Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Post an MP3 of that please.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Man,
> You're out of your league here. Go back to writing articles for "R-e/p", "Recording", "Electronic Musician", "PC Magazine" ... <
ROFL. Thanks. (I think)
--Ethan
> You're out of your league here. Go back to writing articles for "R-e/p", "Recording", "Electronic Musician", "PC Magazine" ... <
ROFL. Thanks. (I think)
--Ethan
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
When you state, as fact, that digital is a "better" recording medium because it's more accurate, you presuppose the point you're trying to argue: that accuracy, and not necessarily musicality of tone, should be the proper end of a recording medium. (And, in case you've forgotten, presupposing the point you're trying to argue is a kind of fallacious thinking known as circular argument.)
You haven't proven that to me that digital is better just because you state what we both know: that it is more accurate. In my mind, the best recording medium is not necessarily the one that's the most accurate, but the one that yields the best results, given the material. In my opinion, it is much easier to get an indie rock album to sound right if it's tracked to 2" tape. It is also my opinion that classical recording is infinitely better tracked to a high-end digital system as opposed to analog, both because digital has a better dynamic range and because it is less noisy (for those ultra low volume passages in classical music). Both mediums have their advantages and disadvantages. How can you deny that?!
You haven't proven that to me that digital is better just because you state what we both know: that it is more accurate. In my mind, the best recording medium is not necessarily the one that's the most accurate, but the one that yields the best results, given the material. In my opinion, it is much easier to get an indie rock album to sound right if it's tracked to 2" tape. It is also my opinion that classical recording is infinitely better tracked to a high-end digital system as opposed to analog, both because digital has a better dynamic range and because it is less noisy (for those ultra low volume passages in classical music). Both mediums have their advantages and disadvantages. How can you deny that?!
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
CIS,
> When you state, as fact, that digital is a "better" recording medium because it's more accurate, you presuppose the point you're trying to argue: that accuracy, and not necessarily musicality of tone, should be the proper end of a recording medium. <
Yes, I distinguish between accuracy of recording and adding an effect! If you want to further your point you'll also have to define "musicality." If you consider added distortion, flutter, tape hiss and modulation noise, and a skewed frequency response to be "musical," there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
> In my opinion, it is much easier to get an indie rock album to sound right if it's tracked to 2" tape. It is also my opinion that classical recording is infinitely better tracked to a high-end digital system as opposed to analog, both because digital has a better dynamic range and because it is less noisy (for those ultra low volume passages in classical music). <
In both cases you are recording musical instruments. Why do all the advantages of digital suddenly go away when you replace a timpani with a kick drum, a bassoon with a saxophone, or replace Ian Anderson with John-Pierre Rampal playing the very same instrument?
--Ethan
> When you state, as fact, that digital is a "better" recording medium because it's more accurate, you presuppose the point you're trying to argue: that accuracy, and not necessarily musicality of tone, should be the proper end of a recording medium. <
Yes, I distinguish between accuracy of recording and adding an effect! If you want to further your point you'll also have to define "musicality." If you consider added distortion, flutter, tape hiss and modulation noise, and a skewed frequency response to be "musical," there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
> In my opinion, it is much easier to get an indie rock album to sound right if it's tracked to 2" tape. It is also my opinion that classical recording is infinitely better tracked to a high-end digital system as opposed to analog, both because digital has a better dynamic range and because it is less noisy (for those ultra low volume passages in classical music). <
In both cases you are recording musical instruments. Why do all the advantages of digital suddenly go away when you replace a timpani with a kick drum, a bassoon with a saxophone, or replace Ian Anderson with John-Pierre Rampal playing the very same instrument?
--Ethan
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
You're missing my point. You're arguing that digital is a "better" recording medium because it's more accurate. I'm arguing that a recording medium should be judged by the end product. If a band or a record achieves its aims better by using recording medium A than by using recording medium B, than recording medium A is the better recording medium for that band or record. Because, and I think we can all agree on this, what's important is the music. Of course this is very subjective. Perhaps, to your ears, digital always sounds better than analog. Perhaps, to Larry Crane's ears, analog always sounds better than digital. To my ears, analog is good in some situations, and digital is good in others. What I think is really sad is that soon we won't have any choice. Digital will be all that's available.
