I actually laughed when I read this ....

[regebro]

because in digital domain, what you really deal with is not 'real thing' - but rather information about 'real thing' - you deal with data

It stops being "the real thing" and becomes data as soon as its hits that microphone membrane.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Actually, the world IS digital, on a quantum level

ahhh, yes. If you are willing to stop at that level, you can say so - to complete your model of the world.

The problem with digital model is not the limitation of level (or depth) of quantization, but the inability to recognize (register) the very existence of a space between "1" and "0", and thus the space between 'two' does not exist and thus in digital domain - there's no relationship between "two" - the relationship, that holds the real world (analog that is) together. See?

/respects

 

[Dr ZEE]

It stops being "the real thing" and becomes data as soon as its hits that microphone membrane.

oh boy.

I don't know. Do I need to say anything? . Correct yourself. Unless it's a joke or something

/respects

 

[tanoka]

Regebro speaks much about the potential of digital recording and obviously a high level of sophistication already exists with it but if we were to name our favorite songs ever how many of them would have employed digital tools??? Is it mere coincidence that music and culture in general especially in its recorded form thrived before the standard switched? If its taking a whole lifetime to get digital media arguably up to par with analog semblance isn't that time, energy, and money lost that could have been focused on the music itself to reiterate Dr Zee's point. The problem seems bigger than the disposable speculation value of digital, what about its format. You can delete a .wav file without leaving a trace as if it never really existed, we should be so lucky with tape where history is made and preserved in a physical world. There's something wrong with anything perfectly destroyable and/or clonable such as a soundfile.

Keeping it real isn't a metaphor.

regards,
Tenyu

 

[arjoll]

Hi - I've read this thread with interest (and some disappointment).

I was at one of my client's today - I work in IT. They are a digital studio, just a small operation, with a mixture of Aardvark/Audition and Protools gear (they are currently transitioning a lot of stuff to Protools).

We were talking about various issues, and got on to the digital/analogue thing. I am not an analogue purist, but my wife plans to record a CD soon and I'm looking at laying the drums and bass down on a TSR-8, then moving them into Audition to do the rest. What we got to - and its already been discussed in this thread - is that it really doesn't matter too much. In most cases the choice of mics, offboard gear and the skills of the musicians, engineer and other aspects matter a lot more than the technology used to record it.

Both digital and analogue have issues. Analogue adds a pleasant distortion to the signal and other artifacts that can make it sound warm. It adds tape hiss that may be a problem (listen to U2's album October - Steve Lilywhite loved his compression, and it really brings out the hiss).

Digital does not have perfect resolution, so it introduces its own distortion through approximation - although at 24 bit its really not too bad. It can sound sterile due to the lack of the distortion you get through analogue. But on the other hand with the right tools you don't loose quality with multiple copies etc.

One issue I have read a lot about (including here, from people I respect) is the apparent lack of quality in current music - especially chart stuff. I believe that this has a lot more to do with aggressive mastering, marketing and lack of talent than the fact that its recorded digitally.

A couple of years ago I read a very interesting article by Bob Orban and Frank Fotti (its referenced here). Bob and Frank represent companies who make two of the most popular broadcast processors on the market - the Orban Optimod range and the Cutting Edge omnia range. In the article they address a problem occurring more and more in broadcast - overly aggressive mastering leading to clipping or excessive limiting on tracks destined for airplay. In much the same way that some FM broadcasters process the heck out of everything, it seems that mastering engineers are pushing everything to get that 'hot' or 'loud' (or as I call it, nauseating) sound for their track.

No while a little bit of controlled, distortion-cancelled clipping (as used in units like the Optimod, omnia and my favourite, the Aphex 2020) works nicely for FM, clipping in mastering can sound really harsh and unpleasant. Worse still, put this clipped audio through a broadcast processor and the phase rotation (used to make programme material more symmetrical and easier to process) moves the flat top pretty much anywhere - and makes the product sound like crap.

I believe that in a lot of cases this mastering is what is making modern music sound like rubbish.

