Just curious as to why still analog??

[Beck]

I'm starting to think...

Good for you.

Now stop with the religion nonsense. It was digital that spread like a cult. Your statements demonstrate a real lack of comprehension both to the content of this particular thread and the larger issue in general.

Herm is right. And let me add that there really is no worthy digital counterpart to the analog prosumer category. You can pay little for crapy digital toys or pay a lot for the top level digital. There is nothing to speak of in between.

If you want to learn something read over the contributions to the thread. I can say with certainty you will find verifiable facts and statistics that you won’t find anywhere else. It might make you mad, but that doesn’t make me or anyone else wrong. If you want to run with the sheeple that’s fine too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/turkey_s...J8Qr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"It's not that I'm kicking digital, but analogue has a much better sound. When you are able to A/B analogue and digital, which we could do in this case, there's simply no comparison. The top end is so sweet and beautiful. I've never heard anyone say about digital, even at 24-bit/96kHz or 192kHz: 'Isn't the top end as sweet and beautiful as you've ever heard?' You don't because digital just doesn't sound that way."
--Elliot Scheiner - Sound on Sound Magazine, Aug 2003

 

[Dr ZEE]

And I personally disagree with you about low-grade analog -- to my ears it sounds just as awful (in a different way) as cheap digital converters do.

what ever exact gear are in mind here...but, let's see.
I'd say it would be impossible to reason with a person who would 'hear'/say that , let's say tascam 32 sounds as awful (in a way) as ...hmmmm, Soundblaster Card on MyComputer. ... Well, I guess, some people may hear it as such. hmmmm

I hear this, thou.... I can compare the sound of real old 'low-grade' deck, as example, TEAC A-4300sx consumer stereo at 7.5ips with the sound of converters from AKAI (DR-4/8/16), TASCAM DA-30mkII, Marantz CDR-620, Digidesign AM-III, well latest M-Audio delta series "systems" (yeah, I have em' for computer ..grrrrrrrr)..... that's about it(all I had my hands on)....
and, well.... the Old non-pro-at-all TEAC beats the crap out of all the mentioned ... Are these all low-grade digital gear? Maybe. I don't know. Not as I knew when they were getting out of the 'kitchen'. I know for sure, that nobody ever anywhere mentioned back then that TEAC A-4300 (which is not anywhere near hi-grade pro recording gear) sounds actually better.

So, if somebody wants to tell me that I need 'hearing aid'..heh heh, that's fine with me. However, if you want to tell me, that there's something wrong with my ears, then at least make sure that you actually DID record/played and DID compare in action the gear I've mentioned. If you never had, then just shut up , 'cos you simply would not know what the hell you are talking about.

Low grade gear, high grade gear...yada yad yada, blah blah. What gear exactly you are talking about?

Just from my personal experience... - I really AM DONE with digital as main recording/production format. If you ask me, then ask: "Why still digital? Nostalgia? Less dust? Less cords? ...what?", then I maybe could say something, something like: As form of distribution....yeah, what the hell...nothing you can do about it.... dump it to file, arrange the tracks, burn CD, beam mp3 - feed the dogs

someday somewhere digital recording will be (or maybe already IS) so and so. Well, that's not in my kitchen not as I can/could hear it.
**********
Now, please, tell me what New ProTools system with forest of tubes infront and forest of tubes behind do I need to beat the old TEAC alone sound?
Just don't tell me that the reason is my Low IQ, 'cos I know I'm dumb already...been like this for many years, hopelessly, I may add

/later

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

And let me add that there really is no worthy digital counterpart to the analog prosumer category. You can pay little for crapy digital toys or pay a lot for the top level digital. There is nothing to speak of in between.

Again, nothing but your opinion... just like I have mine.......

At least I haven't turned digital into some freaky cult following like some people have with analog............


Get the bloody fuck over yourselves... there's plenty of room for 2 recording formats -- use whichever gives you the sound you want and stop the nonsense rhetoric about the other...........

 

[Dr ZEE]

Again, nothing but your opinion... just like I have mine.......

At least I haven't turned digital into some freaky cult following like some people have with analog............


