Just curious as to why still analog??

[Dr ZEE]

At least everyone is rolling something.

I am rolling ma'balls at the moment...

/Elvis forever!

 

[Dr ZEE]

oh, btw, speakin' of chemistry.
Where there is no substance - there shall be no chemistry. I personally stick to living by the rule of spirits, so to be independent of any substance.

Do your math

/respects

 

[Beck]

The reason the fourth track was never used is that the real (but dead) Paul appeared to the new Paul in a dream and told him if he used his track the Maharishi would melt his brain with his Jedi powers, and that something called digital would one day be used for recording anyway.

Thus the new Paul was afraid to have his own track. So he shared a track with John. However, Yoko protested (you know Yoko). They solved the whole issue by having the new Paul sing his part into a glass jar and quickly capping it. They learned this technique from watching cartoons form the 1940’s.

At record time they opened the jar and released the new Paul’s voice, basically spinning it in on track #1 with John. It was difficult because you had to get the timing just right. Yoko was fine with it because John was able to have the personal space that she said he deserved. It was harder than it looked in the old days. Few people know what was going on behind the scenes.

 

[SteveMac]

Paul sing his part into a glass jar and quickly capping it. They learned this technique from watching cartoons form the 1940’s.

OH! That's why his voice sounds like that on White Album song "Honey Pie"!

 

[Seeker of Rock]

The reason the fourth track was never used is that the real (but dead) Paul appeared to the new Paul in a dream and told him if he used his track the Maharishi would melt his brain with his Jedi powers, and that something called digital would one day be used for recording anyway.

Thus the new Paul was afraid to have his own track. So he shared a track with John. However, Yoko protested (you know Yoko). They solved the whole issue by having the new Paul sing his part into a glass jar and quickly capping it. They learned this technique from watching cartoons form the 1940’s.

At record time they opened the jar and released the new Paul’s voice, basically spinning it in on track #1 with John. It was difficult because you had to get the timing just right. Yoko was fine with it because John was able to have the personal space that she said he deserved. It was harder than it looked in the old days. Few people know what was going on behind the scenes.

LMAO!!

 

[Dr ZEE]

In reply to Quantagee

Your most recent post sounds like someone playing the role of his stereotype analog fan.
Ok, 'fess up! Whose alter ego are you?

You see, people do this. Well, it is more common during preschool-age period or so....
here's a quote to swing over:

The researchers also looked at childhood impersonation - pretending to be an imaginary character - and found it to be almost universal. Virtually all preschoolers pretended to be an animal or another person and 95 percent of the school-age children engaged in impersonation. The researchers did not look at impersonation in the same detail as they did imaginary companions, and were surprised that so many school-age children continued to engage in the activity. One tantalizing finding was that school-age children who did little or no impersonation scored low on emotional understanding of other people, according to Carlson.

well, who ever Quantagee may be in reality... it's all okey, 'cos at the end it helps him/her to understand entities outside of him/her-self.

Compashion, Brother, compashion!.....

 

[Quantagee]

The reason the fourth track was never used is that the real (but dead) Paul appeared to the new Paul in a dream and told him if he used his track the Maharishi would melt his brain with his Jedi powers, and that something called digital would one day be used for recording anyway.

Thus the new Paul was afraid to have his own track. So he shared a track with John. However, Yoko protested (you know Yoko). They solved the whole issue by having the new Paul sing his part into a glass jar and quickly capping it. They learned this technique from watching cartoons form the 1940’s.

At record time they opened the jar and released the new Paul’s voice, basically spinning it in on track #1 with John. It was difficult because you had to get the timing just right. Yoko was fine with it because John was able to have the personal space that she said he deserved. It was harder than it looked in the old days. Few people know what was going on behind the scenes.

I don't think so. I could be wrong, but Paul was not afraid to have his own track. You are just being silly now.

 

[Blackdog.sn]

I was once demoing some audio processing to my wife (now my ex) in A/B Processing in, processing out. She could not hear the difference at all and of course told me that it was in my imagination. To me the difference was huge and in a moment of insight I came up with something else for her to compare.

She "thought she could hear something but was not sure. What was this second test?


Sterio, mono.

This is completely true in that most people (untrained) cannot hear subtle difference consciously. This also applies to live music when a musician would cringe over his/her mistake, but the mistake is unnoticed by the audience.

Maybe a difference would come up when one unconciously keeps putting in the analog or digitally produced CD.

 

[monty]

This is completely true in that most people (untrained) cannot hear subtle difference consciously. This also applies to live music when a musician would cringe over his/her mistake, but the mistake is unnoticed by the audience.