Now, here's a disclaimer. I am a qualified Chartered Accountant and work as an IT consultant. I do electronics as a hobby and am on a local broadcasting trust. I am not a musician, I am not a professional sound engineer, and I do not get in to waveform analysis etc. So what I have just said may be complete rubbish . If you disagree with me you may well be right. If you agree, you may be wrong . But this is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

In summary. Analogue good and bad. Digital good and bad. Modern music good and bad. Modern mastering bad. Aphex good. dbx good. Mackie ok. Behringer bad.

Cya
Andrew

 

[regebro]

ahhh, yes. If you are willing to stop at that level, you can say so - to complete your model of the world.

The problem with digital model is not the limitation of level (or depth) of quantization, but the inability to recognize (register) the very existence of a space between "1" and "0", and thus the space between 'two' does not exist and thus in digital domain - there's no relationship between "two" - the relationship, that holds the real world (analog that is) together. See?

/respects

Yes I see. And you are incorrect, the "real world" doesn't have that relationship either. Unless you are willing to turn all modern physics on it's head. The idea that the problem with digital is that it in some way is inaccurate or has something missing is a myth, high-end digital is today capable of much more accurate representation of any sound than analog will ever be.

In fact, I believe the problem with digital is largely that it is TOO accurate. If you like, digital sounds accurate, analog sounds good.

Sorry of this somehow goes against your religion.

oh boy.

I don't know. Do I need to say anything? . Correct yourself. Unless it's a joke or something

There is nothing to correct. Sorry.

 

[acorec]

********
Yeah, yeah yeah... it's all just silly blah. Waste of time. Yada yada...

maybe..
not for me , so
I like humor, I like a lil of word-fight and all that, but in my case, actually the 'issue' digital vs analog as main recording method has become very serious and practical matter.
I also think that the issue is VERY relevent to specificly 'home recording', to highlight here, that home-based studio recording in most cases (?) is to record your own music, i.e. the producer also is a composer, songwriter, player, singer - all at the same time.
Regardless of how much brains, tallent, creative energy and simply ability to work productively Xhours/per day one person can be - there's a limit there. So do you like it or not, you as musician/producer have to find your focus,
Here's what I am aiming here at.
To try to sum it up as shortly as I can. Being a pretty long time digital-recording based self-producer I have noticed something for myself. While chasing the overall quality of the final product (master mix) and working with various digital recording tools (standalone HD recorders plus computer-based mutitrack recording plus all the variety of production software) - I always (every step of the way) have to 'look over the shoulder' ... because in digital domain, what you really deal with is not 'real thing' - but rather information about 'real thing' - you deal with data.
You may say, well, so what? at the end it does not matter.
Maybe so. You can sure get the result that pleases you, - If you are lucky. Or if you really do dig deep into every step on the way - meaning you really do know what's happening to the 'data' while you click this and click that.
You can completely ignore all this and just use your ear as judge. That's cool, but then you are playing game with your recording material - and you don't know where and when you cheat yourself (during complex playing-recording-producing process it is very easy to miss many details, but they will all sum-up at the end into one "mysterious" ugly 'snow ball', and if you do pay attention, then you will notice it and will ask yourself: what the hell is wrong with this picture????). And as we all know, the 'software developer' is not going to tell you what's going on. You get a nice set of buttons, knobs and sliders and even needle-VU-metters on your screen - just to make you feel right and comfy' , you are not going to find in 'DAW user manual' that the 'VU metters on your screen is actully a special 'visual' and pretty sophisticated program which is designed to look as you as 'customer' wish it to look like and act like.... arhhhhhhhhhh
Or you can really study digital recording and processing technology and dig deep into every step on the way ... which is right thing to do, but isn't easy (btw, the more you actually know about it - less you like it... that's just my experience ). But again, I repete again - the digital 'tools' are not completely open to you - you can't really know 100% what's going on.
OK. So, say, you do feel fine technical-knowledge-wise in digital domain and feel (or 'know for sure') that you do everything right. That's pretty good, but you still have to deal with all the 'little and big pimps' all the way through.
And then the time comes to actually playing your nasty guitar or drums or trumpet or sing or you name it - ...here Ya go.
So how does it go? What comes in - comes out? Right? - Nop. Not so. Or maybe too much so... depends on how you look at it. Either way you start doing this and theat, treating this, treating that etc etc... working it out, another words, trying to get again something which could be achieved easier, better way.
If you know well digital recording technology - then you know as well, that it DOES NOT work as "click and play". It is only being sold to you that way .

