Help with digital

Kristian,
Ethan Winer doesn't need defending, but he's an asset to this or any board. Not only are you simply disrespectful, you're not reading well or taking the opportunity to defend your position.

When he asks, " And the difference between those is ... ? ", he's asking you to explain the difference if you can. Why don't you? And don't point us somewhere else.

It's a weakness of boards like this that anyone can spout off. I commend Ethan for taking yours and cominginsecond's comments at face value and explaining his position, which is far more than either of you have done.

I urge you to take a step back and read this thread objectively. You probably won't do that, and Ethan may tire of discussing this subject with individuals whose only defense is to call someone a BS'er.

His credentials are publicly documented if you care to know, www.ethanwiner.com
I'm not saying he does or doesn't know everything, but he certainly is entitled to his opinion. And he has supported his position very articulately every step of the way in this thread. Why don't you take the opportunity to do the same?
 
Last edited:
I commend Ethan for taking yours and cominginsecond's comments at face value and explaining his position, which is far more than either of you have done.
Click to expand...
Would you try reading my post again before you say that I haven't explained my position? My postion is that digital is the best in certain instances and analog is the best in other instances. I explained that very thoroughly, or did you even read my posts? You're something else, Man. :(

Plus, why would you criticize me and Kristian, when there's some jackass up there criticizing even the concept of debating technical concepts in recording. Nothing Kristian or I said was inflammatory, which is far better than you can say about Jack Hammer. Plus, my dialogue with Ethan may have been a little testy, but I was never rude. I was just pointing out what I felt were flaws in his argument. Nothing wrong with that at all.
 
cominginsecond,

I've read them several times, that's why I made "reading" an issue. Honestly, I don't feel you've explained your position "very thoroughly". I think you've demonstrated a passion and feeling, and that's cool.

I'm not furthering this discussion, so I'll step aside. But, Ethan has not presupposed anything, he made it clear his argument is technical. I think he has made some great remarks, I particularly like "the phenomenon of analog warmth".

But more than that, I think the bottom line is home studio musicians can create great sounding digital recordings with their 16 bit multi-trackers. It's not bad advice to discourage looking for that magic tube processor. In other words, think "inside" the box.

I was not trying to criticize you personally. Sorry if it came off that way.
 
But, Ethan has not presupposed anything, he made it clear his argument is technical.
Click to expand...
When he's trying to argue that digital is better because it's more accurate, and then supports his argument by saying "Well digital is more accurate." he is engaging in the fallacy known as circular thinking. That's what I meant when I said that he was presupposing the point he was trying to argue. He didn't say anything like "Digital is better because accurate reproductions of sound objectively sound better than inaccurate reproductions." He didn't say that because it would be very difficult to successfully make that argument. Instead, to make his argument, he repeated, in different ways, the conclusion he wanted to convince us of: that digital is better because it's more accurate.

Another thing, the statement "Digital is the best recording medium because it's the most accurate recording medium" is not a technical argument, it's an aesthetic one. At the core of the argument is a presupposition that accurate is better. I would argue that better is better. In some instances, analog is better, and in some digital is better. This is my subjective opinion. Other people's subjective opinion is that digital sounds better because the natural sound of instruments always sounds better to their ears than un-natural sound, and if they acknowledge that that is their subjective preference, I have no problems whatsoever. But to say, unequivically (hope I spelled that right) that digital is always "better," without qualifying it in any way, is bound to bring responses from people who disagree.

His original quote was this "Digital is a far better and more accurate recording medium than analog tape could ever hope to be" He said better and more accurate, meaning that it doesn't make sense to say that when he said "better" he really just meant technically better. Otherwise, he would have just said "better" or "more accurate" not "better and more accurate." Does that make sense to you? Far from making it clear from the beginning that his argument was simply a technical one, he made it clear that his position was that digital was objectively better in every way.

Honestly, I don't feel you've explained your position "very thoroughly".
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter what you "feel". If you read my posts you'll see that I've repeatedly argued that digital is best in some instances, analog is best in others, and what those instances are is very subjective.

I think you've demonstrated a passion and feeling, and that's cool.
Click to expand...
I've argued using logic. I may have infused my passion for this issue into my argument, but I always made my argument logically, not emotionally.

You know, you may be wondering why I'm making such a big deal out of this. It really has very little to do with the analog vs. digital debate, and everything to do with people who can't distiguish valid ways of arguing/reasoning from invalid ways. They frustrate me.
 