In any case, I couldn't disagree with you more that digital is always better than analog. I think it is a minority of people who believe the way you do. I also believe it is a minority of people who would agree that analog is always better. Not that being in the minority means that you're wrong. I just believe that we have different standards by which to judge a recording medium. I judge it by the end result, the song. From what I understand, you judge it by that recording medium's accuracy. If you'd like, we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
I just noticed, Ethan, that we have the exact same number of posts! Here we are, locked in heated battle, and, deep down, we're really just the same aren't we?
Oh, wait, now I have one more post than you have. Ok, enough of that reconcilation crap, I'm now above you, both intellectually and morally. There can be no compromise.
Oh, wait, now I have one more post than you have. Ok, enough of that reconcilation crap, I'm now above you, both intellectually and morally. There can be no compromise.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
CIS,
> You're arguing that digital is a "better" recording medium because it's more accurate. <
Yes, I certainly am arguing that! And I know exactly what point you're arguing too. But I disagree with it
Do you think that in the early days of tape recorders, engineers compared different tape formulations and head geometries to see which sounded cooler? No, the standard benchmark has always been to play back what was recorded as accurately as possible. This "analog warmth" nonsense is a recent phenomenon which arose, in my opinion, from a bunch of amateurs not understanding why their recordings don't sound as good as the old LPs they grew up with and loved.
So when Johnny Wannabe couldn't make his garage band sound like his favorite Chicago records, he assumed it's because he doesn't have the same gear. Thus began the rapid rise in price of crappy old equipment, now prized for its coloration. But the real issue is having a good recording room and knowing how to use the equipment. Not blindly duplicating the gear list of studios past.
> I think it is a minority of people who believe the way you do. ... Not that being in the minority means that you're wrong. <
Yeah, no fooling. The majority of people believe a lot of things that I am certain are wrong. (Not just in audio, don't get me started...)
> I just believe that we have different standards by which to judge a recording medium. I judge it by the end result, the song. <
Again, the real issue is separating the quality of a recording medium from some perceived benefit caused by its known failings.
--Ethan
> You're arguing that digital is a "better" recording medium because it's more accurate. <
Yes, I certainly am arguing that! And I know exactly what point you're arguing too. But I disagree with it
Do you think that in the early days of tape recorders, engineers compared different tape formulations and head geometries to see which sounded cooler? No, the standard benchmark has always been to play back what was recorded as accurately as possible. This "analog warmth" nonsense is a recent phenomenon which arose, in my opinion, from a bunch of amateurs not understanding why their recordings don't sound as good as the old LPs they grew up with and loved.
So when Johnny Wannabe couldn't make his garage band sound like his favorite Chicago records, he assumed it's because he doesn't have the same gear. Thus began the rapid rise in price of crappy old equipment, now prized for its coloration. But the real issue is having a good recording room and knowing how to use the equipment. Not blindly duplicating the gear list of studios past.
> I think it is a minority of people who believe the way you do. ... Not that being in the minority means that you're wrong. <
Yeah, no fooling. The majority of people believe a lot of things that I am certain are wrong. (Not just in audio, don't get me started...)
> I just believe that we have different standards by which to judge a recording medium. I judge it by the end result, the song. <
Again, the real issue is separating the quality of a recording medium from some perceived benefit caused by its known failings.
--Ethan
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
CIS,
> Here we are, locked in heated battle
No battle here! Just discussing the facts.
> Oh, wait, now I have one more post than you have. <
More important, you're a "senior member" and I'm just a junior.
--Ethan
> Here we are, locked in heated battle
No battle here! Just discussing the facts.
> Oh, wait, now I have one more post than you have. <
More important, you're a "senior member" and I'm just a junior.
--Ethan
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
Ethan said:
> Here we are, locked in heated battle
No battle here! Just discussing the facts.
My original comment was tongue-in-cheek, my friend.
Even so, many of the original pro audio pioneers, Rupert Neve comes to mind, believe that a well-maintained high-end analog machine beats digital. I'm not saying I agree with him, but it's interesting that someone who's spent his whole life (and I'm pretty sure he's in this seventies) trying to create good sound, still prefers analog, for all types of music.
> Here we are, locked in heated battle
No battle here! Just discussing the facts.
My original comment was tongue-in-cheek, my friend.