Now, you see, I know I am going to strike some nerve here, but I am going to say this: with analog recording it is as simple as "push play/rec" and play.
And as result what you get? - you get the 'analog recording' which you 'would wish' and burn your brains out trying to get with 'other way of recording'

I am not going to go through analog recording 'issues'. I just say: "all analog recording issues are in your hands", cos they are damn analog.
No, I will not give up my computer and HD recorders. I'm not mad, you know ... but it will serve me as supplement, not the core.

So, well, to me it is a big deal. Analog recording frees allots of mind and energy for me, so I can spend more of it on actually playing/performing.
So at the end - it IS pretty serious discussion

/respects,

*********
p.s.
I was just going through some older magazines... interesting reads all over the place, stuff that came out during 'rising star of DAW and MDM'... heh heh
Here a quote from article, titled: "Recording Drums The MDM Way". This is from RECORDING magazine april 1998.
The article actually ok overall, but the 'pre-attitude' of the time is there as well:

HAH HAH HAH! Ohhhhhhhhh. That's so poetic, dude....
There's also a top-page highlight for the article there, that reads:


Oooooo-KEY....
How about start the reels and just drum, damn it!?
that's what I do

/respects

Dude, don't take it so seriously. As an EE and a software engineer I can definitely tell you, analog is not real either. It is just a representation (data) archived to a magnetic medium (exactly like digital). An analog signal is reproduced differently depending on how high the quality of the reproducer is. That is all. Analog tape uses "domains" to represent the data, and although people think that analog is a continuous changing signal, they are wrong. Regbro kind'a has it right. Tape does have a "bit depth" in that there are only so many magnetic domains in any given area. You cannot record "reality" on any medium. Tape is what you are used to, you like tape, therefore it is. For the new generation, digital is here to stay, like it or not. Analog is not coming back for a multitude of reasons. The new generation who have never even seen a cassette will become great recording engineers with a whole different skill set than the analog guys, and it will sound great.


So, just enjoy the analog past and don't worry about the digital future because in a few years the hardware/sodtware will change for the better.

 

[monty]

This thread belongs in the mic forum.

 

[Beck]

Dude, don't take it so seriously. As an EE and a software engineer I can definitely tell you, analog is not real either. It is just a representation (data) archived to a magnetic medium (exactly like digital). An analog signal is reproduced differently depending on how high the quality of the reproducer is. That is all. Analog tape uses "domains" to represent the data, and although people think that analog is a continuous changing signal, they are wrong. Regbro kind'a has it right. Tape does have a "bit depth" in that there are only so many magnetic domains in any given area. You cannot record "reality" on any medium. Tape is what you are used to, you like tape, therefore it is. For the new generation, digital is here to stay, like it or not. Analog is not coming back for a multitude of reasons. The new generation who have never even seen a cassette will become great recording engineers with a whole different skill set than the analog guys, and it will sound great.


So, just enjoy the analog past and don't worry about the digital future because in a few years the hardware/sodtware will change for the better.

Digital terminology will not work for analog. But, if you were going to assign a resolution to analog tape it would be comparatively infinite within the 20 Hz to 20 kHz frequency range. This is pure physics – nothing subjective about it. It concerns the density and size of magnetic particles (domains) in modern tape and the frequency lengths of sound within the range of human perception.

But all this is really academic and doesn’t speak to the issue at hand – why so many engineers, artists, listeners, etc have had problems with what digital does to sound for so many years.

