Just curious as to why still analog??

[regebro]

the problem with you, guys, acorec and regebro is that you simply can't see beyond the manual.

Total and utter bullshit.

The problem here is that you pretend to understand the issue, and pretend to understand us, when in fact you understand neither. And that would be OK, if you didn't at the same time have this attitude that we have nothing to add.

You want to know how digital audio recording works? Fine. On a basic level this is all what it is about: Replicating an electric signal, as "well" as possible. Which, suprise, surprise, is exactly what analog audio recording is about.
(Notice the word "well", becuase what is "good" is a matter of point of view.)

So first of all, when you are comparing how digital fairs as compared to analog, what you need to compare is how well it does in this replicating area. What goes on "inside" is from that point of view not interesting. If you want to know these technicalities, we can help you, but so far you have used your misconceptions on what goes on the input side to say that final product is bad, because the stored data doesn't look like the stored data of a tape recorder. Which is a completely bogus way of reasoning.

So get off your high horses, stop being sarcastic and be prepared to learn, and then you will.

 

[Dr ZEE]

You want to know how digital audio recording works? Fine. On a basic level this is all what it is about: Replicating an electric signal, as "well" as possible.

So how exactly "the Replicating" is being achieved? Just tell us please. Educate us please!



**********

Which, suprise, surprise, is exactly what analog audio recording is about.

I assume, that is Replicating an electric signal, as "well" as possible.
Yah. O.K.


*********
(btw, I have no choice but to be sarcastic, because all you guys do is pointing out somebody's ignorance and missunderstanding, while offer nothing yourself, except informing us how informed and educated your are and ...arghhhh, how much a year you make. That's a good one, acorec

also, acorec, just so you know, I was providing music editing service for years for clients from national competitors through vary local events,,, yeah, that means using digital audio technology professionally (for cash that is). I guess I was just ripping off my clients by hiding deeply in my underwear my total ignorance. Yeah, baby. Anyways, so your little bit of "advice" came couple decades late, so ... hmmmmmmmmm, that's too bad I guess, and, nop , my private studio is NOT for rent, never ment to be - never will... I rent houses for cash. And, man, I'm really glad that you are doing so well in software biz. That's nice to know.

*********
okey, here is something I thought some of you guys may really "enjoy". Here, you gotta play it at least once, just for fun, because nice and friendly female tone of voice really does it: What Is Digital Audio? , just click play on the player there and "explore and unleash endless possibilities"

You guys, who are true digital fans, should record it and listen every morning instead of drinking coffe ... it'll start you up'n'running well for the day. Or it can be used as before go to bed meditation.

/later

 

[regebro]

I assume, that is Replicating an electric signal, as "well" as possible.

Yes.

(btw, I have no choice but to be sarcastic, because all you guys do is pointing out somebody's ignorance and missunderstanding, while offer nothing yourself, except informing us how informed and educated your are and ...arghhhh, how much a year you make. That's a good one, acorec

i see that you still are not ready to learn. To bad. I'll tell you how the replicating is done when you change that attitude. Before that it is a waste of time.

 

[evm1024]

Oh lets get our sampling theory correct

Possibly, but the beginning of the article is so full of bad and incorrect information, so I couldn't actually be bothered to read the rest.

"At the upper limit of the sampler's range, sampling an analog wave roughly 2 times per cycle will result in a sloppy, hit-and-miss digital result which rarely catches the wave at the top and bottom of its cycle. This would turn a perfect sine wave into a jagged, irregular mess. That's what has happened when you hear a digitized cymbal crash that sounds splashy or splattered."

This is false, and based on lack of knowledge and misunderstandings. Lots of misunderstandings come from the fact that you look at the data after it has been converted to digital. But that's not what you listen to. To listen to it you have to convert it back to analog. Compare THOSE signals. And that will result in a perfect sinewave, not a "jagged, irregular mess".

