Just curious as to why still analog??

[FALKEN]

damn this thread is still going on?


It is my theory that the problem with digital is jitter. yes, tape machines jitter too. but when I got my machine, which is at least 20 years old, I was just amazed at how accurate it really is. I have made several live recordings digitally and they all sound much better than stuff that is tracked. and stuff that is tracked sounds better the fewer tracks there are. this is just what I have noticed with my machine. so this has led me to believe that the small inconsistancies in the word clock and thus data storage build up in different places over different tracks, when tracking. similarly, if you have a jittery tape machine, that will be more apparent when layering tracks as well.

you know, I almost bought an apogee converter on ebay. but then the guy went down a list of some of the cd's he has released, and my girlfriend has one of them...it is absolutely horrid! the worst digital artifacts that I would never want in one of my recordings. and apogees are supposed to have awesome clocks so maybe I don't really know anything. its hard to pinpoint exactly what I am hearing.

and I do agree with the above post that adding color into digital recordings is what its all about. just like during the 80s it was all about getting a "clean" sound to tape. I'm not sure why digital is more fatiguing to me, but it is definitely something that builds up...just like noise builds up over analog tape.

 

[jiggz]

Some people are aware that they themselves cannot handle the truth so they go out of their way to bash others in an attempt to cover up their own insecurities.

 

[SteveMac]

damn this thread is still going on?


It is my theory that the problem with digital is jitter. yes, tape machines jitter too. but when I got my machine, which is at least 20 years old, I was just amazed at how accurate it really is. I have made several live recordings digitally and they all sound much better than stuff that is tracked. and stuff that is tracked sounds better the fewer tracks there are. this is just what I have noticed with my machine. so this has led me to believe that the small inconsistancies in the word clock and thus data storage build up in different places over different tracks, when tracking. similarly, if you have a jittery tape machine, that will be more apparent when layering tracks as well.

I think your right on this. I noticed an individual track could sound great by itself but together in the mix sound terrible. I think a fast strumming acoustic guitar would particuarly really muck up a recording with the mids. If you took out the guitar the bass and drums would mesh fine. A "spikey" guitar would work well.

I also notice that in the headphones a mix could sound great but through speakers sound like shit. Is it the d/a conversion? Maybe it just doesn't mix with the air? Honestly, I swear that I can literally SEE where the sound stops in front of the speaker with mixes that I've made on to DVD. ?? Speakers interpretation?

 

[acorec]

You know, I pretty much agree with your analogy. Just to reiterate and add my own: Analog is like a tree that gets planted in natural, God made soil if you like, that grows fruit as nature intended ... whereas Digital is a man made factory which produces "engineered" food with the idea to make it look, taste and be as healthful as the "real thing".

I see "Analog" as nature intended and I'm very comforted by that.

~Daniel

How about this:
Analog is a technology that has come and gone.

Digital is the current and future technology. Why not accept it and move on?

Analog is, by nature, non-linear (like digital).

If analog was that great and the demand that high, where have all the analog recorders gone?

The only argument that can be made is that digital is, by public demand, better than analog as evidenced by sales. This is a fact.

The debate as to which sounds better, well, does everyone on earth like grape jelly?

 

[FALKEN]

sales cannot determine which technology is better. often sales determine which technology is 'more convenient', 'less expensive', 'makes me feel like a pro'. cannot determine fidelity.

 

[monty]

If analog was that great and the demand that high, where have all the analog recorders gone?

A Reel Person has them all. He's the reason digital has become popular. I say we git him!!!

 

[Dr ZEE]

The only argument that can be made is that digital is, by public demand, better than analog as evidenced by sales. This is a fact.

The debate as to which sounds better, well, does everyone on earth like grape jelly?

heh heh ... that's a good one.

by public demand, there's nothing better than 128kbps i-tunes, even Ring Tones beat the crap out of CDs, don't even mention vinyl
The Public consumes junk food like nothing else on the planet... so?

Why not to just accept it and move on? Is that a question?