In the end, I'd like to state that I agree with almost everything Ethan says. Digital does not have to be cold: what goes in is what comes out. If the signal coming out of your pre is cold, your recording will be as well. I also agree that that digital workstation quote up there has some awful stupid stuff in it. I'm glad Ethan's contributing, and the only problem I had with anything he said is his presenting his opinion as objective truth. We all do that sometimes, though. Also, now that I've reread Kristian's posts, I do think he needs to take it down a notch. As for Jack Hammer, I think he needs to stay the f&*k off this board. What an ignoramus!
 
Man,

> 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... <

Yeah, like three generations of analog tape copying don't hurt the sound! :)

--Ethan
 
Kristian,

> Its really not good to have someone like you telling newbies the wrong information. <

That's funny, because I was going to say the exact same thing about you. I'll also add that wanting someone to be silenced shows a real insecurity with your own position. And it's always been the preferred tactic of dictators.

> read the first two posts by sonusman

It's hard to take seriously anyone who won't even use their real name.

> Tape doesn't have a bell, or a shelf, but a shape depending on the head <

That says volumes about your understanding of EQ.

--Ethan
 
Last edited:
Man,

> When he asks, " And the difference between those is ... ? ", he's asking you to explain the difference if you can. Why don't you? And don't point us somewhere else. <

Thanks. Through all of the discussions here and elsewhere, I am always careful to explain what I think makes sense, and ask pointed questions when someone makes a statement I dispute. I wish others would do that too. For example, in an exchange with "Teacher" I addressed every one of his questions and points, yet he never addressed any of mine. He'd just tell me I should blindly believe the "experts" in another forum as he does.

It's very easy to "hit and run" in forums like these, or call names instead of discuss the facts. I much prefer to keep things on a professional level.

--Ethan
 
I'm coming in too late to really enter the debate, but I just wanna state I'm breaking my head on the Dither Essay. I never had any problems with my (demo-) recordings on a VS1680, or even the ones I made on a Mackie D8b/Fostex D16. I record it, put it on CD, and had great results, and now suddenly somebody says that it isn't just that simple.

Why can't it be that simple?:)
 
CIS,

> He didn't say anything like "Digital is better because accurate reproductions of sound objectively sound better than inaccurate reproductions." <

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Let me try again:

Digital recording using decent gear is always better than analog tape because it is has a flatter frequency response, less hiss and distortion, and can withstand more copy generations without sounding crappy.

> the statement "Digital is the best recording medium because it's the most accurate recording medium" is not a technical argument, it's an aesthetic one. <

Actually, that is exactly backwards. That digital is more accurate proves that it is technically superior. If you happen to find analog more pleasing because of its added artifacts, that is a matter of aesthetics.

> Digital does not have to be cold: what goes in is what comes out. ... I also agree that that digital workstation quote up there has some awful stupid stuff in it. <

Exactly! At this point, our only real disagreement is my contention that being more accurate is by definition being better.

--Ethan
 
Actually, that is exactly backwards. That digital is more accurate proves that it is technically superior. If you happen to find analog more pleasing because of its added artifacts, that is a matter of aesthetics.
Click to expand...
Preferring either digital or analog because of the way it sounds is a matter of aesthetics. You can't say that for one and not for the other. You prefer the medium you use to be as accuarate as possible, all the time. That's your subjective, aesthetic preference. I prefer analog for some things and digital for others. It's easier for me to get certain things to sound right by simply doing one thing: recording to tape. I'm not saying it would be impossible to get that sound recording to digital, it would just be much more difficult. That's my subjective, aesthetic preference.
Digital recording using decent gear is always better than analog tape because it is has a flatter frequency response, less hiss and distortion, and can withstand more copy generations without sounding crappy.
Click to expand...
For this to not be a circular argument, you would need to add some soft of therefore to what's already not in contention, that digital is more accurate. Something like, "Digital is more accurate, and I personally like the sound of accurately reproduced instruments better than the sound of instruments as recorded on analog tape, in all cases, therefore Digital is better than analog." In any case, it's a subjective argument. You can't prove that digital is objectively better by pointing at it's superior technical specs, just like I can't prove that analog is better by pointing at Sgt. Pepper's.
 
I'm getting to old for these arguments....:)

With out getting into the debate of analog V.S digital...each has its use, I do want to knock digital recording from a very important aspect though.

I finished a recording of a kit using a computer only (PT rig)
I usualy record to "2"inch or Adats. This time I had no choice as I had to be mobile with the tracks transfering them from studio to studio.
During the recording I realized (as I have before) that either I wasnt placing the mics correctly or something is wrong with this computer recording. I was sure after fiddiling around with the mics that it wasnt that as I had done this setup over 100 times in that very same room that I knew extremly well.

