Just curious as to why still analog??

[cjacek]

Good digital may be, strictly speaking, more accurate. Good analogue can sound better because of innaccuracies of the medium.

Still, I feel that using words such as "inaccurate" to describe Analog, though I understand where you're coming from, may not be the best thing to do as its connotation is most certainly negative, at least to the average Joe on the street. Furthermore, saying that digital is "more accurate" gives one the impression, taking my average Joe example once more, that "if it's more accurate then it must be better". I'd like to use the word "different" over "better" to describe the Digital vs Analog sound as "better" is too subjective and "different" we can all agree on. (Hint: less fights that way ). I'd also choose the word "cohesive" over "inaccurate", to describe why Analog sounds the way it does and for Digital I'd pick the word "accurate". Still, I have a problem with that 'cause "accurate" automatically conjures up thoughts of "better", a word that I dislike now. (As an aside). 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)

~Daniel

 

[Beck]

Analog is a highly accurate, modern technology, plus there is someting about the way it reacts to elevated levels that is candy to the human ear. That something has a lot to do with the fact that our ears naturally compress loud sound similar to what tape does. Tom Scholz called it “that analog smear” in an article way back in 1987.

The idea that digital is more accurate is one that I reject, though it is widely held. There is something wrong, missing and destructive in the digital process in comparison, not to analog tape, but to live sound. Experts have been debating exactly what that something is for decades now, so we won’t settle it here.

From the very earliest days of digital a myth was propagated that the recordings were so accurate that it captured every little detail, warts and all. It started with the Sony DASH reel-to-reels, PCM, R-Dat and so on. The idea was that the existing equipment would have to catch up to match the fidelity of digital.

IT IS NOT TRUE! IT WAS NEVER TRUE! IT IS MYTH # 1 IN THE DIGITAL SAGA! It was the digital process itself all along that was producing the ill effects. And the industry did not move forward but rather back to tubes/valves to remedy the problem. The acceptance of digital was solely responsible for the tube revolution of the 90’s.

When I want a good laugh I pour over my many periodicals from about 1985 to the present and read the breathless reviews of CD, DAT and 486 DAWS. I know some of those guys like Craig Anderton and Paul White have to blush when they read some of their old articles (I hope they do anyway).

In retrospect a lot of the magazines that helped bring about the digital revolution were nothing more than commercial rags. Those guys didn’t know what they were doing half the time – it was all new to them too. They just swept one another along with whatever the manufacturers were feeding them.

The Emperor’s New Clothes indeed, and only the more serious engineering mags like dB and Recording Engineer/Producer dared point out digital’s nakedness with any real science. The other mags finally did as well from about 1997 because there was no more denying digitals’s shortcomings.

At about this same time articles and reports of studios taking their analog machines out of mothballs began to circulate. One example, this segment from a 1998 EE Times Tom Scholz interview.

"I still record the same way I always did," said Scholz. "The master goes to tape, and I mix in analog. My board is a 20-year old [Audiotronix] mixing console."

The equipment fits well with the recent renaissance of the "primal" rock sound — a movement that amuses Scholz.

"Now people are falling all over themselves to get a hold of these old tape decks," he said. "Fortunately, I'm very slow to change something that's working."

In the pro world there are now more analog machines in use today than there were in the late 90’s – that’s a fact. The larger million dollar operations have mostly Studer and some Otari. But do a search for pro working studios that have Tascam MS-16, MSR-16, MSR-24, 38, 388, TSR-8, 32, 34, 22-2, BR-20 and Fostex B-16, E-16, G-16, R-8, Model 20, E-2, E-22, etc. It will be this time next year before you document them all. Yep, most also have Pro Tools and/or other digital formats as well.

In the home recording paradigm that lives in about all other forums, but this one, people are unaware of what is going on in the pro world. Thus we have questions like, “why still analog?” and snide comments about “catching the analog disease.”

