B
Beck
Guest
acorec said:
Ok, thought about it... I give up. So what's the answer?
Ok, thought about it... I give up. So what's the answer?
regebro
Insane Genious!
And how is Sancho Panza? I trust he is well?Beck said:
regebro
Insane Genious!
That statement is completely nonsensical, as accuracy necessarily refers to, as you note, sound in and sound out, and there are no bits involved until after the conversion to digital.evm1024 said:
No, the word we are looking for is "accurate".
3 to 6 rather... Not that it could be in any way significant for the discussion .
No, that is not the reason, and that only applies when you are switching bit depth or sample rate.
It's about the same as tape, and that' what you come up with after you incorrect reasoning above, when using 16-bit recording. which of course, few do in todays 24 bit world.
So, what was your point? Becuase I didn't get it.
Yeah, that is the precision. Again, the word we are looking for is accuracy, not precision.
Or the lack of them.
Seeker of Rock
Let us be unburdened by that which has been ?
I took some digital pictures a while ago and did the same with my older film camera. The digital photos came out rather unflattering, but painfully "accurate" and my film photos looked quite flattering with the image coming together quite nicely, again using the word "cohesive". It's like the digital camera did a superb job at capturing each of the pixels (that make up the whole image) but it had trouble "marrying" them together like film ....... Not to say one was "better", just different. I think this would best describe my thoughts on Analog vs Digital sound recording, using the photo example.
Sooo:
DIGITAL: ACCURATE
ANALOG: COHESIVE (or well integrated)
Ah, what I do lack in recording experience I may be able to contribute in graphic experience. Digital images are comprised of pixels, or squares if you will, thousands of them. If you zoom in on a digital photo you will see them and their finite edges. Only ONE color assignment per pixel, but the more pixels the more the image color or hue shifts will appear real and blend, slur the digital edges to create something that appears real. In theory this is what digital recording would be in the audio spectrum, no? The more complex the technology, the more realistic the imitation of the source. I will say this...digital imaging is a blessing for those of us that use it daily. The convenience you cannot beat. But as far as authenticity, it is not accurate. Quite the contrary, it is an ultra-fine grid, limited by how small the grid squares are capable of being made as to the believability of the end result. Graphically, you can a/b the two and the best photograph is still more accurate (a higher resolution and truer color spectrum) than the sharpest digital image. I suppose if I worked in music for a living, I would probably embrace digital recording for the convenience, but when it comes down to what I prefer and think is the better medium all other things aside, visually or audibly, non-digital is clearly the hands-down winner in my book. I can hear the difference in music, and I can see the difference when I zoom images.
Sooo:
DIGITAL: ACCURATE
ANALOG: COHESIVE (or well integrated)
Ah, what I do lack in recording experience I may be able to contribute in graphic experience. Digital images are comprised of pixels, or squares if you will, thousands of them. If you zoom in on a digital photo you will see them and their finite edges. Only ONE color assignment per pixel, but the more pixels the more the image color or hue shifts will appear real and blend, slur the digital edges to create something that appears real. In theory this is what digital recording would be in the audio spectrum, no? The more complex the technology, the more realistic the imitation of the source. I will say this...digital imaging is a blessing for those of us that use it daily. The convenience you cannot beat. But as far as authenticity, it is not accurate. Quite the contrary, it is an ultra-fine grid, limited by how small the grid squares are capable of being made as to the believability of the end result. Graphically, you can a/b the two and the best photograph is still more accurate (a higher resolution and truer color spectrum) than the sharpest digital image. I suppose if I worked in music for a living, I would probably embrace digital recording for the convenience, but when it comes down to what I prefer and think is the better medium all other things aside, visually or audibly, non-digital is clearly the hands-down winner in my book. I can hear the difference in music, and I can see the difference when I zoom images.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
regebro said:
Yep. We do bash DIGITAL. And it's much more fun, than bashing the basher
regebro
Insane Genious!
Funny then, how many of your posts were full of crap about our attitudes and other personal attacks...
In this thread YOU have been the worst offender when it comes to personal attacks and outright lying, so I think you should simply shut the fuck up, you hypocrite.
Or at least offer some honest apologies.
In this thread YOU have been the worst offender when it comes to personal attacks and outright lying, so I think you should simply shut the fuck up, you hypocrite.
Or at least offer some honest apologies.
evm1024
New member
regebro said:That statement is completely nonsensical, as accuracy necessarily refers to, as you note, sound in and sound out, and there are no bits involved until after the conversion to digital.
No, the word we are looking for is "accurate".
3 to 6 rather... Not that it could be in any way significant for the discussion .
No, that is not the reason, and that only applies when you are switching bit depth or sample rate.
It's about the same as tape, and that' what you come up with after you incorrect reasoning above, when using 16-bit recording. which of course, few do in todays 24 bit world.
So, what was your point? Becuase I didn't get it.
