No audible distortion.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter TASCAM MAN
  • Start date Start date
So really....why do you wait EIGHT FRIGGIN' HOURS from you last post....to respond a SECOND time to the same comments from Bobbsy.....that you already responded to THIRTEEN HOURS AGO....?????

:facepalm:

You really are hungry for keeping the argument going and trying to bait him to respond again.... :rolleyes:

Man....take the Prozac and then go take a nap.
Your OCD is getting way out of hand.
 
The world doesn't revolve around you and the definitions that you make up. You made a claim that would be wrong in the definitions that the professionals and the members here go by. Can you see why this became what it did? How the fuck are we supposed to know that you meant YOUR definition. And then, even if we do know your definition, why the fuck are we supposed to follow it?

The whole reason why we are nit-picking is because it would be wrong in one definition and right in the other.
 
TASCAM MAN said:
Now who are you to tell me to apologize...just another "mr. no it all" right ???
Click to expand...



No it all?
Hey! Someone get a mod in here I think some six grade drop out has stolen TASCAM MAN's password.

Seriously though - think about it. You do owe Bob an apology without anyone telling you to do so. Just man up.
 
Bobbsy said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that's not quite clear either. Clipping describes harmonic distortion in electronic circuits, but is the wrong term when referring to tape distortion.

I missed the other discussion/discussions people are referring to, so I can only address the topic of this thread. Whatever the reasons the thread was started... whatever people interpret the motivations to be, it does bring up an interesting point. Distortion can mean a lot of things, but generally speaking as long as I've been in audio/radio/TV (Since the '70s) it is short for harmonic distortion when no other qualifiers are mentioned. But even considering all types of distortion its still safe to say something can have no audible distortion even though it has measurable distortion. Audible distortion implies a distortion which distracts the listener and interferes with his focus and enjoyment of the recorded music.

Analog recordings can be squeaky clean or grungy depending on technique. Long before digital recording we were able to achieve, "Transparent" recordings. That is, transparent to human perception, so the listener was free to focus on the music. Since that time we've lost much of that transparency due to production techniques.
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
But that's not quite clear either. Clipping describes harmonic distortion in electronic circuits, but is the wrong term when referring to tape distortion.

I missed the other discussion/discussions people are referring to, so I can only address the topic of this thread. Whatever the reasons the thread was started... whatever people interpret the motivations to be, it does bring up an interesting point. Distortion can mean a lot of things, but generally speaking as long as I've been in audio/radio/TV (Since the '70s) it is short for harmonic distortion when no other qualifiers are mentioned. But even considering all types of distortion its still safe to say something can have no audible distortion even though it has measurable distortion. Audible distortion implies a distortion which distracts the listener and interferes with his focus and enjoyment of the recorded music.

Analog recordings can be squeaky clean or grungy depending on technique Long before digital recording we were able to achieve, "Transparent" recordings. That is, transparent to human perception, so the listener was free to focus on the music. Since that time we've lost much of that transparency due to production techniques.
Click to expand...

Beck thanks ...this is exactly what Ive been trying to say from all along but im jus a country boy ;) and even if I were educated enough to say what you just said,my brothers here would have never excepted it coming from my mouth....:( thanks again for explaining in an intelligent way what I could never get across as you just did :)
 
Beck said:
But that's not quite clear either. Clipping describes harmonic distortion in electronic circuits, but is the wrong term when referring to tape distortion.

I missed the other discussion/discussions people are referring to, so I can only address the topic of this thread. Whatever the reasons the thread was started... whatever people interpret the motivations to be, it does bring up an interesting point. Distortion can mean a lot of things, but generally speaking as long as I've been in audio/radio/TV (Since the '70s) it is short for harmonic distortion when no other qualifiers are mentioned. But even considering all types of distortion its still safe to say something can have no audible distortion even though it has measurable distortion. Audible distortion implies a distortion which distracts the listener and interferes with his focus and enjoyment of the recorded music.

Analog recordings can be squeaky clean or grungy depending on technique. Long before digital recording we were able to achieve, "Transparent" recordings. That is, transparent to human perception, so the listener was free to focus on the music. Since that time we've lost much of that transparency due to production techniques.
Click to expand...

In any discussion of analogue vs. digital there is no single correct answer. If recording to a 1967 cassette recorder and overdriving the levels gives you exactly the sound you want, that's great. Even the most pristine digital recording doesn't sound the same as sticking my ear in front of the band so EVERY recording is a compromise--you just go for what sounds best to you.

However, where we have to differ is any claim that you're not hearing audible distortion. If something sounds better to you you then you're hearing differences and those differences are accurately described as distortion. In this context, distortion doesn't mean worse or bad--just different. However, I hope you can see the logical error in saying--at the same time--you prefer one sound to another while also arguing that there are no audible differences.
 