The answer is pretty simple: Because one may refuse to be a cow in the herd.

/regards

p.s. I'm still puzzling. If all it takes is a REAL Hihg-End pure-digital recording system and Knowledge to do what needed the best possible way (producing a great record, that is), then why Real Top Pros in their Top-of-the-line studios with all the Cash and All the Brains in their possession would not do just that? hmmmmm
Something is missing there. Or is it not?

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

Digital is the current and future technology. Why not accept it and move on?

Then why do you keep visiting this forum? Unfuckingbelievable.

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

The debate as to which sounds better, well, does everyone on earth like grape jelly?

That doesn't matter. If that was all that were on the grocery shelves, you wouldn't have a choice would you. Like it or not, thats what you would eat. It is the PLAYBACK MACHINE MANUFACTURERS that dictate this. NOT CHOICE. And GOVERNMENT EMBRACES IT!!! Wait till they mandate DIGITAL BROADCASTING ONLY in the US. FUCK THEM. This whole digital/analog media choice thing will be the MARK OF THE BEAST. WITHOUT ANALOG, sometime in the near future, you won't know what is real anymore as EVERYTHING can be altered/controlled. INCLUDING PROPAGANDA/NEWS/FREEDOM.


All I can say to the people who embrace digital is.........YOU MADE YOUR BED>>>ENJOY YOUR DEMISE AS YOU ARE ABOUT TO MEET THE NEW WORLD ORDER. If you think I'm kidding, wait 10 years.

FUCK DIGITAL. ANALOG IS REAL.
fitZ

 

[acorec]

Dr ZEE Quote:
"So, does this mean, that with today's REAL high end professional digital-only recording system, let's say, ProTools, a highly educated and talented person in professional studio can achive the same result as an uneducated talentless (in respect to engineering) rocker with, let's say, MSR-16 in his garage?"

First: any guy with an analog recorder in his garage cannot hold a candle to any guy with a Pro-Tools rig in a pro studio unless his garage is a pro studio (treated and designed to record in).
Second: I know plenty of uneducated talentless people (with respect to engineering) that record analog and the recordings are pretty bad. I mean unbeleivably bad. Analog has nothing to do with it.

I don't know if I am a real talented engineer, but I use a Fostex D2424LV and an MCI 2" all the time in combonation, or singley and I have yet to have a single musician or producer even comment on the sound being "Harsh" or "Cold". If you want to know, recording techniques such as mic placement, pre-amp settings and use of certain *types* of compressors get digital sounding very much like analog. It does not take a highly educated pro to do this if you understand up front that digital and analog are different and sound different and *record* differently. I am not a DAW or Pro-Tools fan because their limitations and sonic signature (meaning that digital sound we all hate) are due to the digital summing within the recording software. Now, Pro-Tools HD and my Fostex D2424LV have analog outputs to be used with a analog mixing console. The summing is done in the analog domain and if done this way, then it is all up to the soundsource and choice of signal chain equipment that will get you a comprable sound with an analog recorder. Where an analog recorder shines is it's ability to be saturated which causes a type of compression (signal clipping) that acts just like clipping a tube. The result is an *effect* and one that engineers have found to accentuate drums and bass (makes them punchy and fat sounding). If you keep the signal at 0 db on a properly aligned analog recorder, this effect is not present at all (like a tube used for a clean signal). People seem to think that an analog recorder has tape compression and that is what makes them sound better. Nonsense. A properly aligned tape machine recording a signal at the level the designers intended will sound virtually the same as a good digital rig. I am simply saying that people can argue with me until they are blue in the face, but I do both all the time and have done so for years. I have no problem doing an album in digital, analog or a combo of both. It really all depends on the guys I am recording. If they want to spend $150 on a reel of tape, I will do it no problem. I will also say that many guys I play my digital recordings to save their $$$ for tape and are very happy with the results. How can you argue with that?

 

[Beck]

How about this:
Analog is a technology that has come and gone.