Yeah, that is the precision. Again, the word we are looking for is accuracy, not precision.
Or the lack of them.
Sigh, Accuracy is how close the results is to the desired results. Precision is the degree to which the data points are known.
It matters not if we measure in bits or volts. They are both measurement. They both have accuracies and precisions.
Shoot a handfull of arrows at a target and measure how far apart they are from each other. If they are close to each other we can say that the shooter is precise. But if those arrows mis the target we can say that they are precise and inaccurate. basic science. (you also can be accurate but not very precise)
I found The article that Dr Zee pointer at to be quite interesting. The listeners could tell the difference. This suggests that: The recording/playback systems are ether inaccurate, imprecise or both and the listeners can hear it and/or that during some moments of the recording/playback intrrduce audable artifacts that the listener detects.
If you are suggesting that digital is both accurate and precise then the listeners are ether: 1) unable to hear the truth and are dulding them selves. Or 2) the must be reading the minds of the person pushing the switches.
And oh by the way the precision in base 10 is measured in digits the precision in binary is measured in bits. It does not matter to me how you quantify the thing we are measuring.
Regards
B
Beck
Guest
regebro said:
The proper response to begin with would be as follows:
"Hey Tim, Yeah I missed the part where you said most of the studios also use Pro Tools. Sorry, my bad."
Your friend,
regebro
Your conduct now is a very base human response to feeling one has lost on reason and knowledge alone. But I didn’t see this as a game to win or lose. It was a question (genuine or not) that we have all tried to answer. There is no wrong answer to an open question like that. The only winning would be if someone learns something. I suspect even you have, your childish reactions notwithstanding. As they say, “The truth will indeed set you free, but it will piss you off first.”
The whole Don Quixote idea would be funny if you could use it in context with an individual and situation where it applied. That is critical to hitting someone with a real zinger. You used it at least one other time recently with another member and it didn’t work there either.
You are not even patronizing me, which is still a poor response, though a little more cerebral than what you are doing.
Do any discussions in which someone continues to hold an opinion different than yours ever end without you making personal attacks (Inaccurate ones no less)?
I will discuss the topic with you, but I will no longer answer your barbs after this post. You are only discrediting yourself. Anyone can fart. Why settle for that as your legacy? Move to higher ground.
-Tim
A
acorec
Banned
Seeker of Rock said:
Digital photography is not the same theory at all. Digital photography is far less accurate than digital audio recording for a whole host of reasons.
A
acorec
Banned
Beck said:
Last edited:
monty
Banned
......nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Dr ZEE said:Yep. We do bash DIGITAL. And it's much more fun, than bashing the basher
Yes, but when we "bash digital" we in essence bash the people that hold it in high regard. We cannot seperate the two.
~Daniel
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
acorec said:
Fully agreed.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
How can we "PIN" (called "sticky" ?) this topic/thread so that another one like this doesn't get started ? Not that it's a bad thread. To the contrary. I feel it's an important topic that needs to be continuously up there for everyone who comes here to see, especially those new to this.
~Daniel
~Daniel
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
monty said:......nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
regebro
Insane Genious!
So, the word we are looking for is "accurate". Still.evm1024 said:
regebro
Insane Genious!
which of course is exactly what I do. But you wouldn't expect the Don himself to see that would you?Beck said:
regebro
Insane Genious!
Whats is your point, and why did you direct this post to me?acorec said:
B
Beck
Guest
acorec said:
I agree. However if anyone has taken that position in this thread I have missed it. And I certainly didn't see that from regebro, so I'm a little confused about where you got that idea.
evm1024
New member
Let's do a test!
We can do a quick test.
Let's take a mic and run it to a preamp. From there lets split the signel and put one set to the input of a digital mixer and then to one channel of a bridging amplifier. Take the other output of the preamp and put it into the other channel of the amp. So lets say that the amps left channel gets the digital processed signel and the right channel gets unprocessed output of the preamp. Then we can put a speaker to the outputs of the amp. At this point (presuming that the delay in the digital mixer are small enough) you will the same signel sent to each channel of the amp. (dont forget the inversion if your amp needs it)
Assuming that the digital mixer is accurate each output of the amp will track the other and there will be no output from the speakers.
Who will do this?
regards
regebro said:
We can do a quick test.
Let's take a mic and run it to a preamp. From there lets split the signel and put one set to the input of a digital mixer and then to one channel of a bridging amplifier. Take the other output of the preamp and put it into the other channel of the amp. So lets say that the amps left channel gets the digital processed signel and the right channel gets unprocessed output of the preamp. Then we can put a speaker to the outputs of the amp. At this point (presuming that the delay in the digital mixer are small enough) you will the same signel sent to each channel of the amp. (dont forget the inversion if your amp needs it)
Assuming that the digital mixer is accurate each output of the amp will track the other and there will be no output from the speakers.
Who will do this?
regards