You are speaking of digital as though it were the future while ignoring its 25+ years failed past. Digital was the new technology of my generation not this generation. I was there when it was born and I’ve been waiting for it to grow up ever since. I watched as the recording industry sold off or put into storage its analog machines only to have them rolled back out less than a decade later. About 1998-99 is when it hit the critical stage. There are now more studios using analog tape at some stage than there were then.

Digital peaked once already in the professional recording world. With hindsight now part of the equation it is no longer seen as the panacea once hoped. It must become something very different than it is now to completely displace analog. Analog has desirable properties that digital currently cannot emulate. That’s the bottom line.

It is not a simple mater of a new superior technology replacing old. That perception may be pervasive in the amateur “home recording” community, but everywhere else it’s a huge issue that’s not going away anytime soon.

-Tim

 

[acorec]

Digital terminology will not work for analog. But, if you were going to assign a resolution to analog tape it would be comparatively infinite within the 20 Hz to 20 kHz frequency range. This is pure physics – nothing subjective about it. It concerns the density and size of magnetic particles (domains) in modern tape and the frequency lengths of sound within the range of human perception.

But all this is really academic and doesn’t speak to the issue at hand – why so many engineers, artists, listeners, etc have had problems with what digital does to sound for so many years.

You are speaking of digital as though it were the future while ignoring its 25+ years failed past. Digital was the new technology of my generation not this generation. I was there when it was born and I’ve been waiting for it to grow up ever since. I watched as the recording industry sold off or put into storage its analog machines only to have them rolled back out less than a decade later. About 1998-99 is when it hit the critical stage. There are now more studios using analog tape at some stage than there were then.

Digital peaked once already in the professional recording world. With hindsight now part of the equation it is no longer seen as the panacea once hoped. It must become something very different than it is now to completely displace analog. Analog has desirable properties that digital currently cannot emulate. That’s the bottom line.

It is not a simple mater of a new superior technology replacing old. That perception may be pervasive in the amateur “home recording” community, but everywhere else it’s a huge issue that’s not going away anytime soon.

-Tim

Be that as it may, analog is gone. If they started making new machines, there is no way they would sell them. Judging by the mic forum, no one wants to spend more than $100 to record today. Home digital recording gear is the one market that is getting the shaft big time. The pro's have great sounding equipment already, but the ticket for admission is (like the old days of analog) like $100,000 and up. It is this equipment that sounds wonderful. Now, the home hack recorders (indie bullshit artists) who people seem to have a problem with (soundwise) still use cheap consumer recording equipment that sounds like shit. Hell, if they made new multitrack recorders worth a damn ($8000-up) like the old ones even you would not pony up the dough. No offense to you at all. Who has $8000 to buy anything these days? Analog is dead. The old machines will sooner or later die. Digital is all there will be and it is still in it's infancy. Analog is an 80 year old technology which reached it's pinnacle in the early 90s (!) It was at the END of it's lifetime that the greatest leaps in quality happened. I say it all the time, when the analog heads enter my studio they change their minds about digital recording by just listening to some master mixes.

I have always said that consumer digital stuff is not comparable to analog equipment at all. They both are targeted for different markets and a $200 eBay analog machine is obviously going to sound better than a $200 digital setup because the $200 analog machine costed $2000 and up (I think you may have missed out on the E-16 which went, in it's heyday, for $7000).

TASCAMS were even more expensive. I can't say anymore except I have written a number of posts outlining the same shit like 3 times. If digital bashing is all this forum is good for, you guys are gonna be in a world of pain when the analog parts/machines grind to a halt. They are already drying up and price on used stuff is rising *alot*. For me. I have a great analog machine that I got a great deal on (a total pro machine, why would anyone miss the opportunity to buy a $40,000 machine for $4000?) and have most of the spare parts to last quite a while. I also record digital with a Fostex D2424LV HD 24 track recorder and it works (and sounds) like my analog machine. I have no problem getting "warm" sound out of either.