Come and gone for who? Come and gone for you – yes. Live with your decision without expecting everyone to agree. It is a great feeling of freedom to be able to make choices based on real preference without social pressure. I highly recommend it. As much as I have due respect for the greats in the recording industry who still use analog they could dump it tomorrow, but unless digital changes for the better my studio will remain as it is.

Digital is the current and future technology. Why not accept it and move on?

Digital is an immature technology that has failed to deliver. Why exchange something that already is for something that may one day be? There are people that dumped analog for digital 10-15 years ago that are still waiting. What sense does that make if you can use analog while you wait? When digital finally arrives I’ll be the first one in line.

"Having been an audio lemming myself, who discarded an analogue multitrack for a digital version, I have in some respects come to see the error of my ways, and on cold, lonely nights in the chill digital air-conditioning of my studio I dream of basking in the glow of a warm analog fire. Perhaps the greatest advantage of analogue recording is its wonderfully 'warm' sound quality."
-DAVID MELLOR
Sound On Sound - May 1997

If analog was that great and the demand that high, where have all the analog recorders gone?

They are in the best studios around the globe. They are in countless lesser-known studios around the globe. Again this is a shock to noobs . Why are you asking questions that have already been answered in this thread with verifiable statistics?

“For many, analog tape is still the preferred way to record music. How long that lasts is uncertain. One thing, however, is sure: A quick survey of major studios and mastering rooms will show a clear preponderance of “Ferraris” (read Studer, Ampex ATR, etc) parked in the control rooms.”
-Jeff Gilman- Chief Alchemist - Precision Motor Works
Mix Magazine - Oct. 2003

As for manufacturers, we are living in a new economy where traditional indicators no longer give the whole picture. Welcome to the 21st Century. Analog machines of every variety are a hot commodity on eBay and other Internet outlets, as well as showroom floors in large metropolitan areas. It is a huge refurb market. In that sense they are still being made or remade, if you will.

“Analog machines will continue to be serviceable—now, after 20, 30 or 40 years and in the future—because they mostly consist of hardware that any skilled machinist can re-create. (No digital format will be as easy to support after manufacturers throw in the towel.)”
-Eddie Cilleti
Mix Magazine Aug. 2000

http://www.atrservice.com
http://www.jrfmagnetics.com/
http://www.athan.com/cgi-local/store.cgi?cat1=1003&s=1
http://www.precisionmotorworks.com/
http://iemmag.com/audio.html
http://www.sprague-magnetics.com/audio.htm#asales

The only argument that can be made is that digital is, by public demand, better than analog as evidenced by sales. This is a fact.

I hope that is not the only argument because it is a very bad one. I describe this age we are living as one of incompetence and minimal standards. It is hardly reasonable to suggest that the masses in this particular time and space have made a choice based on quality. Even many of those that believe they are choosing quality are doing so based on digital mythology. I’ve said this before and it’s worth remembering:

“You will find that people in the analog camp are generally more informed and aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both formats. Ours is a truly informed choice based on experience – mostly bad experience with digital.

Rather than blindly go with the marketing flow, those who have chosen analog, for the most part, are those who have made a real choice.”
-Beck

As a life lesson I recommend everyone watch the movie, “Zulu” 1964. It is based on a true story of the battle of Rorke's Drift outpost, South Africa in 1879 when 150 British soldiers held off 4,000 Zulu warriors. The lesson? Superior numbers does not equal superior. I would rather be a part of the elite.

The debate as to which sounds better, well, does everyone on earth like grape jelly?

No, but if grape jelly is what you want I’m sure most would prefer real grapes in it, not just artificial flavor.

-Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

I know plenty of uneducated talentless people (with respect to engineering) that record analog and the recordings are pretty bad. I mean unbeleivably bad. Analog has nothing to do with it.