What crappy old equipment are you talking about? Trident desks? Universal Audio compressors? Neve preamps? What? I sure don't see "crappy" equipment going up in price.
I don't think tape compression is a "failing" in every instance. I don't think the bass response of analog tape is a "failing". It can improve the sound of some recordings. How could something that improves (and of course I realize that "improve" is a very subjective thing) the sound be a "failing" when you're talking about audio? To quote Joe Meek, "If it sounds good, it is good." And yes, I know that quote is tossed around quite a bit.
Have you ever taken a college logic class? What does the original intent or "benchmark" of Ampex's (or whoever's) engineers really have to do with anything? Essentially what you're saying is, "Accuracy is the proper aim of a recording medium, not because it fulfills the purpose of the person who uses it, but because the person who orginally developed it felt that should be the case." SO WHAT! Thomas Edison was really upset when people started using his invention, the phonograph, primarily to play back music, and not what he originally intended it to be used for, speech. Does that mean that, from that day forward, everyone who used records to record music was wrong? I appreciate analog, and I feel it is the ideal medium for certain types of music, despite what it's original inventors felt was the proper end of a recording medium.
Even so, many of the original pro audio pioneers, Rupert Neve comes to mind, believe that a well-maintained high-end analog machine beats digital. I'm not saying I agree with him, but it's interesting that someone who's spent his whole life (and I'm pretty sure he's in this seventies) trying to create good sound, still prefers analog, for all types of music.
If you could somehow prove to me that that's the "real issue" than I'd agree with you. Again, you're presupposing the point you're trying to argue. Circular reasoning doesn't work. Also, you try to deride the benefits of analog by saying that they're "perceived". All sound is perceived. It's nothing but perception. That's all we have to go by. It's sound!
V
Vurt
New member
BrettB said:A musician has to spend money sometimes
I'm wondering where the spending ENDS, and I'm not even a musician.
I just stuck my head in on this threa, but I think I'll leave now... sounds like somebody's about to get shot.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
cominginsecond said:
> My original comment was tongue-in-cheek, my friend. <
Good. Some people take these discussions personally, which is never my intent. Just making sure.
> What crappy old equipment are you talking about? Trident desks? Universal Audio compressors? Neve preamps? What? I sure don't see "crappy" equipment going up in price. <
Of course all old gear is not crappy, but a lot of it is not up to the specs and standards of today. Just last night I attended a microphone shootout, and the fellow who moderated brought a low-serial number Neumann M49 that he was exteremly proud of. I hope he's not reading this, but that was the worst of the mikes heard (I left early) and the M49 was not nearly as clear and full as the Studio Projects T3. My point is that a lot of old gear that I don't think is very "clean" now sells for many times the cost of better, newer gear.
> I don't think tape compression is a "failing" in every instance. I don't think the bass response of analog tape is a "failing". <
I've been trying to separate analog tape as an effect from its recording quality. If you prefer that effect, and know of no other way to get that effect, then you are correct that it is "better" in those cases. But it seems to me that a 3 dB. boost caused by head bump is the same as a 3 dB. boost added by an equalizer. And for a lot less money and hassle.
> I appreciate analog, and I feel it is the ideal medium for certain types of music, despite what it's original inventors felt was the proper end of a recording medium. <
I can't dispute that either. Logically speaking, original intent has nothing to do with quality. I'm approaching this topic from the viewpoint of a consumerist. I hate seeing people spend a lot of money on things that in my opinion are not worth the cost. Too many beginners are conned by salespeople into believing the reason their recordings sound amateurish is because they don't have the right (expensive) gear.
> Even so, many of the original pro audio pioneers, Rupert Neve comes to mind, believe that a well-maintained high-end analog machine beats digital. <
A lot of people believe a lot of things, and logically speaking, that has no direct bearing on the truth either.
--Ethan
> My original comment was tongue-in-cheek, my friend. <
Good. Some people take these discussions personally, which is never my intent. Just making sure.
> What crappy old equipment are you talking about? Trident desks? Universal Audio compressors? Neve preamps? What? I sure don't see "crappy" equipment going up in price. <
Of course all old gear is not crappy, but a lot of it is not up to the specs and standards of today. Just last night I attended a microphone shootout, and the fellow who moderated brought a low-serial number Neumann M49 that he was exteremly proud of. I hope he's not reading this, but that was the worst of the mikes heard (I left early) and the M49 was not nearly as clear and full as the Studio Projects T3. My point is that a lot of old gear that I don't think is very "clean" now sells for many times the cost of better, newer gear.