BTW, Pro Tools, right, wrong or indifferent is the industry standard. Analog machines in mostly all the pro studios I have seen lately only use analog for bed tracks. The bed tracks are always sent to pro tools for overdubs and mixed on an analog board. This is pretty much the standard today (even at Abbey Road). If you like, then Steve Albini is a total analog head, but not for the reasons of poor sound.

 

[regebro]

Digital terminology will not work for analog. But, if you were going to assign a resolution to analog tape it would be comparatively infinite within the 20 Hz to 20 kHz frequency range. This is pure physics – nothing subjective about it. It concerns the density and size of magnetic particles (domains) in modern tape and the frequency lengths of sound within the range of human perception.

"Comparatively analog" is the word. Indeed, the resolution is higher.

The best estimates I can come up with is that a typical 2" tape will have 40 million million magnetic particles per inch. That gives, for a 24 track tape running at 30ips, 40*30/24 = 50 million million "bits" per second per channel. (actually less because you can't use the full tape width, but what the heck). 24/96 digital has (hold on now) 1,6 million million bits per second per channel.

Yes. I understand you all are shocked. It's not that huge difference. In fact, cram 5 more bits in there and digital becomes comparatively more analog than 2" tape. 32bit digital running on 96kHz has 412 million million bits per second per channel. But 32 bit is floating point, and doesn't map well onto this comparison so ignore that...

OK, my estimates could be wrong, but in worst case, if they are a thousand times off, that's still just the equivalent of 36 bits.

To give you an idea of what bits can do: The new IP standard has 128 bit long adresses. With those you can give an IP adress to every grain on sand on earth. You can also in one 128 bit number, store a greater sample resolution than you can store in 12 million million kilograms (that is som 12 000 000 000 tons) of the magnetic coating used on tape. Great eh?

 

[Dr ZEE]

$200 eBay analog machine is obviously going to sound better than a $200 digital setup because the $200 analog machine costed $2000 and up .

hah. interesting. Hey, man, I though you've said you're an engineer..
I never seen $$$$ on any tech-specs pages of any equipment? But I do know, that the price tag is all it's matter for some "Professionals".
Do I smell gas?

Also, dude, your attitude and verbal diarrhea about independent self-producing musicians smells sooooo bad. You really don't know what (and who) you are talking about. You just lost my respect - pewffff-gone. Well, I know ...who the hell am I?, so you care...

In addition, I personally (speaking for myself) simply DO NOT want nor need to hear/read another rant about greatness' of protools and $50.000-$80.000 studers. It has absolutely no point at all. Not on this board, anyway...




/later
******

oh, I almost forgot, ...heh heh . okey, mr.engineer, I get it now - the world is "kinda-digital" ... and regebro is 'kinda-right' ... lol, thanks for 'education'. I wonder, what company do you work for... so I make sure I never buy anything from that company, since the engineers who design its products do it 'kinda-right'

ahhh , what ever

 

[tanoka]

What company do you work for Regebro?

 

[Beck]

Be that as it may, analog is gone...

...I can't say anymore except I have written a number of posts outlining the same shit like 3 times. If digital bashing is all this forum is good for, you guys are gonna be in a world of pain when the analog parts/machines grind to a halt. They are already drying up and price on used stuff is rising *alot*. For me. I have a great analog machine that I got a great deal on (a total pro machine, why would anyone miss the opportunity to buy a $40,000 machine for $4000?) and have most of the spare parts to last quite a while. I also record digital with a Fostex D2424LV HD 24 track recorder and it works (and sounds) like my analog machine. I have no problem getting "warm" sound out of either.

BTW, Pro Tools, right, wrong or indifferent is the industry standard. Analog machines in mostly all the pro studios I have seen lately only use analog for bed tracks. The bed tracks are always sent to pro tools for overdubs and mixed on an analog board. This is pretty much the standard today (even at Abbey Road). If you like, then Steve Albini is a total analog head, but not for the reasons of poor sound.

I hear ya. I've outlined the same shit about 30 times. We have a substantial difference of opinion. I can respectfully disagree because you present an eloquent argument.

I really don’t think of myself as an analog basher. It’s just my opinion. The article that started this thread needed bashing big time though. Whether you prefer digital or not that piece was from fairytale land.