But the original author is describing the Nyquist limit correctly. Nyquist says that the sampling rate needs to be twice the rate of the sampled stream in order to recover the original signel. If you under sample you will not be able to reproduce the wavefore accuratly. If you undersample you will get aliases. That is to say many frequences will appear to fit those sample values. The brain is where hearing takes place and when presented with an audio stream near the nyquest limit it gets to pick its own interpertation of what the ears detected. This is the rub for digital. The brain fills in the details based on clues. Tape hiss is a clue that the brian knows how to deal with. It is just like the wind and we allready have thousands (millions) of years of processing it out hardwired into our brains.

Hearing is not the preassure variations in the air it is how the brain interperates those variations.

When I played the flute I was able to put it on a scope. Place your mouth one way and you get a very pure sine wave and the flute sounds like a flute. Place your mouth another way and you can get triangular waves (and a whole bunch of other wave forms if you like). The point being that if you sample the triangular wave at near nyquist cutoff or if you mis a few codes and have to error correct them you will not be able to reproduce the triangular wave accuretly. You will get a new waveform of the same frequency but with an altered waveform. It should be noted that the peak risetime of a sine wave is greater than the risetime of a trangular wave for the same frequency. The end result being that the ear hears it differently.

regards.....

 

[cjacek]

Immensely interesting post from evm1024! I gather then that we either have not "evolved" sufficiently for our brain to perceive digital as natural sounding or it is somehow "inherent" to us human beings to hear digital as a foreign source.

Attitudes and insults aside, I think this is shaping to be a magnificent thread! Controversial to be sure but interesting nevertheless ...

~Daniel

 

[regebro]

But the original author is describing the Nyquist limit correctly. Nyquist says that the sampling rate needs to be twice the rate of the sampled stream in order to recover the original signel. If you under sample you will not be able to reproduce the wavefore accuratly. If you undersample you will get aliases. That is to say many frequences will appear to fit those sample values.

Correct.

The brain is where hearing takes place and when presented with an audio stream near the nyquest limit it gets to pick its own interpertation of what the ears detected.

Eh. No. Hearing and Nyquist frequenci-.es have no connection.

This is the rub for digital. The brain fills in the details based on clues. Tape hiss is a clue that the brian knows how to deal with. It is just like the wind and we allready have thousands (millions) of years of processing it out hardwired into our brains.

Yes, which is why lossy compression works. Which is a topic that has nothing to do with what is discussed here.

Hearing is not the preassure variations in the air it is how the brain interperates those variations.

Of course. And speakers amplifiers and microphones is about reproducing the pressure variations as accurately as possible as electricity. And tape recorders and A/D D/As is about converting that electricity into a storable representation.

The point being that if you sample the triangular wave at near nyquist cutoff or if you mis a few codes

Yeah, and that point is incorrect. You will not miss a few codes. It is, as I said before, based on lack of knowledge and misunderstandings.

 

[regebro]

Immensely interesting post from evm1024! I gather then that we either have not "evolved" sufficiently for our brain to perceive digital as natural sounding or it is somehow "inherent" to us human beings to hear digital as a foreign source.

No, again that's based on misunderstandings. The minimum "delay" between two signals that digital can reproduce is not dependant on the samplerate. It is a function of the samplerate vs the number of levels there is in a sample. so 44*16 should be able to accurately represent a delay between two signals as short as 1/(44100*65536) second = 0.346 nanoseconds.

 

[Dr ZEE]

regebro, I don't need your "educative tip", save it for your girlfriend-weiter in local restaurant. I really should not even respond to your 'replies', which offer nothing but just confusing people and turning the conversation into chaotic rant.
********

but what the heck, since I've said "a".... at least I'll drop a note for guys who maybe interested.