I ran the same mics though a soundworkshop mixer that has a very good sound and checked the "summing amplifier" - the point were the various seperate tracks sum on the buss, and I found the problem!.

The summing on the software was thin small and lifeless...while the summing on the mixer was alive full with depth.
If I were to discribe it in words, it was as if I could hear the snare head move in and out after every strike while on the digital summing it was with out the "whoosh" of the head comming back.
I then tried to use a different software (a creamware software) and found the same computer problem again.

I assure you all that this was no hair splitting issue. For rock drums this was a significant difference that even Joe shmoe would here. This is some of the problems I hear in many of the digital mixers like the Yamaha series.

I plan on making a sample of both of the recordings on my next kit recording and posting it here if I can find the time. Hopefully in 2-3 weeks.

If anybody doubts my hearing :mad: :D I will send them to another engineer ( who is an expert in modifying mixers and pres) who I draged into the room to make sure I'm not losing my hearing.
It is possible that other algors. on different softwares are better the PT but when you record digital you must consider this aspect.
of digital mixing and analog mixing.

Shailat
 
CIS,

> you would need to add some soft of therefore to what's already not in contention, that digital is more accurate. Something like, "Digital is more accurate, and I personally like the sound of accurately reproduced instruments better than the sound of instruments as recorded on analog tape, in all cases, therefore Digital is better than analog." <

Sold! :) Now we can move on to something else, like which is better, tubes or solid state. <kidding>

--Ethan
 
Shailat,

> The summing on the software was thin small and lifeless...while the summing on the mixer was alive full with depth. <

I have heard that more than a few times, but I suspect the real problem is elsewhere. Then again, I use SAW and Sonar, not ProTools. The DAWs I use combine the tracks by adding and multiplying numbers. There's really no way for that kind of math to yield a "thin" sound unless the original tracks sound that way. Most versions of ProTools do their DSP and mixing in outboard hardware, right? Maybe that's where the problem lies.

> If I were to discribe it in words, it was as if I could hear the snare head move in and out after every strike while on the digital summing it was with out the "whoosh" of the head comming back. <

That sounds like a phasing / mike placement issue to me.

> I plan on making a sample of both of the recordings on my next kit recording and posting it here if I can find the time. Hopefully in 2-3 weeks. <

The difficulty in doing that is having nothing change except the point at which the tracks combine. And that's impossible, no?

--Ethan
 
> Sold! Now we can move on to something else, like which is better, tubes or solid state.

Define better...:D
 
Ethan,
For once lets drop the matematics of how can digital sum all the overtones and loads of information lets say on 100Hz and summing them and having to lower the faders, to lose resolution, to have a computer add up the numbers but to still come out with a acurate summing with out any change in the sum, no DSP changing as panning and level changing and DSP chips that dont have enough bit depth to store all the digits created by an operation. Are that on a single operation it might not be noticable but on a add up you hear it all right......

Lets make it simple and non sientific by hearing audio clips.
Either we hear it or we dont.......if it sounds better it is if it doesnt it isn't. Simple as that.

I dont have to change anything. I will run the tracks using the same pres to the computer and to the board and then burn them on another computer to wav files. What change do you mean?
the master fader?the converters? I'll use Adat converters which in most peoples opinion tend to suck today compared to home recording highier end gear witht he mixer...a disadvantage for the mixer yet I still will take my chances....


I reconize phasing when I hear it.....
What I had meant with the wooshing sound was not a detailed describtion of what I heard but I was being colorfull.
As if I could hear the drum head move in and out on the mixer compared to the computer were it sounded like it moved with the strike but didnt come back so as if I was losing depth...
 
Last edited:
Shailat,

> For once lets drop the matematics

And go back to believing in magic and superstition?

> Lets make it simple and non sientific by hearing audio clips. <

I have no problem with that, but any comparisons must be performed scientifically. Otherwise you have nothing but vague memories of how you think it sounded before. It still is not clear to me how you came to the conclusion that computer mixing busses are "thin." I need to know the specifics of signal path and what was changed.

I've posted some of the following before, and maybe it's time to post it again. Here are two quotes from Roger Nichols in his EQ Mag forum:

from May 2, 2001

It is amazing to me that nobody ever complained about analog recording like they do about digital recording.

I never heard "The guard band is too narrow on the 3M machine, so I prefer the Ampex MM-1000 for my recording. The flutter frequency is too low on the MCI machine, and the distance between the erase head and record head are too big to make tight punches. I like the 40 track head stack on the Stephens machine, but I will only mix to a Scully with dbx."

