Right On Bob!

[Lt. Bob]

So anyway ...... with the advent of 24/96 ...... even the staunchest analog lover has to concede that digital is fullfilling it's promise. Too bad it'll take forever to become commonplace because of the tremendous inertia of billions upon billions of CDs......






































it's nice to get together like this.

 

[Beck]

The editor of your published writings must have been doing a hell of a job replacing all those "dot-dot-dot"(s) with something that connects.

....
btw, I AM COOLER!

lol

/later

Oh, I don't know... I've been tempted to fire my editor (Ms. Word) because she keeps trying to ruin my conversational style of writing with formal editing. Until written English officially becomes more expressive, we have to do what we can. AND there isn’t even an emoticon to convey how I feel about it, so I have to post this photo instead.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Until written English officially becomes more expressive, we have to do what we can..

You mean - compromise in order to fulfill the burning hunger to be heard?
*********
Speaking of "compromise", one should try this:
Walk in the high school classroom and make an exciting offer: "My dear young and bright! The painful compromise is over. I have large collection of records (everything from Bach to Joplin) and a great record player stereo system comes with it. I am offering this to anyone who would take in exchange to his or her i-Pod. Please, raise your hand.

and then you can enjoy the real deep moment of silence,
... untill the first giggle breaks it :

 

[Beck]

You'll have to get by security first. The Devil is in the details, eh?

 

[Dr ZEE]

The Devil is in the details, eh?

heh heh heh
The "Peace in The Valley" must be preserved.

 

[MCI2424]

No, sorry... not even close.

You would have a heck of a time with the likes of people like Dan Lavery arguing I am wrong. We will see how much faster sampling rates change absolutely nothing in the quality of sound. Waaay smarter people have made themselves look waay stupid trying to justify 192K and they were flat out wrong in their reasoning.

 

[Dr ZEE]

You would have a heck of a time with the likes of people like Dan Lavery ....

it's Lavry, not lavery ... would you stop disrespecting the guy's name already!

 

[Tim Gillett]

it's Lavry, not lavery ... would you stop disrespecting the guy's name already!

Dan Lavry seems not exactly the world's best speller himself. In his conclusion alone he uses the spelling "weather" (rain, hail and sleet) when he means "whether or not". Does that make his careful arguments about sample rates invalid? Not in the slightest.
Do you respect Lavry's reasoning or dont you? Because an argument about MC12424 misspelling his name is not an argument at all.
In any case, how could MC12424 have intended ANY disrespect for Lavry when he was citing Lavry in support?
Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

how could MC12424 have intended ANY disrespect ...?

naturally.

 

[Beck]

You would have a heck of a time with the likes of people like Dan Lavery arguing I am wrong. We will see how much faster sampling rates change absolutely nothing in the quality of sound. Waaay smarter people have made themselves look waay stupid trying to justify 192K and they were flat out wrong in their reasoning.

I said nothing about 192k; you did. You clearly know nothing about the subject matter and therefore can't participate in an informed discussion.

As usual I'm still waiting for your reasoning. So?

 

[Tim Gillett]

To try and steer back to an actual discussion...

My feeling is, the best analog tape and digital sound recordings are so good, we may as well be hearing it straight out of the desk. It's pointless arguing about which is "better".
I joined this column because I love analog tape, the machines etc and have spent almost a lifetime working with it.
But my love for analog tape recording doesnt drive me to trash digital. Analog tape recording has a proud history. We do it a disservice by vainly trying to shoot at the system that's mostly supplanted it.
Taking pot shots at digital can sound like the talk of the insecure.