Why still analog? Ask these guys:

Abbey Road - London, UK
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/
Studer A80:
24 & 16 track in 2"
8 & 4 track in 1"
4 track in ½"
2 track in ¼" and ½"
Studer A810:
2 track with timecode or mono with sync pulse
Studer A820:
6 24-track machines in 2"
1 16-track headblock in 2"
1 2 track in ½" format
Ampex ATR 100:
4 track ½" format
3 track ½" format (playback only)

Ardent Studios - Memphis, TN
http://www.ardentstudios.com
3 - Studer 827 Analog 24 Track (One Optional 16 Track Headstack)
1 - Studer A80RC Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/4" 2 Track
6 Tascam 122 MKIII Cassette Decks

Criteria Studios (The New Hit Factory) Miami, FL
http://www.criteriastudios.com/
2 Studer A-820 24-Track
3 Studer A 827 24-Track
Otari MTR-90 24-Track
2 Studer A-820 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
Ampex ATR 102 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
MCI JH110-B 2-Track
MCI JH110-B 4-Track

Electric Lady - NYC
http://ridiculousparadigm.com/lady/index.shtml
http://www.electricladystudios.com
2 Studer A-800 MKIII 24-track
Studer A-820 24-track
Studer A-820 1/2" 2-track
Studer A-80 VU 1/2" 2 Track
Studer A-810 VU 1/4" 2 Track

Fame Studios - Muscle Shoals, AL
http://www.fame2.com/studios.html
MCI JH-24 2" 24-track
MCI JH-16 2" 24-track
2 Studer B-67 Half-Track
2 Tascam 122 MKII Cassette Decks

Hyde Street - San Francisco, CA
http://www.hydestreet.com/
Otari MTR90 MKII 24 or 16-track
Otari MX5050 MKIII 1/2" 8-track
Ampex ATR 102 1/2" mastering deck

Jungle Room, Glendale CA
http://www.jungleroom.net
MCI JH24 2" 24 Track
Studer - A-80 1/2" 2 Track

Ocean Way - Hollywood & Sherman Oaks, CA
http://www.oceanwayrecording.com/studios.htm
Studer A827 2" 24-track
Ampex ATR-124 24 or 16-track
A800 MKIII 24 track
2 Ampex ATR-100 1/2" or 1/4" Half-Track Mastering

Paisley Park Studios - Chanhassan, MN (Reopened 2004)
http://www.paisleyparkstudios.net/sound_intro.asp
3 Studer A-800 M III 24-tracks
2 Studer A-827 Gold Edition
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/2"
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/4"
2 Studer A721 Cassette Deck

Rumbo Recorders - Canoga Park, CA
http://captainandtennille.net/rumbo_pgs/clients.html
3 Studer A-827 Analog 24 track Recorders
1 Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck
1 Ampex ATR-104 2 or 4 track 1/2"or 1/4" head stacks

Scream Studios - LA, CA
http://www.screamstudios.com/albums.html
Studer A-827 2" 24-track Recorders
Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck

Signature Sound - San Diego CA
http://www.signaturesound.com
Studer A827 24-track
Otari MTR-12C 1/2" mastering deck

Skywalker Sound (Lucas Film LTD)
http://www.skysound.com
2 Studer 827 2" 24-tracks
1 Studer 827 2" 16-track
AMPEX ATR 2-Track & 4-Track Mastering Recorders

Studio in the Country - Bogalusa, LA
http://www.studiointhecountry.com/clients_list.htm
Studer A/820 2" 24-trk recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/80 2" 24-trk recorder
Studer A/80 2" half-Track recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/721 Cassette Recorder


I researched these myself and it’s just a small sampling. It goes on and on, but I do have a day job so you guys will have to find the rest yourself.

-Tim

 

[cjacek]

There is no denying the resurgence of Analog and all for good reason too! But going back to my last reply, I'd like to add that "accurate", at least by my definition, does not necessarily mean "musical" sounding or "pleasing" to the senses. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Btw, well done Tim.

Congrats to all you guys actually, who took the time to "rescue" this thread, kind of ..

~Daniel

 

[arjoll]

DIGITAL: ACCURATE
ANALOG: COHESIVE (or well integrated)

That's basically what I meant!

 

[Beck]

DIGITAL: ACCURATE
ANALOG: COHESIVE (or well integrated)

That's basically what I meant!

How about...

DIGITAL: CLEAN
ANALOG: COHESIVE (or well integrated)

We're close -- mostly just semantics.

 

[Beck]

Congrats to all you guys actually, who took the time to "rescue" this thread, kind of ..

I will even say that most everyone here would be A-students in any recording class for their interest and involvement in the subject.

 

[Dr ZEE]

How about this:

Question: What is comparator?