Let's take/imagine analog chain/system (skipping some details): you pick the string on electric guitar, string's vibration sends impulse to pickup magnet - pickup magnet sends impulse to the wire - wire sends impulse to the amp - amp sends impulse to speaker cone - speaker cone sends impulss to the air - air sends impulse to the mic diaphragm - mic diaphragm sends impuls to voice coil/magnet - voice coil/magnet sends impulse to the wire - wire sends impulse to preamp - preamp sends impulse to record head - record head sends impulse to the tape (tape is moving - representing the TIME! which enables the tape to become a "reflecting mirror" of the process - moving tape sends impulse to play head - play head sends impulse to the wire - wire sends impulse to the amp - amp sends impulse to the speaker cone - speaker sends impulse to the air - air sends impulse to your ear (skip everything beyond the ear - that is another topic for sure, and trust me, you don't want to hear what I may say there ... )

Now, why do I need to spend time to type all this? Well, I have to do this to highlight something here. You see there are many different 'kinds' of impulses in the chain and we can and do recognize it, we can and do give them all kind of names (mechanical, air-wave, electical, magnetic), we can and do analyze all these forms, we can and we do (to the extend of our natural and analytic abilities and chosen methods of analysis) identify parameters of all these forms, we can and we do register and measure the identified parameters of all these forms. But here's the thing, guys, what ever we do - the system is still there as it is in its process - all the forms have actual physical 'connection' - so the initial impulse going through the whole system without losing the core of its 'natural integrity'.
So, now, if you are still with me here .... can you, please, try to distance yourself from the notion, that you may know everything about the 'impulse' which we are talking here about. If you can do this, then you may get my "twisted thought". So, can we, just think of the impulse's natural integrity core as something, that we maybe do not completely understand in its entirety, but just can recornize and register some parameter's at a given moment.
Also, note, that I do use word 'impulse' just for convenience, but we really are looking at process here.

So what we do with digital recording (or processing - same thing) - say "digitizing"? First we take a one single parameter - amplitude, or call it level - and register, measure it once at a given period of time and give it a "name" (number, digit, code, set of switches - it does not matter how you call it). We do it many times during the process and store "record" of each registration in the memory - (bank of switches).
And that's it.

After we've done it - the initial physical process is gone - poooof... , but what you have is a bank records of one single parameter of the process (amplitude) at a moment time. So if you take as a lemma, that this is all it takes - then you are happy. But if you may think that something (or allot) may be missing (filtered out, ignored), then you may conclude, that rejuvenating the initial (original) process based on the "records" (data) we've collected would not be possible.

By its nature digital system anly can record, process and return ONLY what the creator of the system can (able) recognize and chose to be recorded, processed and returned.
Another words, if we 'miss something' in complite understanding or simply unable to recornize and thus to understand something in the entity, that we are trying to 'digitize', then we may ar actually do end up with unsatisfactory result.
This maybe ... only MAYBE! is the situation in digital audio. Interesting thing is, that if my "mad theory" has any ground at all, then the improving depth and resolution may at the end only make the "sense of something is missing here" more obvious

allright,
am too tired to think about this crap... yada yada

/later

So, you see, we by our decision singled out one parameter out of impulse's 'natural integrity'

 

[Beck]

There are so many myths (like in analog recording) that it will take years for people to get it. As long as there are people who really don't understand it, then we might as well be talking to an african tribe out in the jungle about "that hot ball in the sky". No offense to you at all.

Yes, but the majority of the people who don't understand it are the ones using it. That's simply because digital is THE de facto standard in the amateur/home-recording world. Renowned studios such as Abbey Road and Indigo Ranch all have Analog multitracks and mastering decks. There is nothing “retro” about it. They also have Pro Tools, but it can’t replace analog, or it would have.

The fact that people may differ in how they visualize and verbalize the inner workings of a technology has no bearing on what that technology actually can or can’t do. The premise that one can only fairly evaluate digital or analog technology if they have an Engineering perspective would preclude most.

It doesn’t even really matter if people attribute an unpleasant quality associated with digital recording to the wrong process. The problems with digital have been observed by so many for so long, it is hardly just a nasty rumor.

The best and the brightest in the industry -- the household names, still use analog where digital just won’t cut it. That is more meaningful to me than discussing A/D/As and bit rates. The final analysis for me is in the hearing.

-Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

the majority of the people who don't understand it are the ones using it.

