like its actually being played without chorus and all sorts of other stuff added on the vocals.
digital does not have any generation loss... which is a plus. i've recorded a song with someone in protools before, don't get me wrong the quality was A+. But I recorded the same song on analog at home and to me it sounded better. I could hear every instrument seperated better.
Maybe oneday the sample rate will be so high you can't tell the difference, but i still can.
I like things to sound more raw, like its actually being played without chorus and all sorts of other stuff added on the vocals.
digital does not have any generation loss... which is a plus. i've recorded a song with someone in protools before, don't get me wrong the quality was A+. But I recorded the same song on analog at home and to me it sounded better. I could hear every instrument seperated better.
Maybe oneday the sample rate will be so high you can't tell the difference, but i still can.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
You know what? I don't beleive you one bit.... are you trying to tell me you've recorded digitally through high-quality converters at 24/96 and compared it to analog and heard a difference???wildflower soul said:
Sorry... I don't buy it....
tjohnston
New member
Hey Blue Bear,
So is the ADAT xt 20 totally inferior to something with 24/96 and external converters. I can definitely hear the digital in mine.
So is the ADAT xt 20 totally inferior to something with 24/96 and external converters. I can definitely hear the digital in mine.
jake-owa
Banned
I actually did my A/B test with 24/96 audio and even 16/44.1 audio and I couldn't tell too much of a difference between the formats, a bit but I wouldn't want to have to pick between them blind.
Analog still sounded tighter to my ears. In fact I have showed three people my results now and they all chose the analog bass in a blind test. The last guy, a drummer, said it was a clear choice.
So it's not just me.
Analog still sounded tighter to my ears. In fact I have showed three people my results now and they all chose the analog bass in a blind test. The last guy, a drummer, said it was a clear choice.
So it's not just me.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
Well, the thing about 96k is that it raises the frequency response a lot. That accomplishes two things......
One is that they don't have to use the 'brick wall' filter to avoid aliasing frequencies from showing up at the output. And those brick wall filters that cut off everything sharply at 20,000khz are known to cause phasing problems and such.
Also, there is a fair body of research that indicates that even though our hearing doesn't extend into the 20,000 range, for some reason reproducing those frequencies affects how we hear the lower freqs.
And I certainly agree that word length is important.
But the big thing is that sampling is not a continuous sine wave (or whatever wave) but instead is a series of steps...even if very tiny steps. This affects the subtle sounds of natural verbs and that sense of 'space' that some recordings have and some don't. As the sampling freqs get higher.....the steps get smaller and come closer to being continuous. That's what you get in analog......an almost infinite sampling rate.
Also....I've always wondered about the fact that there is no direct connection between the original sound and the digital version. It seems to me that when you play back a digital recording.....what you really do is have a computer chip (the D/A converter) actually produce the sound in response to computer data, almost like a very sophisticated synth. And there are examples of poorly designed D/As actually producing the wrong freq! And some converters will cut off at a higher volume threshold than others.......I guess that's similar to the varying freq response of analog stuff......curiouser and curiouser.
There are some very good detailed discussions on this at the Stereophile website. Those people who spend $50,000 on a stereo system just laugh at the pro-sound community because a lot of what we're discovering....they've been railing about for years. The fact is....although some people still claim that 16/44.1 is "perfect sound forever'......I can always hear a difference between the original and the CDs I burn. On loud rock and such it's not very much at all.......but when you get to serious acoustic stuff.....the difference is there...flat-out.
But as I said, the 'golden ears' say that the newer formats have come a long way toward erasing that difference.
I really reccomend Stereophile for anyone wanting to delve into this.
One is that they don't have to use the 'brick wall' filter to avoid aliasing frequencies from showing up at the output. And those brick wall filters that cut off everything sharply at 20,000khz are known to cause phasing problems and such.
Also, there is a fair body of research that indicates that even though our hearing doesn't extend into the 20,000 range, for some reason reproducing those frequencies affects how we hear the lower freqs.
And I certainly agree that word length is important.
But the big thing is that sampling is not a continuous sine wave (or whatever wave) but instead is a series of steps...even if very tiny steps. This affects the subtle sounds of natural verbs and that sense of 'space' that some recordings have and some don't. As the sampling freqs get higher.....the steps get smaller and come closer to being continuous. That's what you get in analog......an almost infinite sampling rate.
Also....I've always wondered about the fact that there is no direct connection between the original sound and the digital version. It seems to me that when you play back a digital recording.....what you really do is have a computer chip (the D/A converter) actually produce the sound in response to computer data, almost like a very sophisticated synth. And there are examples of poorly designed D/As actually producing the wrong freq! And some converters will cut off at a higher volume threshold than others.......I guess that's similar to the varying freq response of analog stuff......curiouser and curiouser.
There are some very good detailed discussions on this at the Stereophile website. Those people who spend $50,000 on a stereo system just laugh at the pro-sound community because a lot of what we're discovering....they've been railing about for years. The fact is....although some people still claim that 16/44.1 is "perfect sound forever'......I can always hear a difference between the original and the CDs I burn. On loud rock and such it's not very much at all.......but when you get to serious acoustic stuff.....the difference is there...flat-out.
But as I said, the 'golden ears' say that the newer formats have come a long way toward erasing that difference.
I really reccomend Stereophile for anyone wanting to delve into this.
Last edited:
DonF
Call Me "Grandpa"
Have you tried EAC (Exact Audio Copy)? I've used this to rip audio from a commercial CD, then burned to another CD, then ripped the copy. Found no more than an occasional 1-bit difference between the original and the copy -- and I would question the sanity/honesty of anyone who claims to be able to hear an occasional 1-bit difference. (That's like hearing a flea scratching itself on the other side of the room.Lt. Bob said:
)There's an awful lot of "snake oil" in the audiophile marketplace. Beware.
Ooooooooooh. Sorry, my mistake. This is the "Analog Only" forum. I'm just visiting. 
jake-owa
Banned
Interesting stuff there Bob. I've read about Neve saying that digital audio can drive old people to insane violence, (exaggerating) but I really don't feel any agitation listening to Beethoven on CD. Maybe it's because I grew up (if I ever did) on mostly digital audio.
I doubt there will ever be an audio reproduction format that will perfectly mimic the way the original sound waves act in the air but for now at least, analog seems to have more pleasing qualities to my ear. I am not a vintage audio guy and I don't even own a turntable. I was turned on to tape by a friend who was recording on a Revox 8 track machine and getting great sounds while I was struggling with crunchy guitar sounds.
When I say I prefer analog I am not by any means putting digital audio down, how else would I play my music in my stereo? 
I doubt there will ever be an audio reproduction format that will perfectly mimic the way the original sound waves act in the air but for now at least, analog seems to have more pleasing qualities to my ear. I am not a vintage audio guy and I don't even own a turntable. I was turned on to tape by a friend who was recording on a Revox 8 track machine and getting great sounds while I was struggling with crunchy guitar sounds.
When I say I prefer analog I am not by any means putting digital audio down, how else would I play my music in my stereo?