Answers:

Digital fan sais: "It's Revelation"

Analog head sais: "It's The Gate To Hell"

*********

I also just want to mention something. When you read something like : "digital recording is the way of storing analog wave in numbers", just remember, that numbers do not exsit.
You gotta look into what ACTUALLY is going on! Take off the slice of bread, wipe off dressings, Show me the meat! - sort of speak. And, the picture you see ain't so pretty

I am sorry, guys, that I've injected here bunch of nonsense yadday yadda. My "theory" was not a theory at all, Did not mean to be a theory. I've said from very begining that it's in the area of para-science, where I'm free to express anything I feel like. It was a sort of way to simply point out to the question.... same question: "Is Something wrong there".... ,Something does not 'smell' right - WHAT IT MAY BE? Or is Something missing.? Could it be in the very core of digital sampling? and Why not? Why can't we challenge the root of the idea, the very base of it.???? Why?

The answer of course will be: "Because you don't understand the very base of the idea (digital recording and digital technology that is)"
Ahha. Yeah, ok. I've heard this 100000000000 times.

It is interesting to see thou, when I've made this point: Only one parameter (amplitude) is singled out and the rest was filtered out, how the reaction was: "This is BS, nonsense, there is nothing else there.!" Well, Yes, it is nonsense only in case if all you can think about something else important as it was only another parameter for you to compute.

When I've pointed out, that parameters do not work persay, I did not just say it for 'fun'.

Using digital technology for recording sound in general is fine, it is great, actually it is absolutelly mezmerising.
Using digital technology for recording sound for listening pleasure is another story.

Beck:

Analog is a highly accurate, modern technology, plus there is someting about the way it reacts to elevated levels that is candy to the human ear. That something has a lot to do with the fact that our ears naturally compress loud sound similar to what tape does.

Tim, you see, the problem is, (or better say - the REAL misunderstanding is being initiated from) - the fact of ignoring the goal (purpose). First of all we are talking about recording sound for a specific purpose - LISTENING to it. So in respect to our goal, the accuracy is determined not by ability of a recording device to capture the sound AS IS, but to capture the sound AS WE HEAR IT.
That is why analog is Better and YES it is more accurate in respect to our goal.

Human EAR reacts and responds to the sound in accordance whith and to the extend of its natural ability. If you want to get as close as possable to the goal (capturing the sound as the EAR does) you need to 'preserve' the "principle" and build the machine (system), which reacts and responds to the sound in accordance whith and to the extend of its natural ability. And that is an analog system.

So what's wrong with digital? What's missing there?
Hmmmm, they forgot about 'us' - people.

But again, digital technology is ohhhh TOO GOOD for people. It's arrogant.

sorry for Yadding Yadding b.s.ing again

/respects

 

[regebro]

The idea that digital is more accurate is one that I reject

What a surprise.

I researched these myself and it’s just a small sampling. It goes on and on, but I do have a day job so you guys will have to find the rest yourself.

and of course, none of these studios have digital recorders or digital reverbs at hand? Hmm?

 

[acorec]

How about this:

Question: What is comparator?

Answers:

Digital fan sais: "It's Revelation"

Analog head sais: "It's The Gate To Hell"

*********

I also just want to mention something. When you read something like : "digital recording is the way of storing analog wave in numbers", just remember, that numbers do not exsit.
You gotta look into what ACTUALLY is going on! Take off the slice of bread, wipe off dressings, Show me the meat! - sort of speak. And, the picture you see ain't so pretty

I am sorry, guys, that I've injected here bunch of nonsense yadday yadda. My "theory" was not a theory at all, Did not mean to be a theory. I've said from very begining that it's in the area of para-science, where I'm free to express anything I feel like. It was a sort of way to simply point out to the question.... same question: "Is Something wrong there".... ,Something does not 'smell' right - WHAT IT MAY BE? Or is Something missing.? Could it be in the very core of digital sampling? and Why not? Why can't we challenge the root of the idea, the very base of it.???? Why?

The answer of course will be: "Because you don't understand the very base of the idea (digital recording and digital technology that is)"
Ahha. Yeah, ok. I've heard this 100000000000 times.

It is interesting to see thou, when I've made this point: Only one parameter (amplitude) is singled out and the rest was filtered out, how the reaction was: "This is BS, nonsense, there is nothing else there.!" Well, Yes, it is nonsense only in case if all you can think about something else important as it was only another parameter for you to compute.

When I've pointed out, that parameters do not work persay, I did not just say it for 'fun'.

Using digital technology for recording sound in general is fine, it is great, actually it is absolutelly mezmerising.
Using digital technology for recording sound for listening pleasure is another story.