I completely agree. If somebody can't record sh*t, analog has nothing to do with it. It's not analog's fault

so... ? What? , are we again comparing oranges with what? pick any other fruit
Nothing personal here, acorec, but I guess you've missed the point I was tring to make. You were saying that young talented educated engineers armed with high quality top-price digital systems manage to make great records, which sound analog. So my point is: why bother? Why not to just use analog? Will save you time, effort, and since you already have analog gear, that would mean it will save you cash and you would not have to get distracted from being focused on your work (making a great record that it) - you'll have more time and energy to LISTEN (to make a great record the first thing first - you must be able to LISTEN, and you must listen and you have to be able to hear. If you don't do the first thing, the rest has absolutely no meaning nor any effect on the result.
Of course if your goal is to prove something, ala to say: "Hey, check this out, I'm soooo freaking smart! Without any analog gear I've got it sounding just like analog!" Weel, more power to you. March on, man! March on!

I would have less problems, if digital fans would just say: "Hey, we don't give a crap about what analog gear can do. Because it all sucks. We do it much better, period." This would be fine with me. Really. I mean it. I would just say to myself: "Well, that's sounds reasonable to me. I guess they just love what the hear. Fine. Be it. They do their thing, - I do mine. No big deal"

/later

 

[acorec]

I completely agree. If somebody can't record sh*t, analog has nothing to do with it. It's not analog's fault

so... ? What? , are we again comparing oranges with what? pick any other fruit
Nothing personal here, acorec, but I guess you've missed the point I was tring to make. You were saying that young talented educated engineers armed with high quality top-price digital systems manage to make great records, which sound analog. So my point is: why bother? Why not to just use analog? Will save you time, effort, and since you already have analog gear, that would mean it will save you cash and you would not have to get distracted from being focused on your work (making a great record that it) - you'll have more time and energy to LISTEN (to make a great record the first thing first - you must be able to LISTEN, and you must listen and you have to be able to hear. If you don't do the first thing, the rest has absolutely no meaning nor any effect on the result.
Of course if your goal is to prove something, ala to say: "Hey, check this out, I'm soooo freaking smart! Without any analog gear I've got it sounding just like analog!" Weel, more power to you. March on, man! March on!

I would have less problems, if digital fans would just say: "Hey, we don't give a crap about what analog gear can do. Because it all sucks. We do it much better, period." This would be fine with me. Really. I mean it. I would just say to myself: "Well, that's sounds reasonable to me. I guess they just love what the hear. Fine. Be it. They do their thing, - I do mine. No big deal"

/later

Because analog machines don't exist anymore. Used machines will last the life of the heads and then you are sunk. Have you looked at the price of heads for an analog machine?

You can get them new, for like 500-3000$ each (depending on the machine).

Analog is not forever at the commercial level and they know it. The pro studios are buying digital and the sales show it, so, why not learn to record on it to satisfy the analog guys?

Remember, you are used to hearing an analog system, the new generation are not. They will find their way on their own. But, until analog machines come back, digital is here and is doing well in both commercial and non-commercial applications.

 

[acorec]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE
"....I would have less problems, if digital fans would just say: "Hey, we don't give a crap about what analog gear can do. Because it all sucks. We do it much better, period." This would be fine with me. Really. I mean it. I would just say to myself: "Well, that's sounds reasonable to me. I guess they just love what the hear. Fine. Be it. They do their thing, - I do mine. No big deal"


You have not read any of my posts at all. I have always said that (at least my) analog and digital machines sound very much the same (except for a slight amount of tape hiss).

SO, you have no problems with me.

 

[acorec]

Gotta to hand it to you Dr Zee. You hit it right on the head. I came into this thread thinking that we might have a good conversation on the merits of Digital vs Analog and the limits of each rather than a pissing match. Plus the programmer does not know which languages he programs in and the Digital dudes can't tell the sampling rate from the bit depth and assumes that there is any information >>at all<< available between the sample and hold window. Clue to the astute if the value being measured changes during the conversion period the conversion is hosed. Thats why ADC use a sample and hold on their input.

I really liked the quotes a few pages back about the established scientific community. I am part of the scientific community and I can say that there are very few scientists looking at psyco-acoustics (the interaction between the brain and sound). For the most part they just measure things and seek research that will get grant money.

