No audible distortion.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter TASCAM MAN
  • Start date Start date
I understand the question and the definition of, "Distortion" in this case. It's a perfectly reasonable question given that most people today are seeking a tape, "Effect" ... an exaggeration or caricature as you will typically find in tape emulation plugins. Probably the biggest difference between those of us that were doing tape back in the day and those who are just learning it now is that back in the day we weren't trying to get a tape effect. We were trying to capture sound as hi-fi as possible... clean and quiet as far as background noise. That's just what I did.

As for defining distortion in general... Distortion is anything that is different than the original material being recording. When dealing with tape you are usually looking at harmonic distortion and modulation distortion, and/or clipping in the electronics. When dealing with digital you have artifacts that are unique to digital processing that you won't find using analog tape, and you still have the potential for clipping in the analog stages. Technically it is all distortion... just different types.

Just a friendly reminder to everyone to check your favorite pre-digital oldies, including very high fidelity classical music that was recorded with analog tape because that was all there was, or it was still more popular than digital. Oldies for our purposes here includes music recorded well into the '90s to analog tape. Do you hear distortion on all that? No.
 
Beck said:
Do you hear distortion on all that? No.
Click to expand...

Just a confirmation, in case you didn't read some of the other threads/posts....
I don't think anyone here or the previous threads ever suggested that analog/tape always created "audible distortion" (as in, some kind of bad/obvious distortion).
So why that point being endlessly pursued by the OP....is kinda weird. :D

What WAS said, was pretty much what you also said....that any change from the original is technically a form of "distortion", and that analog gear and tape, (depending on gear and application) does change the original signal in some quantity....and so technically it's distortion.
That was NOT meant as any attack on analog/tape....it was only a point of fact.

Like CrowsofFritz said....this is all about personal validation that the OP's use of analog gear/tape is as good or better than digital. Which as you know has become somewhat of a tired, boring topic on these forums (remember one Tim G. who argued on the digital side ad nauseum, and looked for people to speak up in support of his views so he could validate them. ;) ).

I had hoped the OP would delve deeper into his personal recording experiences and techniques and share some work he's done with it, rather than just going on and on with generic "tape is great" posts....but I don't think he wants to.

I mean...we are all here in the analog forum...we already know analog gear and tape is great. :)
 
miroslav said:
Just a confirmation, in case you didn't read some of the other threads/posts....
I don't think anyone here or the previous threads ever suggested that analog/tape always created "audible distortion" (as in, some kind of bad/obvious distortion).
So why that point being endlessly pursued by the OP....is kinda weird. :D

... I mean...we are all here in the analog forum...we already know analog gear and tape is great. :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I don't know, maybe I did miss something in another thread, and yet the discussion of whether tape is always "Audibly distorted" is a good discussion on the face of it. It seems a lot of people around the web see tape as effect, which is due to incomplete understanding of the medium, which is unfortunate. Yeah I know what you mean by it not necessarily meaning tape is distorted in a bad way, and yet many people think that. The analog forum has always been a place where apologetics are (or should be) exercised with some freedom. Otherwise there would be nothing to push back against the tendency on the web for misinformation to spread like a plague. That goes for any other area of recording as well. It's easy for the ignorant majority to rule on the web, whether we're talking about flying airplanes, medicine, or recording. So, I guess I don't always try to analyze an OP too much, because if the members can bring the thread around to an informative discussion it's worth the effort. ;)
 
I agree....though like I said, this thread is a carryover from another thread that got closed because the discussion there quickly got kooky...and right into the "analog VS digital" theme.

AFA the newbs playing with tape these days....well, it is what it is. Kinda hard to preach analog and tape when it's dwindled down to almost nothing compared to the use of digital for quite some time now....so the "art" has turned more into "myth"...and kinda hard explaining to a total newb 50-60 years worth of analog/tape history in pop music. ;)

I mean...we got people around here talking about "reamping" DI tracks from a computer out through a digital modeling box....and the use of an actual "amp" hasn't even come into their thought process. Where do you begin setting them straight? :D
 
miroslav said:
Where do you begin setting them straight? :D
Click to expand...

