No audible distortion.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter TASCAM MAN
  • Start date Start date
Near as I can tell, here is a summary of this thread:

-TASCAM MAN tracks to tape with lower levels so there is little or no audible clipping, malformation or other distorting of the original signal on playback and is interested if anyone else does this.

-TASCAM MAN does not understand the full meaning of "distortion" in the context of audio recording and reproduction.

-Yadda, yadda, yadda. Melee and war ensues. Analog and digital go ten rounds and end in a split decision. Casualties are many and somebody apparently got a colonoscopy.

So does anyone else prefer to track to tape at levels that minimize the sonic effect of the tape? Or is the popular thing nowadays to push levels a bit so that the involvement of tape in the recording is apparent by way of clipping, compression, saturation, etc.? While this may be just an attempt to right this ship and end on a high note, I have to admit I am a little curious myself how some of the Analog Forum faithful come down on this issue.
 
toddyjoe said:
Near as I can tell, here is a summary of this thread:

-TASCAM MAN tracks to tape with lower levels so there is little or no audible clipping, malformation or other distorting of the original signal on playback and is interested if anyone else does this.

-TASCAM MAN does not understand the full meaning of "distortion" in the context of audio recording and reproduction.



-Yadda, yadda, yadda. Melee and war ensues. Analog and digital go ten rounds and end in a split decision. Casualties are many and somebody apparently got a colonoscopy.

So does anyone else prefer to track to tape at levels that minimize the sonic effect of the tape? Or is the popular thing nowadays to push levels a bit so that the involvement of tape in the recording is apparent by way of clipping, compression, saturation, etc.? While this may be just an attempt to right this ship and end on a high note, I have to admit I am a little curious myself how some of the Analog Forum faithful come down on this issue.
Click to expand...



:rolleyes:
 
QUOTE FROM MY STARTING POST:

"I've always purposely gotten "clean" sounding recordings (with no audible distortion) out of my recorders."

Now is that really so hard to understand?
 
TASCAM MAN said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I never said nothing about tracking with lower levels... and this post was never about a digital verses analog either. I may not know the full meaning of distortion (as you accuse me) but I sure know what it sounds like when I hear it. and just because it may be the "popular thing" to manipulate tape does not mean that everyone is using tape for that reason. And maybe since you are "a little curious" of how some of the Analog Forum "faithful" come down on this issue (yours) then maybe you should start your own thread on that question right???
 
TASCAM MAN said:
QUOTE FROM MY STARTING POST:

"I've always purposely gotten "clean" sounding recordings (with no audible distortion) out of my recorders."

Now is that really so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

We don't care what your original post said, TASCAM MAN, so stop reiterating it. The problem I have with this, and is the reason WHY it turned into a Digital vs. Analog thread, is because very wrong information was being posted and that undoubtedly would have been perpetuated. Let me give you an example:

Tests of sound arrivals at the human ear -- which ear hears an arriving sound first? -- show an accuracy of 3 to 4 microseconds, requiring an accuracy of 1 to 2 microseconds for each ear. So, if you listen to digital at 44,100 times/second sampling rate, your ears perceive 20 'stairs' or separate sound blocks of info per second.
Our brain lets us hear great sound because the stairs are so close that the data omitted is negligible. Still, we are not fooled, and have a number of terms to try to describe the digital sound, clean, accurate, dry -- and of course: 'distortionless'.
Click to expand...

TASCAM MAN said:
Very good information and much appreciated man !!!
Click to expand...


Well no........no it wasn't "very good information," as you say. It was wrong and I posted a video as to why it was wrong. Now, I believe you watched the video. From what you DID understand, was that not "very good information?" This is what I have a big problem with. Some guy posted something bashing digital, and you say "very good information." I rebut that bad information with correct information, and you say, "I don't understand it!"

You're not even TRYING to be accurate man (no pun intended :cool:). It's pretty obvious that you're just looking to justify analog or bash digital and you don't care whether the information is wrong or not. I think that's what everyone here has a problem with. Look, as for me, I don't really care if the information you believe is inaccurate, as long as you don't post it anywhere else thinking that it is.

At this point, I'm adopting the outlook of your beliefs like I do religion. It's okay for you to think what you think, but keep it to yourself and don't spread your bullshit around the forums.
 
TASCAM MAN said:
I never said nothing about tracking with lower levels... and this post was never about a digital verses analog either. I may not know the full meaning of distortion (as you accuse me) but I sure know what it sounds like when I hear it. and just because it may be the "popular thing" to manipulate tape does not mean that everyone is using tape for that reason. And maybe since you are "a little curious" of how some of the Analog Forum "faithful" come down on this issue (yours) then maybe you should start your own thread on that question right???
Click to expand...