Exactly! And they do not have much choice, the alternative is not being offered, the 'true' knowledge is not offered either (not from manuals and for sure not from tech-support). The popular literature is filled with misleading 'advertising propaganda'. And the thing is, if you completely do not understand (or don't care about understanding, which is pretty normal thing, btw, for a working rock guitarist, as example ) that 'technology' , then you may be, if you lucky, just get pissed and by 'accedent' stop using that 'technology'. BUT! If you get into it and dig through and start undertanding - then you most definitely 100% reject it as a 'main weapon' in music recording/production (you'll literally simply run like hell from it) if the music you produce actually means something to you. Well , sure, you'd keep the stack of digital 'options' for your clients, just in case, you may need to give them what they ask for at the least expanse.


Also a true good product not suppose to require in-depth understanding of its structure, principles and theory of the technogy upon on which the 'product' development was based.

 

[evm1024]

Check what you know and come again

No, again that's based on misunderstandings. The minimum "delay" between two signals that digital can reproduce is not dependant on the samplerate. It is a function of the samplerate vs the number of levels there is in a sample. so 44*16 should be able to accurately represent a delay between two signals as short as 1/(44100*65536) second = 0.346 nanoseconds.

Sample rate is the number of samples taken per second. A/D and D/A conversion precision is exactly that, The precision that any sample is digitized. If you had a 1024 bit encoder you could have tremendious dynamic range (most of it wasted of course) but if you sampled at a 1 kHz rate you would still not be able to accuratlly digitize a 500 Hz signal. Nyquist trumps. Sorry dude, sampling rate sets the bandwidth. Too few bits and you get quanitization error.

Don't get me wrong. I think that if the signal coming in matches the signal coming out you will not be able to hear the difference. I tend to speculate that you might need to sample at at least 16 times the maximum frequency and at around 24 to 32 bits of precision (without error!) to avoid detection.

I'm not vested in analog or digital (actually I do manage a bunch of computers with 50 TB data in them so you could say that I make my lining off of digitia )

 

[evm1024]

SNIP! or where you will use it. I will give you a bit of advice. I learned a software language some years ago. I saw the potential and went with it. I now hold a job programming with it that gets me over $100,000/yr. You never know when someone will walk up to you and offer you a well paying position recording using digital equipment and techniques. And, you will have blown it.

So, call me stupid, arrogent or whatever, but I am the one making the $$$ and used knowledge and an opportunity to make the best out of software that I did not understand (at the time).

What languages are you programming in?

 

[cjacek]

Yes, but the majority of the people who don't understand it are the ones using it. That's simply because digital is THE de facto standard in the amateur/home-recording world. Renowned studios such as Abbey Road and Indigo Ranch all have Analog multitracks and mastering decks. There is nothing “retro” about it. They also have Pro Tools, but it can’t replace analog, or it would have.

The fact that people may differ in how they visualize and verbalize the inner workings of a technology has no bearing on what that technology actually can or can’t do. The premise that one can only fairly evaluate digital or analog technology if they have an Engineering perspective would preclude most.

It doesn’t even really matter if people attribute an unpleasant quality associated with digital recording to the wrong process. The problems with digital have been observed by so many for so long, it is hardly just a nasty rumor.

The best and the brightest in the industry -- the household names, still use analog where digital just won’t cut it. That is more meaningful to me than discussing A/D/As and bit rates. The final analysis for me is in the hearing.

-Tim

As always, a very informative and perceptive post, Tim.

~Daniel

 

[regebro]

regebro, I don't need your "educative tip",

Of cursen you don't. Lack of knowledge of how this works will not kill you. So you don't need it. As I said, it's a question of wanting to know or not. You obviously rather stay unknowing. That's fine by me, but then you shouldn't pretend to know what you are talking about.

you don't want to hear what I may say there ... )

If you misconceptions on that subject is as severe as when it comes to digital technology, you are right, I'd rather not hear.

Now, why do I need to spend time to type all this?

