Good lord analog wins!

[regebro]

Could somebody point me to the specs for the digital recording used fo rthe A/B-ing? I can't seem to see them in this thread.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Actually I said several times that the digital recording that I was comparing analog to was 16 bit 44.1 sampling as used on 'red book' CDs.

 

[TexRoadkill]

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.

I realize this discussion is mainly talking about recording formats but the latest Neve board, completely analog, actually has a better SNR than has ever been acheived on a digital board. As I recall it is around 156db.

I love the convertors on my Radar and I never hear them affecting the sound in any negative ways. What I do hear is every flaw in my front end that some nice tape saturation would probably cover up, lol.

 

[jake-owa]

Could somebody point me to the specs for the digital recording used fo rthe A/B-ing? I can't seem to see them in this thread.

Well Reg the reason the specs weren't posted is simple...it's a silly, subjective twenty minute listening comparison done by a nonscientest amateur in a dorky home studio. The best I can do is say what I used.

1. (digital source) A computer with Echo Mia balanced card in 24/48 and 24/96 bit/khz.
Versus
2. (analog source) A TASCAM 1" Atr 60.16
3. (monitoring through) TASCAM M600 to Alesis RA100 and Alesis Monitor 1 speakers
4. (test mic) Sennheiser 421


The room is very bad and I actually have a slight buzz in my stereo buss still.

 

[jake-owa]

I realize this discussion is mainly talking about recording formats but the latest Neve board, completely analog, actually has a better SNR than has ever been acheived on a digital board. As I recall it is around 156db.

I love the convertors on my Radar and I never hear them affecting the sound in any negative ways. What I do hear is every flaw in my front end that some nice tape saturation would probably cover up, lol.

I don't have any doubts about the very highest end of digital recording. I have heard your Radar and I can say that thing sounds awesome.
My test is admittedly silly as I am using a $200 sound card against a multi-thousand dollar machine designed for professional use.

It's just my take on what I heard.

I just think that for the money analog offers much more to us home recorders who want a quality sounding format.

In my test and my general opinion analog is winning!


I finished your cables btw Tex...mailing by week's end.
sorry, I'm kinda broke right now

 

[regebro]

Actually I said several times that the digital recording that I was comparing analog to was 16 bit 44.1 sampling as used on 'red book' CDs.

Yes, but what EQUIPMENT. All 16-bit 44.1 converters do not sound alike. Saying '16-bit 44.1' is like saying '1/4" tape'. Well, an old tandberg will not sound like an Otari-5050.

 

[tjohnston]

Well, an old tandberg will not sound like an Otari-5050.

Otari-5050..... they still make those. I think they cost 2 or 3 thousand. Of course I got mine for 48 bucks.

 

[Lt. Bob]

True..............they definitely do not sound the same. And all I can tell you is the two burners I have now, one is a Pioneer and the other a Tascam. Of course there have been many players thru the years and I couldn't really tell you every one or even most of them. But this is a pattern that I've heard thru the years and although I have heard some where I would go, "Wow, that sounds really good," the clear pattern to me is that 16/44.1 doesn't have the resolution of good analog.
And there are certainly studies that support that plus I have read articles that I can't really repeat because they were so complex I don't totally remember them. But they spell out in technical terms things like dynamic range and resolution abilities and the theoretical limits favor analog without a doubt. Remember, it's 16/44.1 we're talking about here.
So if theoretically analog has a better potential, then it comes down to implementation. And vinyl playback is at it's highest level ever here in the twilight of it's existence. If you've listened to it on say a Technics 1200 which many consider a high-line turntable, then you've never heard whay good vinyl can do. Basically, if you have a direct drive turntable.....then it's crap by current standards. Same goes for turntables with plastic chassis no matter how solid they might seem and the same goes for cartridges more than a few years old. The new designs have eclipsed even the better performers of a few years ago.

Now I'm not trying to convince anyone who doesn't want to hear it, 'cause I don't really care. After all, digital is the father of this great homerecording revolution that's happening and I use a digital recorder myself although I use an analog board.
It's an amazing thing....how affordable it has made recording. But I don't use 16/44.1 ,......I use 24/96.
As for what I hear.....I've been a musician for 38 years and a full-time piano tuner for 27. I think that it's not unreasonable to at least suggest that I have well-trained ears and a certain level of credentials to give me some credibilty. That, of course, doesn't automatically mean I'm right.........but I hear what I hear and I'm capable, because of my job, of quantifying and focusing in on tiny things as far as sound goes. It does bug me that the only question digital lovers want to ask is why I must be wrong and why I must be deluding my poor old senile brain and they never ask, "What is he hearing and why could that be?"

 

[holder]

I've recently gone digital. I love it, and it sounds good to me.

I like analog 8-tracks, and I always will, but my PC can do much, much more.

I just want to kick myself for refusing for years to experiment w/digital recording, because I proudly considered myself an exclusively analog person.