Beck:

Tim, you see, the problem is, (or better say - the REAL misunderstanding is being initiated from) - the fact of ignoring the goal (purpose). First of all we are talking about recording sound for a specific purpose - LISTENING to it. So in respect to our goal, the accuracy is determined not by ability of a recording device to capture the sound AS IS, but to capture the sound AS WE HEAR IT.
That is why analog is Better and YES it is more accurate in respect to our goal.

Human EAR reacts and responds to the sound in accordance whith and to the extend of its natural ability. If you want to get as close as possable to the goal (capturing the sound as the EAR does) you need to 'preserve' the "principle" and build the machine (system), which reacts and responds to the sound in accordance whith and to the extend of its natural ability. And that is an analog system.

So what's wrong with digital? What's missing there?
Hmmmm, they forgot about 'us' - people.

But again, digital technology is ohhhh TOO GOOD for people. It's arrogant.

sorry for Yadding Yadding b.s.ing again

/respects

What? Just say no to drugs.

 

[acorec]

Analog is a highly accurate, modern technology, plus there is someting about the way it reacts to elevated levels that is candy to the human ear. That something has a lot to do with the fact that our ears naturally compress loud sound similar to what tape does. Tom Scholz called it “that analog smear” in an article way back in 1987.

The idea that digital is more accurate is one that I reject, though it is widely held. There is something wrong, missing and destructive in the digital process in comparison, not to analog tape, but to live sound. Experts have been debating exactly what that something is for decades now, so we won’t settle it here.

From the very earliest days of digital a myth was propagated that the recordings were so accurate that it captured every little detail, warts and all. It started with the Sony DASH reel-to-reels, PCM, R-Dat and so on. The idea was that the existing equipment would have to catch up to match the fidelity of digital.

IT IS NOT TRUE! IT WAS NEVER TRUE! IT IS MYTH # 1 IN THE DIGITAL SAGA! It was the digital process itself all along that was producing the ill effects. And the industry did not move forward but rather back to tubes/valves to remedy the problem. The acceptance of digital was solely responsible for the tube revolution of the 90’s.

When I want a good laugh I pour over my many periodicals from about 1985 to the present and read the breathless reviews of CD, DAT and 486 DAWS. I know some of those guys like Craig Anderton and Paul White have to blush when they read some of their old articles (I hope they do anyway).

In retrospect a lot of the magazines that helped bring about the digital revolution were nothing more than commercial rags. Those guys didn’t know what they were doing half the time – it was all new to them too. They just swept one another along with whatever the manufacturers were feeding them.

The Emperor’s New Clothes indeed, and only the more serious engineering mags like dB and Recording Engineer/Producer dared point out digital’s nakedness with any real science. The other mags finally did as well from about 1997 because there was no more denying digitals’s shortcomings.

At about this same time articles and reports of studios taking their analog machines out of mothballs began to circulate. One example, this segment from a 1998 EE Times Tom Scholz interview.

"I still record the same way I always did," said Scholz. "The master goes to tape, and I mix in analog. My board is a 20-year old [Audiotronix] mixing console."

The equipment fits well with the recent renaissance of the "primal" rock sound — a movement that amuses Scholz.

"Now people are falling all over themselves to get a hold of these old tape decks," he said. "Fortunately, I'm very slow to change something that's working."

In the pro world there are now more analog machines in use today than there were in the late 90’s – that’s a fact. The larger million dollar operations have mostly Studer and some Otari. But do a search for pro working studios that have Tascam MS-16, MSR-16, MSR-24, 38, 388, TSR-8, 32, 34, 22-2, BR-20 and Fostex B-16, E-16, G-16, R-8, Model 20, E-2, E-22, etc. It will be this time next year before you document them all. Yep, most also have Pro Tools and/or other digital formats as well.

In the home recording paradigm that lives in about all other forums, but this one, people are unaware of what is going on in the pro world. Thus we have questions like, “why still analog?” and snide comments about “catching the analog disease.”

Why still analog? Ask these guys:

Abbey Road - London, UK
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/
Studer A80:
24 & 16 track in 2"
8 & 4 track in 1"
4 track in ½"
2 track in ¼" and ½"
Studer A810:
2 track with timecode or mono with sync pulse
Studer A820:
6 24-track machines in 2"
1 16-track headblock in 2"
1 2 track in ½" format
Ampex ATR 100:
4 track ½" format
3 track ½" format (playback only)

Ardent Studios - Memphis, TN
http://www.ardentstudios.com
3 - Studer 827 Analog 24 Track (One Optional 16 Track Headstack)
1 - Studer A80RC Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/4" 2 Track
6 Tascam 122 MKIII Cassette Decks