It would be really nice to have this thread move over to why digital and analog sound different. As a research engineer in my heart I know that if you sample fast enough and deep enough you will be able to reproduce in digital sound that sounds just like analog. All a matter of precision waveform capture and recovery.

regards

As a research engineer, you would be wrong that sampling fast enough and deep enough will get the "analog sound". It is a loooooooooooooooong explanation as to why. Dan Lavery can explain it far better than I. This debate has gone on for months over at PSW. Dan is one of the best designers out there and his AD/DA convs are some of the best out there. If you want substance, then go there for the deep theory. They will set you straight. If all you want to do is argue, then stay here and follow the few posters that think they know anything, so far, they only show their lack of understanding with every single word they write.

And, please, tell me what the "analog sound" is in some kind of electronic terms. I want to know.

 

[evm1024]

As a research engineer, you would be wrong that sampling fast enough and deep enough will get the "analog sound". It is a loooooooooooooooong explanation as to why. Dan Lavery can explain it far better than I. This debate has gone on for months over at PSW. Dan is one of the best designers out there and his AD/DA convs are some of the best out there. If you want substance, then go there for the deep theory. They will set you straight. If all you want to do is argue, then stay here and follow the few posters that think they know anything, so far, they only show their lack of understanding with every single word they write.

And, please, tell me what the "analog sound" is in some kind of electronic terms. I want to know.

Wow Quoting me from the "distance past". Cool.

I'll take a quick stab at explaining my comments. Enter into the spirit of my meaning and we perhaps can come to an understanding of each others viewpoint. (no agreement required)

First analog sound: Analog sound is the sum total of the transfer function of the analog recording and PLAYBACK chain. This sound is a continuious spectrum and is nonlinear. Analog sound is self defining in that it exists. that is to say that it is a totallity of those things we know how to describe and those we are still learining about.

Now that may sound a bit too soft or fluffy to some but that is OK. Some others will quickly agree. The key is that people can detect "analog sound".

Sorry I have no math to define analog sound. But since we are talking a self defining totallity then the Mic, preamp, recorder, tape, amp, speakers, room and listener (and listeners mood etc) define a specific analog sound.

You are quite correct to say that sampling fast enough and deep enougn will not become analog sound - alone. However lets take a look not at the limits of my statement but rather what my statement enables.

The first thing is that I said "As a research engineer in my heart". What this indicated is a deep faith that the real world can be modeled by computers given a deep enough understanding of what we are modeling and data of great enough precision and period and computer power to match to cause all sampling artifacts to be undetectable and the transfer function to match any known transfer function.

We can talk about the conversion rate and bit depth of modern digital systems and yet the playbock system forms the current limit. Currently this is "CD quality". 44.1kHz and 16 bits.

I have spoken about the transfer function as the meaningful charistics of an analog (tape or digital) system. I have said that the test is to run line in into the system under test and to subtract its output from the line in feed with the results being the "sound" that the test system introduces.

If we do live to tape compairisions we will see the difference as the essence of "analog" (tape) sound. All of the things that tape does will show up.

If we do live to digital we will see what digital does. Some have said that digital does nothing but reproduce the original accurately but I think that most will disagree. And this simple "null" test will prove or disprove.

Were we to feel our live signel to both a tape system and a digital system and then adjust the digital transfer functions such that it responded the same as tape we would then have a digital system that has a provable "analog sound". This would require a fair bit of processing power and some understanding of analog that I don't think we have now.

Regards

 

[regebro]

You can get them new, for like 500-3000$ each

That's What they always used to cost. That's the most high-end bleeding edge part of the machine.

With all due respect, but you are way off here. There is no doubt that analog tape has a longer "shelf life" than digital. You'll be able to step into a major studio with 24 track 2" long after any DASH format has been relegated to the people specialized in recovering data from old storage mediums.

