Recording to digital stereo shrinks the stereo soundstage...

[Tim Gillett]

Hi all,


Everybody please discuss. What has been your experience?

I especially welcome the comments of the more experienced users of digital audio and those who work with it every day.


Thanks,

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

Digital audio when properly implemented is highly transparent and should not change anything include the width. But analog tape can add a synthetic widening, so if you compare the same source recorded onto both mediums at once there might be a difference. But the digital version is more accurate. BTW, the reason analog tape can add width is 1) the tape hiss is different left and right, and 2) the minute dropouts that occur also differ between the channels. Width is a function of differences between the left and right channels.

--Ethan

 

[grimtraveller]

Everybody please discuss. What has been your experience?

I don't know whether it's an analog/digital thing or down to specific machines. I was struck, when I began using a DAW, the Akai DPS12i, how much wider the stereo image seemed than the portastudio I'd been using, the Tascam 488. The 488 seems positively bunched in comparison.

 

[Farview]

This sort of things very specific to the equipment that you are using. As was said, it could easily work the other way when using cheap analog vs expensive digital. I've heard differences like that between two digital devices and two analog devices, so its not a question of digital or analog.

 

[miroslav]

Let's remove the 2-track tape deck from the equation so the whole tape hiss thing isn't part of it.


Take the "raw" tracks ITB...without any ITB processing...and do just basic ITB mixing/summing.

Then take the same "raw" ITB tracks and bring them individually D/A out to your analog console and again do no processing, just basic mixing/summing (and/or do it as stems to a summing box if you have no console).

Compare them.
That should be a comparison of just the mixing summing between the DAW and the analog console (or summing box).


Now take a mix that is done completely ITB.

Then take the "raw" tracks (NO ITB processing) that make up that ITB mix, but bring them out individually D/A from the DAW into an analog console for mixing, and also do all your processing with analog outboard gear.

Compare them.
That should be a comparison of the mixing summing AND the processing between the ITB and OTB mix.


Any sonic differences between any of those four mixes?


I don't think it's a question of digital "shrinking" the soundstage...rather more so that some folks hear a bit of a bigger (aka 3-D, organic, lifelike) soundstage with the analog sums/mixes. I've heard it with my ITB and OTB rigs....minor, but there. I prefer to mix OTB, but still edit, comp and do some spot processing ITB before the OTB mix.

Yes, like Jay said, the gear quality makes a difference in both analog and digital, and you really need the complete ITB and OTB rigs in all the scenarios above to do your own comparisons...otherwise you end up just guessing and/or assuming how things really sound based on other people's comments.
I'm not sure how many folks in the home-rec world have that capability in their studios to do that, and to compare ITB to OTB mixes, with and without ITB or analog processing...etc.

I've seen high-end pros with serious analog and/or digital studios lean one way or the other. Some are 100% ITB and loving it, while others swear that unless you can hear a complete analog OTB mix, you really don't know how good it can be.

I don't think there can be a truly analytical and accurate way to measure and prove anything on either side.
But you know...I don't think that is important and neither is the need to argue the different views ad nauseum.
Each person needs to make their own judgments based on the gear/rig they have...and then go with what they think is best.
If you only have an ITB rig...don't sweat the analog crowd's claims.
If you love analog only and don't use digital...don't sweat the ITB claims.
If you found a way to run a hybrid digital/analog setup...fine tune it to its limits and don't sweat either.

 

[gecko zzed]

I don't think there can be a truly analytical and accurate way to measure and prove anything on either side.

If there is no way of quantifying a difference, then it boils down to subjectivity and personal preference. And as each person's preference cannot be contradicted, the question is academic.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I don't think it's a question of digital "shrinking" the soundstage

Miroslav, " recording to digital stereo shrinks the soundstage" is the title of this thread! That is the question here. I should know. I started the thread.

Dont derail the thread. Please stick to topic.

TG

 

[miroslav]

Tim



You made a statement: "Recording to digital stereo shrinks the stereo soundstage..."

Then you asked a question: "What has been your experience?"

My answer is saying that in my experience it was not a question of digital shrinking the soundstage, but rather analog making it a bit bigger.
That's not a rephrasing of YOUR question...that's MY answer to your question.

If all you only want people to respond in a specific way...then be clear about it and don't say:
"Everybody please discuss. What has been your experience?"

 

[miroslav]

If there is no way of quantifying a difference, then it boils down to subjectivity and personal preference. And as each person's preference cannot be contradicted, the question is academic.

Exactly.

There will be little proven...just preferences and views given based on individual experiences or based on what others have said about their experiences and then adopted as partisan views on each side by folks who don't have their own complete experiences to make their hands-on judgments.

No absolute conclusions will be reached...but it's always entertaining on audio forums.
There's like a 58 page thread on this topic over in the GS forums.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim



You made a statement: "Recording to digital stereo shrinks the stereo soundstage..."

Then you asked a question: "What has been your experience?"

My answer is saying that in my experience it was not a question of digital shrinking the soundstage, but rather analog making it a bit bigger.
That's not a rephrasing of YOUR question...that's MY answer to your question.