Criteria Studios (The New Hit Factory) Miami, FL
http://www.criteriastudios.com/
2 Studer A-820 24-Track
3 Studer A 827 24-Track
Otari MTR-90 24-Track
2 Studer A-820 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
Ampex ATR 102 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
MCI JH110-B 2-Track
MCI JH110-B 4-Track

Electric Lady - NYC
http://ridiculousparadigm.com/lady/index.shtml
http://www.electricladystudios.com
2 Studer A-800 MKIII 24-track
Studer A-820 24-track
Studer A-820 1/2" 2-track
Studer A-80 VU 1/2" 2 Track
Studer A-810 VU 1/4" 2 Track

Fame Studios - Muscle Shoals, AL
http://www.fame2.com/studios.html
MCI JH-24 2" 24-track
MCI JH-16 2" 24-track
2 Studer B-67 Half-Track
2 Tascam 122 MKII Cassette Decks

Hyde Street - San Francisco, CA
http://www.hydestreet.com/
Otari MTR90 MKII 24 or 16-track
Otari MX5050 MKIII 1/2" 8-track
Ampex ATR 102 1/2" mastering deck

Jungle Room, Glendale CA
http://www.jungleroom.net
MCI JH24 2" 24 Track
Studer - A-80 1/2" 2 Track

Ocean Way - Hollywood & Sherman Oaks, CA
http://www.oceanwayrecording.com/studios.htm
Studer A827 2" 24-track
Ampex ATR-124 24 or 16-track
A800 MKIII 24 track
2 Ampex ATR-100 1/2" or 1/4" Half-Track Mastering

Paisley Park Studios - Chanhassan, MN (Reopened 2004)
http://www.paisleyparkstudios.net/sound_intro.asp
3 Studer A-800 M III 24-tracks
2 Studer A-827 Gold Edition
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/2"
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/4"
2 Studer A721 Cassette Deck

Rumbo Recorders - Canoga Park, CA
http://captainandtennille.net/rumbo_pgs/clients.html
3 Studer A-827 Analog 24 track Recorders
1 Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck
1 Ampex ATR-104 2 or 4 track 1/2"or 1/4" head stacks

Scream Studios - LA, CA
http://www.screamstudios.com/albums.html
Studer A-827 2" 24-track Recorders
Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck

Signature Sound - San Diego CA
http://www.signaturesound.com
Studer A827 24-track
Otari MTR-12C 1/2" mastering deck

Skywalker Sound (Lucas Film LTD)
http://www.skysound.com
2 Studer 827 2" 24-tracks
1 Studer 827 2" 16-track
AMPEX ATR 2-Track & 4-Track Mastering Recorders

Studio in the Country - Bogalusa, LA
http://www.studiointhecountry.com/clients_list.htm
Studer A/820 2" 24-trk recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/80 2" 24-trk recorder
Studer A/80 2" half-Track recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/721 Cassette Recorder


I researched these myself and it’s just a small sampling. It goes on and on, but I do have a day job so you guys will have to find the rest yourself.

-Tim

All of these studios may (or may not) record the tracks to analog, but when they do, they always (except in limited circumstances) bounce the tracks to a DAW for editing and album construction. Now before you tear my head off, go on over to Pro Sound Web or MARSH and read what the engineers who work in these exact studios have to say. No one these days uses a razor on analog tape. No one. People here can believe what they want, and I have no problem with that, but there is so much misinformation being posted about digital this, and digital that that many end up believing it. I agree that cheap digital equipment sucks, but good digital equipment is so analog sounding it is scary. I am discounting "effects" that analog tape machines can get the same as I discount reverb, delay, phasing etc. These are all effects also.

 

[Beck]

and of course, none of these studios have digital recorders or digital reverbs at hand? Hmm?

Yep, most also have Pro Tools and/or other digital formats as well.

regebro, the above quote was in the post -- you missed it. But talk about missing the point altogether, my friend.

My contribution in this digital/analog debate is to enlighten those that don't know how prevalent analog is. There are a lot of people who don’t.

There is really no debate about it. Save your wind for something that is controvertible. It is very significant that the gods of the recording world are still using analog because people are oblivious to that fact. That fact is more important to me than any technical reasons why.

BTW what does digital reverb have to do with a discussion of analog tape?

 

[Beck]

All of these studios may (or may not) record the tracks to analog, but when they do, they always (except in limited circumstances) bounce the tracks to a DAW for editing and album construction.