> I don't think tape compression is a "failing" in every instance. I don't think the bass response of analog tape is a "failing". <
I've been trying to separate analog tape as an effect from its recording quality. If you prefer that effect, and know of no other way to get that effect, then you are correct that it is "better" in those cases. But it seems to me that a 3 dB. boost caused by head bump is the same as a 3 dB. boost added by an equalizer. And for a lot less money and hassle.
> I appreciate analog, and I feel it is the ideal medium for certain types of music, despite what it's original inventors felt was the proper end of a recording medium. <
I can't dispute that either. Logically speaking, original intent has nothing to do with quality. I'm approaching this topic from the viewpoint of a consumerist. I hate seeing people spend a lot of money on things that in my opinion are not worth the cost. Too many beginners are conned by salespeople into believing the reason their recordings sound amateurish is because they don't have the right (expensive) gear.
> Even so, many of the original pro audio pioneers, Rupert Neve comes to mind, believe that a well-maintained high-end analog machine beats digital. <
A lot of people believe a lot of things, and logically speaking, that has no direct bearing on the truth either.
--Ethan
J
Jack Hammer
New member
Holy Shit
Do you fucking people ever make any music or do you just spend your time pouring over miute little differences imagined or otherwise in the tech specs of electronic floatsum and jetsum. Wow...In my opinion, the real reason you are having this "debate" is becuase you have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to say musically.
Hope you all eat shit and live in your miserable tweaky equipment lust dreams....
The point gentlemen (and ladies, if any..) is that if the music is great, nobody fucking cares it it is digital or analogue or tape or no tape or recorded on the shit stains of some rock stars old draws.
So, if you have music to say, go ahead. If not, I suppose you might as well fill your time with inance discussions on "my dicks bigger and better than yours". Cause after all, the equipment debate is nothing more than a carry over from childhood when you measured everybody by what they had...better bicycle, toys, etc. This is bullshit male ego crap at its relatively most expensive though houses, boats, airplanes and islands still have studio equipment beat and countries and municipalities even more so. So, if you reall want to brag, become a revolutionary, take over you country, turn into a facist dictator and call it all your own. Then, the debate is over cause you now have everything and nobody can challenge that. And, as an added benefit, if they do, you can fucking kill them cause you are the boss, main gizane, the head cheese, THE MAN!!!!!!!
Do you fucking people ever make any music or do you just spend your time pouring over miute little differences imagined or otherwise in the tech specs of electronic floatsum and jetsum. Wow...In my opinion, the real reason you are having this "debate" is becuase you have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to say musically.
Hope you all eat shit and live in your miserable tweaky equipment lust dreams....
The point gentlemen (and ladies, if any..) is that if the music is great, nobody fucking cares it it is digital or analogue or tape or no tape or recorded on the shit stains of some rock stars old draws.
So, if you have music to say, go ahead. If not, I suppose you might as well fill your time with inance discussions on "my dicks bigger and better than yours". Cause after all, the equipment debate is nothing more than a carry over from childhood when you measured everybody by what they had...better bicycle, toys, etc. This is bullshit male ego crap at its relatively most expensive though houses, boats, airplanes and islands still have studio equipment beat and countries and municipalities even more so. So, if you reall want to brag, become a revolutionary, take over you country, turn into a facist dictator and call it all your own. Then, the debate is over cause you now have everything and nobody can challenge that. And, as an added benefit, if they do, you can fucking kill them cause you are the boss, main gizane, the head cheese, THE MAN!!!!!!!
J
Jack Hammer
New member
BTW
is that Ethan dudes last name pronounced "weener".
is that Ethan dudes last name pronounced "weener".
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Re: Holy Shit
Duh.......