You can't! Sometimes all we can do is sit back and be glad we're us and not them. :D Beyond that we can only hope the exceptionable people will occasional get a clue and break away from the pack. ;)
 
The whole problem with this thread is the mis-use of the word distortion.

Almost everyone is saying distortion when they mean clipping. This is simply not accurate.

Distortion (in audio terms) is ANY deformation of the output waveform compared to the input. Yes, it can be of the fairly unpleasant variety (clipping, harmonic distortion). However, it can be as basic as a non-flat frequency response (i.e. the tape "warmth"), tape compression and all sorts of characteristics that many consider the desirable side of recording to tape.

The choice of what sort of sound you like is a purely personal one. Some like analogue some like digital and there's no single right answer. However, it's safe to say that we've ALL heard audible distortion in pretty well every recording we've made. It's just that, very often, we find that distortion pleasant and desirable.
 
Beck said:
I understand the question and the definition of, "Distortion" in this case. It's a perfectly reasonable question given that most people today are seeking a tape, "Effect" ... an exaggeration or caricature as you will typically find in tape emulation plugins. Probably the biggest difference between those of us that were doing tape back in the day and those who are just learning it now is that back in the day we weren't trying to get a tape effect. We were trying to capture sound as hi-fi as possible... clean and quiet as far as background noise. That's just what I did.

As for defining distortion in general... Distortion is anything that is different than the original material being recording. When dealing with tape you are usually looking at harmonic distortion and modulation distortion, and/or clipping in the electronics. When dealing with digital you have artifacts that are unique to digital processing that you won't find using analog tape, and you still have the potential for clipping in the analog stages. Technically it is all distortion... just different types.

Just a friendly reminder to everyone to check your favorite pre-digital oldies, including very high fidelity classical music that was recorded with analog tape because that was all there was, or it was still more popular than digital. Oldies for our purposes here includes music recorded well into the '90s to analog tape. Do you hear distortion on all that? No.
Click to expand...

Beck...Beck...Beck....I just couldn't put it into words like you did:)
 
READ AGAIN PLEASE;

I think my opening post needs to be re-read by most of you guys. and obviously my definition of "audible distortion" means a whole different thing to me than others. I think distortion is only heard with the ear and when you "hit" the tape very hard, and burying the VU into the red as I said before. Maybe "audible" has a new meaning in your dictionary, but to me it means when you "hear" the signal breaking up the more you push into the red. I did NOT say that there was technically no Distortion, S/N, Wow& Flutter, Frequency Response etc etc in analog, I quit reading specs a long time ago. My intentions of this post was to see if there were anyone else that had/has great experiences with tape and not just saying they like it just for that "warm" or "colored" or "distorted" sound but just for plain good quality and yes even crispy highs....
 
Instead of demanding that people use YOUR own, inaccurate definition of the word "distortion", how about YOU do some Googling and teach yourself the accurate definition. Once you've done that, maybe this thread might have some meaning.
 
THIS WAS WORTH REPEATING PLEASE READ:

Ok guys Im an "old school" country boy here but I do know what distortion sounds like on an analog recording. UNLESS distortion (that I can hear) and the definition of it has changed like most words are these days haha , I still say that I DO NOT hear distortion in my recordings. Now if this definition of distortion and I quote: (remember distortion is quite a broad term in that it means ANY change to the original signal) is true I still don't HEAR very much "change" in sound when I A/B say....CD to a good 2TK RtoR etc etc. Sorry but Ive done test's years back when CD had just came out against a top notch cassette deck with metal tape with dolby C encoded and A/B'd them and could not hear the difference and even thought the cassette sounded better....I could go on and on but Im just saying.
 