If all you only want people to respond in a specific way...then be clear about it and don't say:
"Everybody please discuss. What has been your experience?"

Miroslav, do you agree with Ethan Winer that properly implemented, digital stereo does not shrink or narrow the stereo soundstage?

Yes or no will be fine.

TG

 

[Mo Facta]

Tim, I know you didn't say you did but if you did, when did you specifically notice this "shrinking of the stereo image"? What were you recording and through what gear were you using?

I have been recording onto digital for the last 13 years and have never heard a SIGNIFICANT difference. Generally, when you record a stereo source with decent digital equipment, it stays pretty close to the original. I say "pretty close" because I have notice slight TONAL changes, depending on the gear that I was using. It's especially noticeable when you monitor the source directly off of the console during recording and then switch to playback. I believe this is just because no single piece of equipment is 100% transparent and will impart a sonic signature on the signal that passes through it.

Cheers

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim, I know you didn't say you did but if you did, when did you specifically notice this "shrinking of the stereo image"? What were you recording and through what gear were you using?

No, I've never encountered it. I just read about it.

Cheers
Tim

 

[miroslav]

Miroslav, do you agree with Ethan Winer that properly implemented, digital stereo does not shrink or narrow the stereo soundstage?

Yes or no will be fine.

TG

I answerd that already....you didn't like the answer.
Here it is again:
For me it was never a question of digital shrinking the sountstage...but rather, analog making it a bit bigger.

 

[Farview]

I still just think that there are too many variables to blame the medium. Especially since everyones opinion is based solely on their experience with the equipment that they have had access to in the situations that they used it in.

It's just like most of the discussions about sample rate. In theory, there should be no difference between sample rates above 44.1k, but it's obvious that some converters sound better at some rates than others. It's model specific, so it can't really be the sample rate because some converters actually sound better at lower rates.

It's all pointless.

 

[TripleM]

Digital audio when properly implemented is highly transparent and should not change anything include the width.

What could you implement improperly with a digital setup that would reduce the width of a mix?

 

[miroslav]

I still just think that there are too many variables to blame the medium. Especially since everyones opinion is based solely on their experience with the equipment that they have had access to in the situations that they used it in.

Exactly.
The key phrase would be "in my experience".
That was my point too...that you need to do your own comparisons and have the gear to make those comparisons, and then arrive at your own conclusions about what you think sounds better/bigger/etc to you.
It really isn't about what is right/wrong...there is no way to prove it 100%.

 

[grimtraveller]

This sort of thing's very specific to the equipment that you are using. As was said, it could easily work the other way when using cheap analog vs expensive digital. I've heard differences like that between two digital devices and two analog devices, so its not a question of digital or analog.

Yeah, it's a bit like cassette walkmans, car stereos, CD walkmans and MP3 players. Some within the same range of each seem to do different things with the stereo soundstage.

If there is no way of quantifying a difference, then it boils down to subjectivity and personal preference.

Well, that may presuppose that the person that has noticed the difference has a preference in terms of the stereo soundstage. And that preference could be either way. Or they may have no preference at all.
Interesting.......
I hadn't actually considered that. I just mentioned what I had noticed but preference didn't really come into it.

I still just think that there are too many variables to blame the medium. Especially since everyones opinion is based solely on their experience with the equipment that they have had access to in the situations that they used it in.
It's model specific,

I took it as a kind of neutral question but it feels like it could suddenly turn and get all "homecoming war dance" so my stance is that it's not about medium specifically, but specific models in both realms.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I answerd that already....you didn't like the answer.
Here it is again:
For me it was never a question of digital shrinking the sountstage...but rather, analog making it a bit bigger.

I take that as a "no".

As you agreed with me the other day, whether running the signal through an analog stereo stage makes it "bigger" or not, is a separate question, and not the subject of this thread.

I've been doing a bit of research and I suspect some of the needless strife on this HR forum over the years can be traced to a blind following of some of the rather outlandish views of one Tom Sholtz from the group Boston. I intend to document some his weirder negative views on digital audio in another thread, and hopefully, by fair and reasonable discussion, we can bury them for good.

TG

 

[miroslav]

I take that as a "no".

As you agreed with me the other day, whether running the signal through an analog stereo stage makes it "bigger" or not, is a separate question, and not the subject of this thread.

I didn't see it as a separate question.
IMO....when you ask if digital shrinks the soundstage, you have to have a reference, as in, shrinks it relative to what?
Since there is only digital and analog audio, then digital shrinkage would have to be referenced against analog, and vice versa....right?
Also, some of us work with hybrid setups...so there is always a marriage of digital and analog, and that maybe also causes more comparisons and choices.

I'm curious what you dig up about Tom Sholtz...there are many top engineers who will be pro digital and ITB or pro analog and OTB for what appear to be equally compelling reasons that go beyond "shrinkage or widening".
It's really just a personal preference thing as many have said.

 

[gecko zzed]

when you ask if digital shrinks the soundstage, you have to have a reference, as in, shrinks it relative to what?

It could be in relation to itself.

For example, you may have a mix that has a good stereo landscape, but when you render it, you lose that width.