An engineer's job IS to worry about "the tech specs of electronic floatsum and jetsum".... a musician's job is to abso-fucking-lutely say something musically.Jack Hammer said:
Duh.......
kristian
New member
This is wrong. Would this be saying that EQ applied in software DSP is the same as EQ applied through a mackie board that would be the same as that of an SSL? If you run at 30ips on a 2 inch machine you don't get a head bump, and you recieve a very flat response. Lower end machines are a different story. Using a 1/2" 2 track to send the monitored tape to digital instantly would get you stellar results, and there are many people who use this as compression when recording to disk.
From one of your other posts i know you've been in the music business since "the late 60s" so I believe you know what EQ does to a signal. Actually I would like to reply to that as well. You said 16 bits can sound great, 24 bits is overkill for a newbie. Then how does EQ work regarding a 3dB boost anywhere along the spectrum, and why does it not matter if thats at 16 or 24 bits. I'll give you a hint, read this (http://www.digido.com/ditheressay.html)and you'll see why nobody believes 16 bit is better. Tried and tested by multitudes of newbies, homerecorders, and professionals, these facts hold true.
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
Quote from Ethan's post:
> Even so, many of the original pro audio pioneers, Rupert Neve comes to mind, believe that a well-maintained high-end analog machine beats digital. <
A lot of people believe a lot of things, and logically speaking, that has no direct bearing on the truth either.
True. I realize that comment isn't one that could be used to conclusively argue anything. It was more of an aside.
> Even so, many of the original pro audio pioneers, Rupert Neve comes to mind, believe that a well-maintained high-end analog machine beats digital. <
A lot of people believe a lot of things, and logically speaking, that has no direct bearing on the truth either.
True. I realize that comment isn't one that could be used to conclusively argue anything. It was more of an aside.
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
BTW, Jack Hammer, you're an idiot. How do you know what i'm doing musically? I work 50 hours a week, I'm married, and I contribute pretty regularly to this board. Yet I still spend at least an hour, usually two, a day working on my music. Why do you post to a forum called home recording.com and then thrash us for debating about audio? Why did you even sign up for this forum? You're obviously a bonehead, drunk off your ass, or both.
Either that, or you lashed out because you felt threatened by a conversation that's so obviously over your head.
Either that, or you lashed out because you felt threatened by a conversation that's so obviously over your head.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
kristian,
> This is wrong. Would this be saying that EQ applied in software DSP is the same as EQ applied through a mackie board that would be the same as that of an SSL? <
And the difference between those is ... ?
> If you run at 30ips on a 2 inch machine you don't get a head bump, and you recieve a very flat response. <
I was responding to the statement "I don't think the bass response of analog tape is a 'failing'." Implying that the non-flat bass response you get at some tape speeds is a feature. If that's not what cominginsecond meant, maybe he/she will clarify.
> ... I believe you know what EQ does to a signal. Then how does EQ work regarding a 3dB boost anywhere along the spectrum, and why does it not matter if thats at 16 or 24 bits. <
Yes, I know exactly what EQ does. A 3 dB. boost should do exactly what you request, nothing more and nothing less. If it doesn't then the failing is in the EQ, not whether it's based on a digital or analog design.
> ... and you'll see why nobody believes 16 bit is better. <
I never said 16 bits is better. I said it is good enough as a storage medium in almost all cases if you record at sensible levels. If using 24 bits did not require half again more disk space and CPU and drive loading, I'd be all for it. But don't say nobody believes 16 bits is better. Just today there is a (surprising) thread over at ProSoundWeb where several people claim they prefer the sound of 16 bits. I took the comments to be similar to preferring the sound of analog tape, where a slight dirtiness is sometimes desirable.
> I'll give you a hint, read this (url)
Here's the opening paragraph from that article:
"You just bought a new, all-purpose Digital Audio Workstation, and discovered the equalizers sound so edgy they tear the hair out of your ear canals. You wonder why your digital reverb leaches the ambience out of your music, when it's supposed to be adding ambience. Your do-all digital processor certainly does all--except what goes in seems to come out sounding veiled, dry and lifeless."
Those are some of the dumbest statements I've ever seen. When I apply EQ with my UltraFunk plug-ins the result is exactly as I expect. And none of the digital reverbs I use "leech ambience" from the music. To be sure, there are a lot of crappy digital reverbs. But the problem is not digital per se. Rather, it's the algorithms used and the trade-off between density of reflections and CPU consumption.
--Ethan
> This is wrong. Would this be saying that EQ applied in software DSP is the same as EQ applied through a mackie board that would be the same as that of an SSL? <
And the difference between those is ... ?