Get the bloody fuck over yourselves... there's plenty of room for 2 recording formats -- use whichever gives you the sound you want and stop the nonsense rhetoric about the other...........

Hey, Bruce,
there's nothing to do with any 'cult'-shit here. There's nothing to get the bloody f*ck over.... It's all, rather in your head. Sorry, man... what ever you are trying to say, I guess you did
As I can tell, all of the guys here who are on the side of analog recording during this blah-blah, actually DO use both formats and are not going to stop using both. What we DO NOT have here is that fear of not being digitally-clear and pure, cos we've got over it. We also reject the 'faith of upcoming FEATURE', which is being stuffed down everyone's throat. We do not have fear of not being "on top of the "cutting-edge technology". We rather use our own ear, mind and experience as a judge and guide.
If we get passionate in the dicussion like this very topic (which we do not ask for, nor start, nor create base for, nor really need) - it is simply because we have to sort of respond to an actually 'idiotic' question "Why Still Analog?". The question IS f*cking moronic, if you know any sh*t about music recording and the last 50 years or so of its "journey".

This board is actually is about analog recording issues... it has nothing to do with digital/analog vs digital. Somebody asked the question, so there you have it. Then couple of f*kin' "intellects" jumped-in and start crying out, basicly saying that we ("analog guys") are just bunch of ignorant freaks, who know nothing about digital technology and plus are bunch of cheap cats, who would not pay extra buck for a "hi-end digital gear", but rather shop on e-bay for trashy analog garbage. And what do you want us to do.???? Yeah, the whole thing is a real pisser here, if you ask me.

I personally do not need f*king lecture about hi-pro studio gear, hi-end ad/da converters, basics of digital sampling technology, glory of proTools... nor I give a flying f*ck about some talented young engineer who can get analog sound with 100% digital system. If you get the sound of TEAC tape recorder with protolls - good f*kin' for you, man. I'm sure your dad would be proud of you. (I don't mean anyboody personally, again... just using word "you" in general). But it is a pisser... did I say it already? ... cos what it sais is this: "Hey, dude... check this out... my protools file sounds just like your TEAC, man. Is it Cool or what? Why, still f*ng analog, man. Get over it".
This would not be a such pisser, if it was a true thou.... heh he. But it's not. And if it was. Still! So what? What's so cool about getting something with something else, which I already have painlessly without that something else. I have no college girlfriend to impress, and if I had, I'd find something else to impress her with. I need to record. That's what I do, damn it

So who DOES need to get over yorself here? .... Maybe you really do need start to think. Nothing personal, man... really. I just pick the same style of replying to your remarks as you have chosen yours.

/later

 

[Earl Slick]

I wouldn't knock either medium, i use them both. To those who have only used digital, I say, record on a tape machine, and then ask yourself "why analog?". Tape can make things sound great. However, I've heard great sounding albums on both. Wilco gets amazing sounds on a 2'' 24 track, but Sufjan Stevens gets greats sounds on HD digital. Choose your weapon. But don't get to caught up on what's "better quality" because what does that even mean? Each has it's advantages and shortcomings. Also, I will say, using tape makes you look at things a different way. It's a very different work flow, and in many ways I find it to be a more satisfying way to work. Others might not, and may get great results. The whole argument aspect of this is really quite silly.

Bart

 

[Beck]

At least I haven't turned digital into some freaky cult following like some people have with analog............

Get the bloody fuck over yourselves... there's plenty of room for 2 recording formats -- use whichever gives you the sound you want and stop the nonsense rhetoric about the other...........

Right, complete with freaky cult members like Bruce Swedien, Roger Moutenot, Tom Scholz, etc… more than you can name.

You get the fuck over ourselves! You can’t tolerate even this small remnant of analog purists on a message board. I’d hate to see your breakdown if you ever got a clue as to how many professionals abhor what digital recording does to sound.

My arguments are anything but rhetoric. Everyone has an opinion – that’s fine. We can all say whether we like one or the other format better. However, beyond that, neither you nor most other digital advocates I’ve run across can answer my arguments with any substance.

You and others crank out digital mythology, and I show, complete with references, that you are mistaken. My points are never answered. No admission of error is ever given, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. You simply change the subject with no explanation or closure of each point.