Maybe a difference would come up when one unconciously keeps putting in the analog or digitally produced CD.

May also have something to do with the different way people are built. For example, I occasionally see a computer monitor that is flickering like hell because of the settings, and other people just don’t see it. Brainwave frequencies????

 

[Beck]

well, who ever Quantagee may be in reality... it's all okey, 'cos at the end it helps him/her to understand entities outside of him/her-self.

I'm more concerned about the entities inside him/her-self.

"My name is Legion: for we are many."

 

[Dr ZEE]

I'm more concerned about the entities inside him/her-self.

"My name is Legion: for we are many."

whether it's too much Budweiser or simply natural limitations of my brains (most likely both), but I am afraid I am not following... But never the less I can appreciate the words-ping-pong-game.
Maybe I have to wait untill my internal entities get cleared of poisons, This may take some time and couple of sessions, involving usage of KOHLER equipment. Then maybe I'll try thinking it through again.


/respects

p.s. what happened to TSR-8? Did you trade it off to become a King?

 

[Beck]

p.s. what happened to TSR-8? Did you trade it off to become a King?

Oh no way! I will pass that TSR-8 down to my children along with Grandfather's shotgun.

Though Prince Charles is my 1st cousin 15 times removed (we both have the same 14th great grandfather, King James 4 of Scotland) hundreds of people would have to die before I would be inline for the throne. But ya never know.

 

[Lotus]

and what of the future??

....considering that, true to "moores law", computer technology has been doubling in power every 18 months since its humble beginnings (and continues to do so), do any here feel that maybe digital technology will be able to reproduce ANYTHING in terms of sound in the not too distant future??
I for one think that digital technology is still just a baby and we havent seen anything yet....just wait another 10-15 years (maybe sooner) and there will be NO difference between the sonic capabilities of analog and digital....digital seems to be a dirty word in some circles right now and true enough there are many problems and have been since the beginning but my feeling is that digital is at the beginning of a very long journey whereas analog has gone as far as it can go....my point being is that digital technology in general is totally open-ended and limited ONLY by present processing power which is increasing at a very fast pace....

 

[Dr ZEE]

....considering that, true to "moores law", computer technology has been doubling in power every 18 months since its humble beginnings (and continues to do so), do any here feel that maybe digital technology will be able to reproduce ANYTHING in terms of sound in the not too distant future??
I for one think that digital technology is still just a baby and we havent seen anything yet....just wait another 10-15 years (maybe sooner) and there will be NO difference between the sonic capabilities of analog and digital....digital seems to be a dirty word in some circles right now and true enough there are many problems and have been since the beginning but my feeling is that digital is at the beginning of a very long journey whereas analog has gone as far as it can go....my point being is that digital technology in general is totally open-ended and limited ONLY by present processing power which is increasing at a very fast pace....

this all sounds very nice'n smooth, like soft batter on the morning hot bagel ... it spreads and fills, and , well, it's appetizing... but not really exiting.. simply because it's not a weekend, but rather monday morning

and my point is, that even I can agree with overall vibe of your post.
HOWEVER! Here's my personal feel and view on the whole thing in regard to digital technology in general in the field of music performance/recording/production and at the end - reproduction/brodacast/playback for personal enjoyment.
If today, as we speak, digital technology could do everything and even better than analog instruments/production gear/recording gear - I still would not give a crap.... shortly speaking. Simply because I have no interest in it. I simply don't give a crap if some digital system can do what my reel-to-reel does. If it can - good for it. I still have r-t-r and use it. If there will be some plug-in out there which can do what my tape-delay does or my rusty spring reverb does... - I don't give a fly about it.... it does not exite me at all ... 'cos I have the REAL stuff here... and I use it , and love it ....
I can kick and grab'n'choke my spring .... try to do it with plug in.
I can grab the reel. Try to grab your digital file.
Nonsense? ???? - yep, it is!

Do you want to have 100 guitar amps in your little digital modeling box? I guess so. So be it.
I don't want nor need nor care about having 100 amps. I only need ONE amp which I know and love and which speeks back to me when I pick the string. My amp is like my body. We sing together. We both have some sort of nerve between us. We are connected in a sense.
Nonsense?
Yep, that maybe the case. It maybe IS a total moranic nonsense for many computer nerds of today. And I happend to be a computer nerd myself in many ways. But not when it comes to hit it, baby, let's play some blues-rock.
So there.... I am still trying to sort of answer the question: why still analog.

What it wiil be in 10-15 years from now? hmmmmmmmmmm I well maybe be dead then.... sooooooo?