> If you run at 30ips on a 2 inch machine you don't get a head bump, and you recieve a very flat response. <
I was responding to the statement "I don't think the bass response of analog tape is a 'failing'." Implying that the non-flat bass response you get at some tape speeds is a feature. If that's not what cominginsecond meant, maybe he/she will clarify.
> ... I believe you know what EQ does to a signal. Then how does EQ work regarding a 3dB boost anywhere along the spectrum, and why does it not matter if thats at 16 or 24 bits. <
Yes, I know exactly what EQ does. A 3 dB. boost should do exactly what you request, nothing more and nothing less. If it doesn't then the failing is in the EQ, not whether it's based on a digital or analog design.
> ... and you'll see why nobody believes 16 bit is better. <
I never said 16 bits is better. I said it is good enough as a storage medium in almost all cases if you record at sensible levels. If using 24 bits did not require half again more disk space and CPU and drive loading, I'd be all for it. But don't say nobody believes 16 bits is better. Just today there is a (surprising) thread over at ProSoundWeb where several people claim they prefer the sound of 16 bits. I took the comments to be similar to preferring the sound of analog tape, where a slight dirtiness is sometimes desirable.
> I'll give you a hint, read this (url)
Here's the opening paragraph from that article:
"You just bought a new, all-purpose Digital Audio Workstation, and discovered the equalizers sound so edgy they tear the hair out of your ear canals. You wonder why your digital reverb leaches the ambience out of your music, when it's supposed to be adding ambience. Your do-all digital processor certainly does all--except what goes in seems to come out sounding veiled, dry and lifeless."
Those are some of the dumbest statements I've ever seen. When I apply EQ with my UltraFunk plug-ins the result is exactly as I expect. And none of the digital reverbs I use "leech ambience" from the music. To be sure, there are a lot of crappy digital reverbs. But the problem is not digital per se. Rather, it's the algorithms used and the trade-off between density of reflections and CPU consumption.
--Ethan
M
Man
New member
> Those are some of the dumbest statements I've ever seen.
Ouch...!
Ethan, they do sound pretty funny now but I believe that article was written several years ago (revised Nov. 2000) when many digital multi-trackers were using 18 bit converters, 16 bit recorders, 20-bit at best DSPs, and who knows whether they were dithering or truncating.
So by the time you bounced a track to record it wet and then mixed the song with further processing, the digital integrity of the original track was seriously compromised...
All of which only proves your point of course! thanks for hanging in there with this discussion
Actually my VS-880vxp has the above specs and I don't think I'll ever need anything else. Of course, with my music, it hardly matters!
Ouch...!
Ethan, they do sound pretty funny now but I believe that article was written several years ago (revised Nov. 2000) when many digital multi-trackers were using 18 bit converters, 16 bit recorders, 20-bit at best DSPs, and who knows whether they were dithering or truncating.
So by the time you bounced a track to record it wet and then mixed the song with further processing, the digital integrity of the original track was seriously compromised...
All of which only proves your point of course! thanks for hanging in there with this discussion
Actually my VS-880vxp has the above specs and I don't think I'll ever need anything else. Of course, with my music, it hardly matters!
kristian
New member
you HAVE TO BE KIDDING. where are you from? using more bits requires more space, just like getting higher headroom in analog requires more tape width. You can build a computer for $500 that can play in real time with FX 16 tracks of 24/48. But i guess you don't care since 16bit is just good enough for you.
I've noticed in the past week you've been spouting BS around here. Its really not good to have someone like you telling newbies the wrong information.
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42525 read the first two posts by sonusman but don't pay attention to the BS, just the facts. Its a pretty good explanation of how EQ qorks quickly, without refering to how it actually screws with phase, SPL, and distortion. Those three components of the sound will be different with each "3dB boost" applied to the signal. Tape doesn't have a bell, or a shelf, but a shape depending on the head, the mackie EQ depends on parametric or shelf, and i couldn't tell you the specifics of an SSL, but i guarantee its different from a mackie
. EQ will sound different depending on analog/digital application and which algorithms/brand of board you use.I hope you read the dither essay to the end, becuase if you didn't, i know you missed the point. welcome to the boards, they can get rough.