I don’t expect this to ever be a legitimate debating society with anything resembling rules of order. But come on! I don’t know about all the other forums, but here we need something more than just “Blue Bear says.”

Speaking of position, I’ve always said I can use digital in a supporting role in an analog studio. I’ve also made it quite clear that I could move to exclusive use of digital if and when it ever meets my standards; “The first one in line” were my exact words. It is you, Bruce, who has consistently shown intolerance for anyone recommending analog as an alternative format.

 

[regebro]

Including you?

Can't you read? How many million times do I have to repeat something before you get it? No, I don't think digital is better.

The religous zealots here are fighting windmills.

No, digital did not spread like a cult. It spread like a FAD. Big difference. And there was a reason. Digital could do what people had tried to get analog to do for ages: Give you an accurate storage medium that did not color the sound at all.

But, as the saying goes. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. After a couple of years people realized that heck, they WANTED that color. Some people, like you, can for some to me unimagin§ble reason, not just admit that. they HAVE to think to themselves that analog is perfect, and that there is something technically WRONG with digital, even though this is clearly not the case.

And that is why analog is a cult.

 

[Beck]

Can't you read? How many million times do I have to repeat something before you get it? No, I don't think digital is better.

I didn't say that. I said you must think analog is better because you said "...nobody here matches the description "thinks digital is better." It was a joke. You would be included in the "nobody here" because you are here.

Lennart, speaking English and thinking in English are two different things.

 

[Beck]

Some people, like you, can for some to me unimagin§ble reason, not just admit that. they HAVE to think to themselves that analog is perfect, and that there is something technically WRONG with digital, even though this is clearly not the case.

I didn't say that about analog either. I have plainly said that I know the strengths and weaknesses of each format, and that analog tape itself is a musical instrument. Digital is not transparent despite the popular myth. Yes there is something wrong with digital.

 

[regebro]

I didn't say that. I said you must think analog is better because you said "...nobody here matches the description "thinks digital is better." It was a joke. You would be included in the "nobody here" because you are here.

Lennart, speaking English and thinking in English are two different things.

Obviously. Can you start speaking it too, becuase nothing of what you said above made any kind of sense?

Yes there is something wrong with digital.

 

[Beck]

Obviously. Can you start speaking it too, becuase nothing of what you said above made any kind of sense?

Regebro doesn't understand it. That only means everyone else will.

Really Lennart, I'm kidding you.

 

[regebro]

It's very hard to tell the difference between when you are serious and when you are kidding.

It's like when communists go
"We will kill everybody who opposes us!

HA! Just kidding, we won't. Hehe. Did you fall for it? We'll only kill all the capitalists, of course."

Or racists:

"We'll throw all non-whites out of the US! Buh-bye!

HA! Just kidding, we won't. Hehe. Did you fall for it? We'll only kick out all the blacks, jews and muslims. And gays, of course!"

 

[Beck]

It's very hard to tell the difference between when you are serious and when you are kidding.

Sometimes I don't even know.

 

[Dr ZEE]

It's very hard to tell the difference between when you are serious and when you are kidding.

It's like when communists go
"We will kill everybody who opposes us!

HA! Just kidding, we won't. Hehe. Did you fall for it? We'll only kill all the capitalists, of course."

Or racists:

"We'll throw all non-whites out of the US! Buh-bye!

HA! Just kidding, we won't. Hehe. Did you fall for it? We'll only kick out all the blacks, jews and muslims. And gays, of course!"

regebro, you see, well, I am sort of serious about what I'm going to try to point out for you, not that I'd expect you to care...but still...
Your problem is that it would very hard for you to realize, that Communists actually may and do LOVE The Capital, they just keep it 'under the foot' and one who happend to be a dark-skined jew-born who prays to Allah and is homosexual and still can be a racist. I am not saying this to you to swing over some sort of cloud of political argument, but simply to point out that you really only take something as a fact if you can read or hear from 'respected by you' source. That is not enough, bro. You also have to THINK. This practice will help you to understand things and people better. It may become easier for you then to know whether somone is being serious or joking or kiddin' ....

I am not saying that you can't or don't think. One can't really know whether a person does or does not think to begin with. But how about actually applying your thinking before making statments? Well, think about that ...