Nothing there I don't already know. But It is not true that these studios have this stuff sitting around unused. There are some diehard studios that track and master to analog only. Indigo Ranch for example just got Pro Tools very recently. Some don't use it at all.

 

[Beck]

No one these days uses a razor on analog tape. No one.

That is not true. Although I don't edit tape with a razor and most people here don't there are many people who do. But what does that have to do with anything? I mean that in the kindest way.

I know all about the enginneers in these studios. I know how popular Pro Tools is with most everyone.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I know all about the enginneers in these studios

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!? (say something like that. It's so disrespectful. Go and face the corner, bad boy! No strawberry jam for you tonight.)

 

[Beck]

Human EAR reacts and responds to the sound in accordance whith and to the extend of its natural ability. If you want to get as close as possable to the goal (capturing the sound as the EAR does) you need to 'preserve' the "principle" and build the machine (system), which reacts and responds to the sound in accordance whith and to the extend of its natural ability. And that is an analog system.

That is exactly right.

 

[Beck]

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!? (say something like that. It's so disrespectful. Go and face the corner, bad boy! No strawberry jam for you tonight.)

Strawberry... not my favorite anyway.

 

[acorec]

That is not true. Although I don't edit tape with a razor and most people here don't there are many people who do. But what does that have to do with anything? I mean that in the kindest way.

I know all about the enginneers in these studios. I know how popular Pro Tools is with most everyone.

Think about it.

 

[regebro]

My contribution in this digital/analog debate is to enlighten those that don't know how prevalent analog is.

Ah, fighting windmills, again, eh, don? I should have known.

BTW what does digital reverb have to do with a discussion of analog tape?

Tape? Since when is this a tape discussion? Get with the program, dude! You guys (yes, you too) are bashing DIGITAL. Any kind of digital. All digital. Always. In any situation. That obviously includes digital reverbs.

 

[Beck]

Ah, fighting windmills, again, eh, don? I should have known.

Tape? Since when is this a tape discussion? Get with the program, dude? You guys (yes, you too) are bashing DIGITAL. Any kind of digital. All digital. Always. In any situation. That obviously includes digital reverbs.

The question was, "why still analog?" I have stayed on topic. I know my list of major studios still using analog would be devastating for anyone who is saying analog is antiquated and obsolete. In light of the facts there is no way anyone could save face. But please resist loosing it and changing the subject. You are now setting up straw men -- answering an argument that hasn’t been made.

Nobody has said anything about digital reverb. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Your loosing altitude dude -- pull up!

 

[evm1024]

SNIP
Sooo:

DIGITAL: ACCURATE
ANALOG: COHESIVE (or well integrated)

~Daniel

I think that we must refine the terminology. The misuse of the word accurate is why some object to its use.

Accuracy is the ability to produce a correct answer. In audio an accurate system would cause sound in to equal sound out.

The word that you want to use for digital is precise. Precision is the degree to which the answer is measured. (16 bit precision is good to 1 part in 65,536).

If digital were accurate (sound in = sound out) then its accuracy would be precise to 1 bit (Of course I'm ignoring a bunch of things done to the signal but that does not detract from the point).

No one in their right mind attempts to records digital with the peak signal mapping into the largest expressable number. Thus we record some 12 to 14 dB below this level. So 16 bits gives us about 96 dB dynamic range. 15 bits gives us 90 dB dynamic range and 14 bits gives us 84 dB dynamic range. 96-84=12 So with 12 dB headroom we end up with 14 bits of precision. 84 dB is still not bad. Again remember that I am not including all of the things done in the analog and digital chain. I'm just looking at raw bits of precision.

Now on top if this 14 bits we need to consider that quantization error will often cause the LSB (least significant bit) to have periods where it toggles back and forth in 1,0 trains or in 1,1,0,0 trains. This forms a 1 bit amplitude square wave. The harmonics of square waves are not nice to the ear so a random 1 bit dither was intorduced to remove the chance of those squarwave chains becoming audable. Now that brings us down to 13 bits of precision.

20Log(1/2^13) = 78.25 dB dynamic range. Still not bad, 1 in 8192 precision is pretty good. It is not 96 dB (total representable range in 16 bits).

Of course this is the precision of the measurments. The accuracy is effected by many factors. Because audio is a spectra the accuracy is time, amplitude and frequency dependent. Very complex. And I might add that this is very well addressed in both tape systems and digital systems.

To my mind the inaccuracies and error corrections in the two systems are a major contrubuter to the different sounds.

Regards