Beats me. I have told you, young grasshopper, that what you should do is listen. Which you can't do if you talk all the time.

can you, please, try to distance yourself from the notion, that you may know everything about the 'impulse' which we are talking here about.

I don't have the notion that we know everything. That notion is unessecary and irrelevant.

If you can do this, then you may get my "twisted thought".

Your twisted thought is that there is something magic unknowable that for some reason only exists in analog signals. That thought is not twisted, it's just uneducated.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." /Arthur C Clarke.

You thing there is magic involved because you don't know whats going on. I'm telling you, there is no magic.

First we take a one single parameter - amplitude, or call it level

That's the only parameter there is. Really. There can not be any other. There is no extra magical parameter, No little magictrons are running down the wire, just electrons, and the only thing being measured is the amount of electrons. In analog as well. Really.

After we've done it - the initial physical process is gone - poooof...

And the same is true for analog. Each of the conversions you mention above measure ONE, and only ONE parameter of the original signal, and then the original process is gone - poooof. In every single step.

But if you may think that something (or allot) may be missing (filtered out, ignored), then you may conclude, that rejuvenating the initial (original) process based on the "records" (data) we've collected would not be possible.

Correct. And this is equally correct for analog.

By its nature digital system anly can record, process and return ONLY what the creator of the system can (able) recognize and chose to be recorded, processed and returned.

This is equally correct for analog.

Another words, if we 'miss something' in complite understanding or simply unable to recornize and thus to understand something in the entity, that we are trying to 'digitize', then we may ar actually do end up with unsatisfactory result.

Correct. And equally so for analog.

This maybe ... only MAYBE! is the situation in digital audio.

It is. But no more than for analog.

So, you see, we by our decision singled out one parameter out of impulse's 'natural integrity'

Yes, amplitude. and that single parameter worked well for analog.

 

[regebro]

Sorry dude, sampling rate sets the bandwidth.

Correct. Did I claim otherwise? No. Read my post again.

I tend to speculate that you might need to sample at at least 16 times the maximum frequency and at around 24 to 32 bits of precision (without error!) to avoid detection.

Do you have anything to support that claim?

 

[Dr ZEE]

Declaration: Physical process, known as 'sound wave' - give it a name (re-name to) - entity of interest
I am giving it a non-specified name (entity), to help a person to overcome the 'regebro's syndrome: I know what it is, because my professor told me so and I have my diploma to back it up and to prove that I am right'. (That is IKMD-syndrome / stands for I Know My Diploma - syndrome) Note: I understand, that dealing with IKMD-syndrom may be very challenging for some individuals and in some neglected chronic cases it may be incurable. But there's nothing I can do about it.

I am adding 'of interest'-tag to 'entity'-title, to highlight the task: to capture, store and reproduce.

In analog system every element reacts to the entity of interestin in its entirety and responds in accordance with the element's natural ability.

At the entering stage of the digital system a specifically designed device registers the value of a selected by the designer aspect (or values of selected aspects) of the enity of interest and generates a new entity based on the values of the selected aspect (or values of the selected aspects).
IMPORTANT: note, how before entering the digital system it was 'an aspect', at the generating of a new entity stage and thereafter it becomes The aspect.

What ever entity of interest IS in its entirety, as it 'passess' through digital system the 'link between' entity of interest and new entity and thus the outcome is strictly and exclusevely predetermined by the act of selection of the aspect(s).

okey... so what all this may mean. I'll just leave it up to you, guys.... I really don't feel like making any 'conclusions' or 'statements'. Plus, you simply can go with the notion, that there's nothing else in the 'entity of interest', nothig else in the process, as regebro told you so, 'cos he knows... and you know why and how he knows what he knows. Sorry, regebro, I do not really mean to use your name, it's not personal or anything.... I just refer to the attitude and mind set which is bleeding through your 'posts'.

I only can say this at the end. I love reels - they are just flat out cool That's a good enough reason for me why using analog. Case closed


p.s. 'case closed' ... hah hah , yeah, right.