The weakness of analog will always be generational losses. Same with film based photography. The original tape sounds brilliant but how to get that pristine sound to the masses without significant degradation of quality due to copying losses? What is the point of having a master tape in a vault when no one but a select few will ever hear the beauty and clarity of the performance?
Sure Redbook CD is a compromise, But even with that, being digital, its compromises in sample rate are more than compensated for by the gains from avoiding accumulated analog duplication distortions.
Did you know that one of the reasons cinema movies have looked better in recent years on the big screen is for the same reason? The movies might have still been shot in 35mm film and you still see it projected with a 35mm film copy. In years gone by, that projector print was a 4th generation copy. It had to be because of the intermediate analog processes needed.
Digital video has taken over the intermediate steps so that the theatre print is now effectively a first generation copy of the original camera negative. We are seeing analog film at close to its ultimate. All thanks to digital.
Shouldnt we be glad about that at least?
I KNOW the frustration of trying to live with analog generational losses because I worked with it every day. I dont mean making a one off 15ips dub of a 15ips 2 track master. That's child's play. I mean making a 1ips dub, of a dub, of a 1ips original recorded on audiocasette quarter track, all done at 30 ips, high speed dubbing. Get all your tolerances perfect and it STILL sounds like shit. Well almost. Actually it was quite listenable as speech only, but only if you got everything set up right.
But you guys who work with high analog tape speeds, wide tracks and maybe only one level of duplication losses, all at real time speeds, dont know you're alive. You OUGHT to get a good result.
Let me take you back to the real life world of analog duplication at its toughest and most demanding, and maybe your views might change.
I saw a TV program in the early 80's about the advantages of digital in avoiding generational losses. That was their point. It was valid then. It's still valid today.
Only a person who's worked in analog tape duplication at the pointy end and done their very best, understands the full significance of that.

Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

Tim G., we all know about digital technology excellence in cloning. Which is another good reason for detesting it
But the bigger issue IS that what it clones so greatly is not just not worthy of a single replication, but rather should not be exsiting to begin with.
To put it differently: people who detest digital recording detest it not for what can or can't be done with it, but for what it is.

/respects

 

[SteveMac]

I just want to say. .... I've yet to hear an as great LIVE recording as the recording I heard on PBS of Bruce Springsteen live with the E street band. The sound of that on my crummy 16 year old tv speaker was incredible. Recorded sometime in the late seventies. I don't know if there has been a great digital live release yet. They're hasn't been anything as big as there has been in the past with stuff like Cheap Trick, Bob Seger, The Kinks, etc.. that I know of. The only thing that comes to mind is MTV unplugged, sounding like they were recorded on ADATS with direct in acoustic guitars.

 

[Beck]

To try and steer back to an actual discussion...

My feeling is, the best analog tape and digital sound recordings are so good, we may as well be hearing it straight out of the desk. It's pointless arguing about which is "better".
I joined this column because I love analog tape, the machines etc and have spent almost a lifetime working with it.
But my love for analog tape recording doesnt drive me to trash digital. Analog tape recording has a proud history. We do it a disservice by vainly trying to shoot at the system that's mostly supplanted it.
Taking pot shots at digital can sound like the talk of the insecure.

The weakness of analog will always be generational losses. Same with film based photography. The original tape sounds brilliant but how to get that pristine sound to the masses without significant degradation of quality due to copying losses? What is the point of having a master tape in a vault when no one but a select few will ever hear the beauty and clarity of the performance?
Sure Redbook CD is a compromise, But even with that, being digital, its compromises in sample rate are more than compensated for by the gains from avoiding accumulated analog duplication distortions.
Did you know that one of the reasons cinema movies have looked better in recent years on the big screen is for the same reason? The movies might have still been shot in 35mm film and you still see it projected with a 35mm film copy. In years gone by, that projector print was a 4th generation copy. It had to be because of the intermediate analog processes needed.
Digital video has taken over the intermediate steps so that the theatre print is now effectively a first generation copy of the original camera negative. We are seeing analog film at close to its ultimate. All thanks to digital.
Shouldnt we be glad about that at least?
I KNOW the frustration of trying to live with analog generational losses because I worked with it every day. I dont mean making a one off 15ips dub of a 15ips 2 track master. That's child's play. I mean making a 1ips dub, of a dub, of a 1ips original recorded on audiocasette quarter track, all done at 30 ips, high speed dubbing. Get all your tolerances perfect and it STILL sounds like shit. Well almost. Actually it was quite listenable as speech only, but only if you got everything set up right.
But you guys who work with high analog tape speeds, wide tracks and maybe only one level of duplication losses, all at real time speeds, dont know you're alive. You OUGHT to get a good result.
Let me take you back to the real life world of analog duplication at its toughest and most demanding, and maybe your views might change.
I saw a TV program in the early 80's about the advantages of digital in avoiding generational losses. That was their point. It was valid then. It's still valid today.
Only a person who's worked in analog tape duplication at the pointy end and done their very best, understands the full significance of that.