Beck said:
Audible distortion implies a distortion which distracts the listener and interferes with his focus and enjoyment of the recorded music.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmmmm.....I wouldn't go so far as to say that.
I think that's the type of "audible distortion" TM thinks is all that counts with analog/tape recording, but there are plenty of cases of *audible distortion* that is not distracting or where it interferes with listening....and it's actually what embellishes the listening experience.

I mean...we've all cranked up a preamp to add some "hair" to a vocal, and yes it was "audible"...or cranked a guitar amp....or hit the tape hard.
But even when it's not audible AS distortion, it often IS audible as what many will call "color, warmth, compression"....etc, and in many cases with analog audio and tape, you get some of that without even trying. The fact that it's not perceived as TM's face-value definition of distortion....it's still *audible*.

Yes, analog can be hi-fi and clean....but in most cases, folks that track to multi-track cassette decks and pro-sumer reels are certainly not approaching analog state-of-the-art AFA any true High Fidelity is concerned.
So....just 'cuz someone says "boy, it sounds clean to ME"....that doesn't always = "hi-fi"....I think you would agree.
That said, I agree that there can be measurable distortion that is masked (no obviously heard) by other elements in the mix, but I think just not hearing it as something that stands out ABOVE the mix doesn't mean it's not adding distortion TO the mix....I think you will also agree.

TM is just looking for some absolute answer that lets him dodge the "distortion" aspect of his personal gear....which is just again an attempt to prove something about his tape gear being more "better" than digital gear...blah, blah, blah....it's the same boring argument cloaked by poor use of audio terminology...
....but still, no one is going to talk him off that ledge. :D
I mean....he is like the polar opposite of our buddy Tim G. who also tried very hard to get other people to validate his misconceptions and perspectives.....but you know that too....all too well! ;)
 
Bobbsy said:
However, I hope you can see the logical error in saying--at the same time--you prefer one sound to another while also arguing that there are no audible differences.
Click to expand...

Yes I do because I've never made such an argument, but rather pointed out this very thing in other threads many times over the years. You're paraphrasing me. ;)

miroslav said:
Yes, analog can be hi-fi and clean....but in most cases, folks that track to multi-track cassette decks and pro-sumer reels are certainly not approaching analog state-of-the-art AFA any true High Fidelity is concerned.
So....just 'cuz someone says "boy, it sounds clean to ME"....that doesn't always = "hi-fi"...
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but in the final analysis I do think human perception is the measure when we're talking about how something sounds because we're talking about how something sounds to humans of course. :)

Unfortunately this topic does cause us to miss one of the most important and most elusive aspects of recording, and that is creating environments through illusion. It's not unlike how a good movie makeup artist makes someone look, "More natural" by using very unnatural means. It's the art part of the equation.

Mostly though I think we're having a, "Forum moment" so it's difficult for people to argue the points without over thinking the motives behind the arguments. :cool:

We will either recover a thread or it will continue to spiral. One never knows. ;)
 
in TM's defense (can't believe I'm saying that) his first post did say specifically that HE didn't hear any audible distortion. You can't really argue that point since he is the only one that hears what he hears and if he says he can't hear any distortion you have to take that at face value.

The thing I take issue with is when anyone tries to educate him about what the proper terminology is he gets defensive and takes it as a personal attack and refuses to EVER learn anything or expand his knowledge preferring instead to stay "an uneducated country boy" and then starts tossing off insults.
That's really the only thing that bothers me about him , well, that and his use of the word 'excepted' instead of 'accepted'......... his love and preference for analog is fine and I myself am an analog devotee.
But the stubborn refusal to allow that anyone knows anything except him ( there's the proper use of except ) and quickness to get insulting when people are perfectly polite is maddening.
 
Maddening I say. Maddening. Muahahahahahahahahahaha.
 
Beck said:
Yes I do because I've never made such an argument, but rather pointed out this very thing in other threads many times over the years. You're paraphrasing me. ;)
Click to expand...

For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the original poster--he's the one who both claimed to hear no difference but still have a preference.
 
I do not think i know it all and i can learn from the "educated ones" and this was not intended to become a digital verses analog thread as some of you tried to turn it into. And also i wasnt trying to deny the technical definition of distortion. Sorry that some of you took it that way, but dont treat me like a "nobody" just because some of you has been the "gurus" of analog recording for yrs. On this homerecording.com site. Like i said in one of my posts here, i dumped specs a long time ago in place of my "ears" for recording.i do not think that "my" recordings are better than yours but.... If i had time and backing i could make records with a portastudio that would probably astound you ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top