/respects

 

[regebro]

Declaration: Physical process, known as 'sound wave' - give it a name (re-name to) - entity of interest
I am giving it a non-specified name (entity), to help a person to overcome the 'regebro's syndrome: I know what it is, because my professor told me so and I have my diploma to back it up and to prove that I am right'. (That is IKMD-syndrome / stands for I Know My Diploma - syndrome) Note: I understand, that dealing with IKMD-syndrom may be very challenging for some individuals and in some neglected chronic cases it may be incurable. But there's nothing I can do about it.

You persiste in your namecalling. I also note that your fantasies about who I am, and how I think, are still pathetically incorrect. Do you want a mudslinging fight? I may not be as good at them as I am on understanding analog or digital electronics (despite my complete lack of diplomas), but I'm no mean mudslinger. Are you sure you want to go down that path?

All the rest of your post is only repeating what you already said, with a complete lack of even trying to read or understand my previous comments. As noted, you do not have any wish to learn. As long as you don't, this discussion is pointless.

You need to open your closed mindset and be prepared to let in the universe into to your sensibilities. There is a beautiful and wonderful truth out there that you can grasp and be a part of, if you only want to.

I only can say this at the end. I love reels - they are just flat out cool That's a good enough reason for me why using analog.

Yes it is. So why do you insist on pushing your theories about analog and digital, even though they are utterly and completely bogus? Why are you introducing the evil blackness of ignorance into the collective mindset? I don't get it. Stop polluting!

 

[Dr ZEE]

owch, how could I forget?

Yes, amplitude. and that single parameter worked well for analog.

Parameters do not work persay. They are Parameters.

actually I reed stuff like in tech-literature all the time, and often the author happens to be a professor... or, PhD ..yeah - Patiently hoping for something

p.s. not to be confused with using the word "parameter" in programming and conversations surrounding programming. There anything goes 'wording-wise' .

/later

 

[Dr ZEE]

Why are you introducing the evil blackness of ignorance into the collective mindset?

Ignorance can not be 'introduced into' - or say be imoposed. One can only block or suppress motion toward the knowledge. Which is NOT the same thing.
Also, admission and acceptence of ignorance is the starting point on the way to any knowledge.

You don't need to keep pointing out my ignorance. I've said it many times myself - I AM AN IGNORANT FREAK. I am not shy about it and do sleep well at night...

I don't get it.

I've got that one

 

[acorec]

So how exactly "the Replicating" is being achieved? Just tell us please. Educate us please!



**********


I assume, that is Replicating an electric signal, as "well" as possible.
Yah. O.K.


*********
(btw, I have no choice but to be sarcastic, because all you guys do is pointing out somebody's ignorance and missunderstanding, while offer nothing yourself, except informing us how informed and educated your are and ...arghhhh, how much a year you make. That's a good one, acorec

also, acorec, just so you know, I was providing music editing service for years for clients from national competitors through vary local events,,, yeah, that means using digital audio technology professionally (for cash that is). I guess I was just ripping off my clients by hiding deeply in my underwear my total ignorance. Yeah, baby. Anyways, so your little bit of "advice" came couple decades late, so ... hmmmmmmmmm, that's too bad I guess, and, nop , my private studio is NOT for rent, never ment to be - never will... I rent houses for cash. And, man, I'm really glad that you are doing so well in software biz. That's nice to know.

*********
okey, here is something I thought some of you guys may really "enjoy". Here, you gotta play it at least once, just for fun, because nice and friendly female tone of voice really does it: What Is Digital Audio? , just click play on the player there and "explore and unleash endless possibilities"

You guys, who are true digital fans, should record it and listen every morning instead of drinking coffe ... it'll start you up'n'running well for the day. Or it can be used as before go to bed meditation.

/later

OK. In that case, you really are misinformed. I had not realized how professional you were. Then I CAN say this:

What are you friggin talking about? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. I am cutting and pasting your "information" about digital recording over at Pro Sound Web. They need a good laugh. If you are taking cash for digital recording, you are ripping people off as you don't understand even the fundamentals of digital reproduction.