Digital does have one benefit: If you keep you archives updated, that is, you re-wind any tapes once a year, and when you move to a new archive format you also move all your old ones, and this way constantly keep your data in a readable medium, if you do that, digital stores for ever. Analog, of course, will loose quality in every generation. Luckily for us, there probably are no more generations.

 

[Dr ZEE]

As a research engineer, you would be wrong that sampling fast enough and deep enough will get the "analog sound". It is a loooooooooooooooong explanation as to why. Dan Lavery can explain it far better than I. This debate has gone on for months over at PSW. Dan is one of the best designers out there and his AD/DA convs are some of the best out there. If you want substance, then go there for the deep theory. They will set you straight. If all you want to do is argue, then stay here and follow the few posters that think they know anything, so far, they only show their lack of understanding with every single word they write.

And, please, tell me what the "analog sound" is in some kind of electronic terms. I want to know.

Actually, acorec is right here. If you want deep theory and need to get straighten out , then go and listen to Dan.
Here, you get nothing, but a chance to "listen" to a jork like Dr ZEE, who will not give you any looooooooooooong explanations, nor give you any explanations at all, but rather confuse the hell outa'you, by telling, that what ever Don is working on, and when he is done with his work and when the goal is achieved there will be no recorder anymore as we know it in your recording studio, it will be a delay in your recording/production session. There will be no such thing as 'analog' sound, or 'digital' sound... or what ever sound.... it'll be just what's in the wire. Yeah! Mission accomplished. No mo' recorders! It is perfect. It is ideal and it is real! Sugar in - sugar out. After all , was not it what we all were asking for?
Of course... at the present moment it is all in future, but where do you want to be? Do you want to be in the future? Be there ...!
well, so far, only in your dreams, still....you know, sounds great.

Remember the ending of the "Analyze That" movie? "Someday! Somewhere!...."
heh heh... Yeah, right, Vitti sure did the right thing, you know .., and from now on he'll be a good boy

here:

 

[evm1024]

But I find Dr Zee insitefull

I did scan a copy of an article form the early 80s where Carver comes up with his tube sounding transistor amps. I've scanned it in (sorry about the poor scan) . It does speak about how you can compair the "sounds" of 2 amps and thus any bit of audio gear.

http://arafel.org/audio/

Regards,

PS I will take a look at Don's stuff.

 

[Beck]

If you keep the signal at 0 db on a properly aligned analog recorder, this effect is not present at all (like a tube used for a clean signal). People seem to think that an analog recorder has tape compression and that is what makes them sound better. Nonsense. A properly aligned tape machine recording a signal at the level the designers intended will sound virtually the same as a good digital rig. I am simply saying that people can argue with me until they are blue in the face...

From operating level (0 vu) on an analog machine you have about 1% harmonic distortion. The closer you get to saturation point the more distortion you have. 1 to 3% distortion is typically within normal range when analog is not being used as an effect for compression/saturation. Tape gradually compresses until total saturation of the tape is realized.

Digital on the other hand typically has distortion figures in the 0.05 range at operating level. There is no perceptible 3rd harmonic distortion at all, and above 0 vu the signal breaks down into garbage.

Anecdotal arguments about people who can’t hear the difference are of little value. They only tell us that those people can’t hear the difference, but not that there isn’t a difference.

There are people who can hear the difference. That’s why there is even an issue.

The debate about whether there’s an audible difference based solely on individual perception is an endless merry-go-round of

Yes there is
No there isn’t
Yes there is
No there isn’t
Ad infinitum

Here are the questions that should make any reasonable person stop and think:

Why do all the biggest and best known studios in the world have analog multi-tracks and mastering decks if they could do it all with Pro Tools or equivalent?

Why do they pay the cost of maintaining these analog monsters?

Why do they have tape budgets in the thousands of dollars?

Why were Quantegy’s back-orders in the tens of thousands of reels after the bankruptcy?

Why did the Society of Professional Audio Recording Services (SPARS) take action in February to request a special run from Quantegy after they closed there doors?

http://mixonline.com/mixline/spars-quantegy-tape/

Get a clue? Yeah, I guess that’s what I’m saying.