Mostly you didn't hear about these things because you could not measure them easily, or other analog anomalies masked them. Now that we are in the digital era, there are new things to complain about. The way to figure out if a system works well is to use it, or listen to something that was done on it and see if you like it.

I am doing a project right now completely in ProTools 24bit/48kHz. The musicians were great, everything sounds great, so that is all I care about. The TDM buss doesn't sound thin to me. What is a thin TDM buss supposed to sound like? I have done a dozen albums completely in ProTools, including three Grammy winning Bela Fleck albums.

You take what you have to work with and you make it sound good. If you have an analog board to mix through like a Neve or SSL, then that is what you use. The album of the year this year and best engineered recording were recorded 16-bit and mixed through a 30 year old analog Neve console. Analog consoles soften up the sound a little. We liked it better through a digital console, but we could not get the time we needed at a digital console studio, so we mixed it through the analog console and did the best we could. We could not have mixed it on an 02R or d8b because of the fader resolution, not because of the digital sound of the console. To make 0.1dB level changes you need 1024 step faders. Those consoles don't have that.

I have mixed other projects that were less exacting through the 02R and the d8b. They came out fine. I prefer the additional benefits of digital all the way. The guys complaining about thin TDM busses I will bet do not have a ProTools TDM system. There are not 200,000 TDM systems out there because they have thin TDM busses.

Roger

================

from May 3, 2001

I knew someone who blew up the engine in her BMW just going back and forth to work 5 miles each day. She was always in city traffic and never exceeded the speed limits. It turns out that the dealer sold her a standard transmission which she did not know how to drive. She never took the car out of first gear, running the engine near red-line all the time. It finally threw a rod through the side of the engine block.

There is nothing wrong with the mix buss, it is the way you use it.

I got a mastering job a few weeks ago. The guys worked a year on their album in ProTools, mixed it in ProTools, and sent me the files to master. It was the worst sounding piece of crap I have ever heard in my 40 years of recording. You could not tell the guitars from the keyboards, the bass from the vocals, the drums from the distortion. This was not due to the mix buss. It was just bad recording, bad mixing and bad effects perfectly preserved in 24bit audio.

Analog recording masks tons of problems. The harmonic distortion on analog tape is 100 to 1000 times more than digital, and helps cover up some recording errors. Analog tape compresses the signal if it is too loud, digital just clips it off. I have heard hundreds of bad analog recordings. What you do need for reference is to know what the original sounded like before it was recorded. The only way that is possible is to be there during the recording. If the instruments sound like crap, the digital recording will preserve it better than the analog recording.

As far as the mix buss thing, how come it works fine for me and not for someone else? Maybe my recording levels are better. Maybe you don't need all 64 tracks at full level with the faders at zero mixing together with the master fader pulled down 40dB.

Gain structure must be followed in digital as well as analog. If you are overloading the master fader, you pull down the source tracks until you can put the master fader back up to zero. If you don't do that then you will be distorting the mix buss on a digital mixer AND an analog mixer.

With no EQ, pan and level on an 02R, d8b, DMX, and ProTools will be exactly the same. I have listened to it, measured it, and make records that way every day. End of discussion.

Maybe who ever started the rant has a bad console, or a bad TDM buss cable, or some other broken device that is leading to these conclusions. Until someone shows me some facts or collected data to prove the claims, I am going to keep on working, thinking that everything is alright.

Roger
 
Well,
I cant argue with Roger and I'm not in his leauge but my ears tell me otherwise.

I havn't checked it out with a TDM PT rig but I did with a creamware Luna and a digi001 and a collegue did the same with Paris.
I wasnt aware of the problem untill lately as I never multitrack to a computer but did so on this ocasion due to technical limitations.
I will do what I can with getting audio tracks for you to listen with a detailed describtion of what I did as soon as I can get some time on my hands in the studio. I hope during March.

I'm not a digital basher nor analog fanatic. Each has its strong to weak capabilities. But I have my doubts about digital recording, (even more so using semi pro audiocards around the $1000 and less) being hailed for more then its worth.
 
Won't get involved in this discussion - to many people trying to get in the way of logic.

Shailat, you are correct in some of your observations regarding PT.
Again, without getting involved in endless techno brabble:
Next time your track into PT ensure your levels are correct going to disk. Do NOT use your PT faders, have them all levelled out.
Try that ... and listen to the difference.
 
sjoko2,

> Next time your track into PT ensure your levels are correct going to disk. Do NOT use your PT faders, have them all levelled out. Try that ... and listen to the difference. <

Excellent point! In the Windows DAWs I use, the record levels you set in software are useless. You must leave them all at zero and control the record level with the preamps or whatever is between the sound source and sound card inputs.

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top