I’m still surprised by how many home recordists are oblivious to the issues and unaware of the alternatives available to them. For that reason the issue is always alive here and I think it should be.

I agree that analog may never be like it was because of marketing and price/performance issues. Manufactures have a good thing going in the home recording market with digital technology. They have no incentive to upset the status quo. Why sell a piece of hardware when you can just sell an illusion on a computer screen that looks like and even simulates the familiar hardware. It started before digital though with cheap toy-like cassette portastudios.

However, there will always be a substantial core who will support analog recording to keep it afloat. In that regard analog is far from gone. The current trend shows that it is now more alive than it was a few years ago. It’s hard to pronounce a patient dead when their vital signs are trending up.

In January of this year everyone was talking “The death of analog” because of Quantegy. Now Quantegy is back, RMGI is manufacturing the old BASF/EMTEC formulas and ATR Magnetics is set to unveil their new open reel tape by Fall. We went from having no open reel tape manufacturers to having three. Tascam and Otari still manufacture half-track open reel decks, Tascam still makes cassette studios. Who knows, they may see a market in the growing analog movement and throw us a bone or something.

At any rate, Companies like ATR and JRF are refurbishing what we already have. Both Tascam and ATR are sourcing new replacement parts. That will continue for the foreseeable future. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

I don’t see Analog as ever overtaking digital in the current “music store” market. It won’t be what everyone is doing. But it will continue to be something that people who know what they’re doing are doing.

-Tim

 

[monty]

The particles are so small and the edges of the particles overlap as they spread across the tape surface and the tape head. This along with the nature of the magnetic field itself would all contribute to create a very smooth “blackboard” on which the magnetism is deposited. The only resemblance to digital would be the actual frequencies of the recorded sounds. Not reality but as close as it gets for now. My 2 cents.

 

[A Reel Person]

That's just like monty, to bid 2¢ !!!

(Heh). Anyway, monty's right, & beck's sooooooooo right.

acorec, for all your posts, wisdom & knowledge,... if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? (reads: why are you such an a-hole?)

regebro,... you know what I'm about to say, so nevermind!

 

[cjacek]

Look, digital was never about "quality" to begin with but about companies finding ways to compete and to increase their bottom line. That's it. That's all. I guess it was always like that, even pre the digital craze, when open reel manufacturers used shortcuts here and there to save on costs but STILL put out a recorder to satisfy high quality standards. Technology came out in the 80's and then 90's which promised to "pulverize" analog, offered more features for less money and made promises it couldn't keep. We all fell for it. Some came out of it. Some are still in it. Shame.

You think I'm gonna go with a technology which hasn't even touched the track record of ANALOG ??? Ha! You may call it poor mixing or mastering skills but you think it a coincidence that recorded sound went all to shit when people started tracking to digital ?

The other day I visited a couple of pro recording studios and found they had, what looked like "vintage" mic pres and mics, tube consoles, and shit loads of other much older audio processors, and guess what they were "tracking" to ? PRO TOOLS!!! I asked why use all this "old gear" as a front end for pc recording and the answer was basically that they thought this was the only way they could get a decent sound. I asked why no open reel recorders ? They said they liked the "convenience" and "flexibility" of a Pro Tools pc setup. Funny, huh ?

~Daniel

 

[regebro]

The truth hurts. At least if you are religious...

 

[regebro]

The particles are so small and the edges of the particles overlap as they spread across the tape surface and the tape head. This along with the nature of the magnetic field itself would all contribute to create a very smooth “blackboard” on which the magnetism is deposited. The only resemblance to digital would be the actual frequencies of the recorded sounds. Not reality but as close as it gets for now. My 2 cents.

There is still no difference to digital... The nature of th D/A converters mean that the bits too "spread and overlap".

 

[A Reel Person]

Eh,...

The truth hurts. At least if you are religious...

I am neither hurt, nor religious.

And, hey: News Flash!: You are not always right! That you think you are, does not always make it so.