*********
btw, if you trigger a process by timer and register each triggered action in some form, then store registrants in an orderly manner - you DO assign virtual time time mark to each registrant. Yeah... it takes some thinking to get it. no biggy.... but it's not available in any manual anywhere.

anyhow...

/later

 

[regebro]

Sorry Dr ZEE, as usual you are completely wrong about everything you think about me. From start, to finish. The things you think I don't understand, are things I grasped many, many years ago.

Here is a first hint in understanding me: I mean what I say.

As to your comments about thinking, I find them extremely insulting and fantastically daft.

If you want to make this a mud slinging fight, I'm in. But as you should know by now, I'm not a bad mudslinger, so you might want to reconsider if you really want to go down that path. If not, may I suggest you simply shut your filthy piehole about things that are way above your mental capacities?

 

[Dr ZEE]

... may I suggest you simply shut your filthy piehole about things that are way above your mental capacities?

no problema. It's done. When ever I open my piehole - that's not for you, dude. That's for people with some brains. You are simply gone. Pooffff! You are not even there. Done deal.

 

[regebro]

no problema. It's done. When ever I open my piehole - that's not for you, dude. That's for people with some brains. You are simply gone. Pooffff! You are not even there. Done deal.

Well, at least now I know why your writings are stupid and confused. It' not because you don't know how to express yourself. I thought maybe you suffer from the sameproblems as post modernists or something. But no, you simply are immensly daft. You simply have not the slightest fucking clue of what you are talking, and can obviously not understand the simplest of reasoning. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I wonder if it hurts.

 

[Earl Slick]

Why does this always come up as an argument reather than a dialogue? If everyone is so unyielding, and unwilling to see another's point of view, there is no point of posting on this forum. This forum is about helping others, and learning. No body knows everything, and if they did, this forum wouldn't be much good to them. Why make things personal?

Bart

 

[monty]

Why does this always come up as an argument reather than a dialogue? If everyone is so unyielding, and unwilling to see another's point of view, there is no point of posting on this forum. This forum is about helping others, and learning. No body knows everything, and if they did, this forum wouldn't be much good to them. Why make things personal?

Bart

It is the way of HomRec.com. They know no other way. Forgive them for they know not what they do.

 

[evm1024]

Too bad name calling is the norm - there is data available

Taking a quote from a peer review paper...

"The number of bits in a DAC is a poor method of determining its performance and accuracy. A better measure of performance is the accuracy of the actual bits themselves. Under ideal circumstances, a 16-bit converter would exactly convert all 16-bits of the sample data word in a linear fashion. However, this is seldom possible. In practice a 16-bit DAC is less than sufficient for accurate conversion.

The error in a 16-bit (or any multi-bit) converter relies on the accuracy of the most significant bit (MSB) of the data word. Inaccuracy in this bit can result in an error of half the signal's amplitude--a significant error by any measure. This in mind, manufacturers reasoned that converters with high bit rates could overcome this shortcoming along with others through sheer numbers. In addition to ensuring the accuracy of the MSB by having more than 16-bits, they can also improve quantization performance by adding 2x-16 more quantization levels than a 16-bit converter. Now, any nonlinearity in the conversion process would be a far smaller fraction of the overall signal and the more quantization levels result in a greater S/E ratio by virtue of Eq. 1. The extra bits used by these converters may be either thrown away, be left unused, or be put to other intelligent uses that will be discussed later. Unfortunately, it is a misconception that the use of an 18- or 20-bit DAC gives true 18 or 20-bit audio performance.

Despite the fantastic performance benefits of these nth generation multi-bit converters, they are still plagued by many errors. Linearity was already mentioned, but they are also plagued by gain error, slew-rate distortion, and zero-crossing distortion. All of these error and distortion types introduce severe harmonic distortion and group delay; thereby perturbing signal stability, imaging, and staging. "

Accuracy can be judged by metrics or by subjective evaluation. When we say that accuracy is a measure of some parameters (mathmatical accuracy) we must admit that both digital and analog are accurate. When we speak in the more subjective sonic accuracy we see that analog has its "color" which is the deviation in accuracy as does digital.

The point is there for the astute.

Regards