TASCAM MAN, do you not see I was being a little humorous with referencing you but more importantly trying to get your thread back on track to the original topic???????????

By the way, your original post suggested tracking with lower levels in stating, "Ive never had audible distortion on my analog recordings unless I really really kept the needles buried in the red."
 
Last edited:
TASCAM MAN never does see and that's the problem.
For some reason he continues to think he gets to control the direction of a thread plus he also misreads about half of what people say to him.

T.M. ..... if you say things that are not correct people WILL correct you and the site WANTS them to correct you since one major purpose of this site is education and we don't want newbies getting incorrect info from this site.

There's a lot of other ways you could have approached this.
For instance you could have said, "Oh .... yeah distortion means a lot of things I guess but what I was talking about is gross distortion of the clipping variety that can be easily heard" and that would have been fine.

But instead you insulted people and started with the non-existent digital people trying to keep you down nonsense again.

Of course, digital devotees would have pointed out that they too never get distortion of that nature and that probably would have also offended you also but it certainly would have been a different discussion.

For the last time ...... start having discussions with folks that disagree with you instead of insulting them and maybe, just maybe, you might learn something.
 
toddyjoe said:
TASCAM MAN, do you not see...
Click to expand...
Lt. Bob said:
TASCAM MAN never does see
Click to expand...

T-Man will never see or seek to understand the truth. This little tea party he's been hosting on here is a complete waste of time for anyone with half a brain. It's been clouded from the start by a man with illogical statements, skewed meanings and a blatant disregard for science. As Fritz hinted...it's a lot like religion. :D

PS. I mean no offence to you that tried. I got what you were saying no probs, and actually learned quite a lot. :)
 
Last edited:
CrowsofFritz said:
This is what I have a big problem with. Some guy posted something bashing digital, and you say "very good information." I rebut that bad information with correct information, and you say, "I don't understand it!"

You're not even TRYING to be accurate man (no pun intended :cool:). It's pretty obvious that you're just looking to justify analog or bash digital and you don't care whether the information is wrong or not. I think that's what everyone here has a problem with.
Click to expand...

Ok.......that says it for me.
 
miroslav said:
Post up some of that audio you say you have.....all I found was some MP3 files of drum solos you did back in 2000.

I would like to hear some distortion free analog audio. :)
Click to expand...

There is no audible distortion in them drum solo recordings done on a little Tascam 424 cassette PortaStudio :)
 
fritsthegirl said:
True dat.
Click to expand...

Who me arguing hah, you need to take a look at the ones that started arguing first. I never started an argument or meant to, I was just was looking for a sweet little "Kumbayah" session over how good and clean analog tape can/does sound...never a "digital/analog war" in fact I had never even new about these wars ya'll talk about until I came to this forum:o
 
NO, THIS IS WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE ENDED:

So don't be pointing fingers at me that I started this post to "get back at" that post that Jimmys69 closed on me cause that AINT so. This was suppose to be just an innocent little post of how exited that I still am over how CLEAN analog tape can sound and in hopes that others would share there enthusiasm also.....peace

:listeningmusic:
 
TASCAM MAN said:
Who me arguing hah, you need to take a look at the ones that started arguing first. I never started an argument or meant to, I was just was looking for a sweet little "Kumbayah" session over how good and clean analog tape can/does sound...never a "digital/analog war" in fact I had never even new about these wars ya'll talk about until I came to this forum:o
Click to expand...

I get that, but if the OP has learned virtually nothing about the subject matter he brought up at the end of 22 pages. Then by my definition, it has been a sad and pointless waste of time for all those people who tried to help him understand. Doesn't really matter who started arguing first does it, what are we, 8?

I thought 'Kumbayah' meant closeness and compassion? Doesn't someone spending time teaching you and corresponding with you in a kindly fashion (as many of the posters did) mean they are 'Kumbayah-ing' with you?

Anyway, I'm in no way trying to be mean or anything, or start an argument about it, it's not my style. We obviously see the situation different. :)
 
fritsthegirl said:
I get that, but if the OP has learned virtually nothing about the subject matter he brought up at the end of 22 pages. Then by my definition, it has been a sad and pointless waste of time for all those people who tried to help him understand. Doesn't really matter who started arguing first does it, what are we, 8?

I thought 'Kumbayah' meant closeness and compassion? Doesn't someone spending time teaching you and corresponding with you in a kindly fashion (as many of the posters did) mean they are 'Kumbayah-ing' with you?

Anyway, I'm in no way trying to be mean or anything, or start an argument about it, it's not my style. We obviously see the situation different. :)
Click to expand...

Im guilty and humbled:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top