Speaking of things in time... history that is

Once upon a time it was HIP to have great sounding stereo at home and great sounding records.
Today i-pod is hip. It sounds like sh*t but who cares. Cos' the sound itself is out of picture.
Tomorrow? You never know. Tomorrow listening to music may become totally uncool thing to do, period. Listening to recorded music/bands may becom retro or small group of enthusiasts' activity.
So? What does it mean?
Nothing really.
But's I'd say. If you really do care about future - then do something good TODAY.
Pretty simple.

/respects

 

[evm1024]

Two aspects!

....considering that, true to "moores law", computer technology has been doubling in power every 18 months since its humble beginnings (and continues to do so), do any here feel that maybe digital technology will be able to reproduce ANYTHING in terms of sound in the not too distant future??
I for one think that digital technology is still just a baby and we havent seen anything yet....just wait another 10-15 years (maybe sooner) and there will be NO difference between the sonic capabilities of analog and digital....digital seems to be a dirty word in some circles right now and true enough there are many problems and have been since the beginning but my feeling is that digital is at the beginning of a very long journey whereas analog has gone as far as it can go....my point being is that digital technology in general is totally open-ended and limited ONLY by present processing power which is increasing at a very fast pace....

Let me send you off to this article where various bit depths and sampling rates are listened to and commented on. Fairly informative.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3daudio_hi-res.html

What I take away from this is that 24/192 digital audio is getting real close to analog. The key thing here is to remember that analog is a continious recording process where digital is a sampled process. So in a discrete sampled process the depths and rates need to be greater than the resolution of "the listener". And 24/192 is getting close.

That is point one.

Point two is a more tactal thing. There is something rewarding to the human psyche to handle something. Glowing screens are not so intimate to us as are big reels of tape. This is of lesser importance the more to a production environment you go where getting the job done is of greater importance rather than an artistic expression (of course ther is art in the control room).

And (as Dr Zee points out) this is all moot when the comon mans playback media is 16/44.1 cd "quality". Perhaps a 32/256 ipod will become the norm in 10 years or less. I would expect that to excel!

Regards

 

[regebro]

Tyose commentare done by somebody that knew what he listened to, while somebody is telling him what to think about it, so that they will but their stuff. They are therefore competely useless, as they reflect more of what he expected to hear than what he heard.

Any "tests" like these that are not double blind with many subjects should be treaded as opinionated guesswork.

 

[cjacek]

To me the sound of analog vs digital is a moot point, really. It's not an issue I struggle with at all. It's about the interactivity that I get with analog that will never be surpassed by anything digital. It's a very special "event" whenever I work with analog. That experience cannot be beaten. I fully agree with Dr. Zee's last post and therefore won't add anything more. Everything is already there.

~Daniel

 

[snow lizard]

Do you want to have 100 guitar amps in your little digital modeling box? I guess so. So be it.
I don't want nor need nor care about having 100 amps. I only need ONE amp which I know and love and which speeks back to me when I pick the string. My amp is like my body. We sing together. We both have some sort of nerve between us. We are connected in a sense.
Nonsense?

I think this makes far more sense than trying to tell people that analog tape machines grow on trees. (They don't, you know.)

I wouldn't trade my Fender Blues Jr. for all the digital modeling boxes ever made, unless I could make enough money selling that junk to get a Marshall Plexi and another Blues Jr. Mic modelers? I doubt it. Auto Tune? No thanks. I'd gladly use a great transistor amp like a Roland Jazz Chorus over any digital modeling available. The difference should be obvious to most people, but I think this is stretching digital beyond what it's presently good at.


sl

 

[snow lizard]

What I take away from this is that 24/192 digital audio is getting real close to analog. The key thing here is to remember that analog is a continious recording process where digital is a sampled process. So in a discrete sampled process the depths and rates need to be greater than the resolution of "the listener". And 24/192 is getting close.

I've been reading a few things by Dan Lavry on the subject, and he seems to disagree with this. On a basic level, I think what he's saying is that the logic behind increasing sample rate and bit depth makes sense, but in practice there's a point of diminishing returns. A converter running at 24 bit/96k that does its job properly and accurately will sound better than a converter that's running faster to capture frequencies that we can't even hear, but introducing more errors into the process. Sometimes we're faced with marketing hype. Not to say that 192k won't get there one day, but some will say it hasn't arrived yet.


sl

 

[cjacek]

I think this makes far more sense than trying to tell people that analog tape machines grow on trees. (They don't, you know.)

You're probably referring to one of my earlier posts ..... That was called an A N A L O G Y. Had nothing to do with machines growing on trees! Oki ?