Just to repeat for the old school country boy, distortion in audio terms is ANY difference between the sound of the input and the output. It is not restricted to unpleasant distortion like like clipping but also applies, for example, to minor changes in frequency response such as the type that gives analogue it's characteristic (and popular) warm sound.

If you thought the cassette sounded better that's a perfectly valid opinion. However saying you "could not hear the difference" and then straight into "thought the cassette sounded better" one of those two statements is clearly wrong. Either you heard no difference or one sounded better--you can't have both options. Anyway, if one DID sound better to you, the difference was distortion.
 
Bobbsy said:
Just to repeat for the old school country boy, distortion in audio terms is ANY difference between the sound of the input and the output. It is not restricted to unpleasant distortion like like clipping but also applies, for example, to minor changes in frequency response such as the type that gives analogue it's characteristic (and popular) warm sound.

If you thought the cassette sounded better that's a perfectly valid opinion. However saying you "could not hear the difference" and then straight into "thought the cassette sounded better" one of those two statements is clearly wrong. Either you heard no difference or one sounded better--you can't have both options. Anyway, if one DID sound better to you, the difference was distortion.
Click to expand...

Bobbsy,its not that easy for me to change my definition of distortion after knowing it as I know it for the last 4 decades sorry but Im sure YOU ARE RIGHT.
 
It matters not a whit what YOUR definition of distortion is. There's only one correct one. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of distortion

noun

[mass noun]

1 the action of distorting or the state of being distorted:
the virus causes distortion of the leaves

[count noun]:
deliberate distortions of pitch and timbre
[count noun] a distorted form or part:
a distortion in the eye’s shape or structure

2 the action of giving a misleading account or impression:
we’re fed up with the media’s continuing distortion of our issues

3 change in the form of an electrical signal or sound wave during processing.
Click to expand...

Note definition 3. You can find similar in any technical manual or glossary.
 
Bobbsy said:
It matters not a whit what YOUR definition of distortion is. There's only one correct one. From the Oxford English Dictionary:



Note definition 3. You can find similar in any technical manual or glossary.
Click to expand...

good........................................
 
Bobbsy said:
Just to repeat for the old school country boy, distortion in audio terms is ANY difference between the sound of the input and the output. It is not restricted to unpleasant distortion like like clipping but also applies, for example, to minor changes in frequency response such as the type that gives analogue it's characteristic (and popular) warm sound.

If you thought the cassette sounded better that's a perfectly valid opinion. However saying you "could not hear the difference" and then straight into "thought the cassette sounded better" one of those two statements is clearly wrong. Either you heard no difference or one sounded better--you can't have both options. Anyway, if one DID sound better to you, the difference was distortion.
Click to expand...

Ok so I contradicted myself but..... the cassette sounded better ;)
 
My two cents on the term, distortion in relation to its use in this thread.

Back in the bad/good old days when there only was analog recording technology, "distortion" was only used as a term to describe harmonic and inter-modulation distortion. All of the other terms where simply described as a variance and expressed in a percentage or decibel value. So it was the entire electronic industry and its community of customers who uniformly got used to the usage of that term, distortion, to think of it strictly in terms of THD and IM only.

As well, its extremely important to keep in mind that the human ear is an extremely poor judge of discerning the differences in distorting until they get into whole number specs of beyond 5% when it comes to THD. No one on this earth can reliably tell the difference between 0.05% and 0.005% without test gear.

So, when the OP uses the term distortion, I think it behooves us to keep a historical perspective in place to follow along with the spirit of the thread.

Cheers! :)
 
Er, I respectfully disagree. I'm in my 60s and my engineering training was around 40 years ago. The definition I tossed in is at least that old (and certainly pre-dates digital etc.

THD and IMD were certainly the "biggies" (and described in every spec using those terms) but wow & flutter, frequency response and a whole host of other things were also considered to be distortion.
 
Bobbsy...we already know that you know everything and everything you say is right. But just remember one thing...Im just an ole country boy:eatpopcorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top