Tim

Well, I didn’t join this forum because I love analog tape, but rather because I use analog tape and it works. It does smell very nice though. I’m a composer/musician first. Good music is what I love. I select my tools based on performance, not nostalgia. I personally have no interest in ancient analog machines that were powered by kerosene. If others are into collecting and restoring old machines that’s fine too. There are many valid reasons for a person to participate in these forums, and some member’s interest in the topic is multifaceted.

I’m afraid the marketing propaganda of the early 80’s concerning digital CD is not just as relevant today as it was then, in light of our experience with it since then.

Analog generational loss was/is overrated. Reducing the issue to a list of specifications on paper doesn’t address the real world of hearing. The fact is, music didn’t sound like shit before digital came along.

If you were dubbing high-speed from cassette to cassette, my condolences to you and yours. However, your example has no relevance to the way we listened to high fidelity music before the advent of digital.

For real world examples of analog generational loss or the lack of it, you can analyze the process from tracking to end-product by randomly selecting about any hit from the late 60’s through the early 90’s. Not much changed in the basic process during that time, but nearly every mega-hit worth mentioning was produced in those years.

Lets look at Boston’s 1976 début album. According to Scholz there were at least four generations of dubbing even before mastering. After mastering it went through another series of analog transfers (typical of the time) before it reached our ears on cassette, vinyl, open-reel, and years later CD.

That album went Platinum within a month, was 9X Platinum by 1986 and 17X Platinum by 2003… and counting.

So what sonic advantage do we have now in today’s digital world that Scholz so desperately needed? Think, think, think… Nothing comes to mind.

Pot shots at digital? What is that supposed to mean? I can’t relate. Either you like something or you don’t… unless you’re terribly insecure. In that case you have to accept things against your better judgment to feel significant.

A dialog on digital and analog pros and cons is crucial for anyone serious about music recording. Everyone and their grandmother has a DAW. Someone has to be here to help a handful standout.

~Τιμόθεος

 

[Dr ZEE]

Steve, - aol SESSIoNS ... HEH HEH HEH
here are couple to watch:
David Gilmour (new live cuts from old farts )
Mark Knopfler
*****
I don't want to say anything about "quality" of recording... because of based on what?... it sounds ok (like sh*t that is) as some sort of digital streaming format...

 

[Tim Gillett]

Well, I didn’t join this forum because I love analog tape, but rather because I use analog tape and it works. It does smell very nice though. I’m a composer/musician first. Good music is what I love. I select my tools based on performance, not nostalgia. I personally have no interest in ancient analog machines that were powered by kerosene. If others are into collecting and restoring old machines that’s fine too. There are many valid reasons for a person to participate in these forums, and some member’s interest in the topic is multifaceted.

I’m afraid the marketing propaganda of the early 80’s concerning digital CD is not just as relevant today as it was then, in light of our experience with it since then.

Analog generational loss was/is overrated. Reducing the issue to a list of specifications on paper doesn’t address the real world of hearing. The fact is, music didn’t sound like shit before digital came along.

If you were dubbing high-speed from cassette to cassette, my condolences to you and yours. However, your example has no relevance to the way we listened to high fidelity music before the advent of digital.

For real world examples of analog generational loss or the lack of it, you can analyze the process from tracking to end-product by randomly selecting about any hit from the late 60’s through the early 90’s. Not much changed in the basic process during that time, but nearly every mega-hit worth mentioning was produced in those years.

Lets look at Boston’s 1976 début album. According to Scholz there were at least four generations of dubbing even before mastering. After mastering it went through another series of analog transfers (typical of the time) before it reached our ears on cassette, vinyl, open-reel, and years later CD.

That album went Platinum within a month, was 9X Platinum by 1986 and 17X Platinum by 2003… and counting.

So what sonic advantage do we have now in today’s digital world that Scholz so desperately needed? Think, think, think… Nothing comes to mind.

Pot shots at digital? What is that supposed to mean? I can’t relate. Either you like something or you don’t… unless you’re terribly insecure. In that case you have to accept things against your better judgment to feel significant.

A dialog on digital and analog pros and cons is crucial for anyone serious about music recording. Everyone and their grandmother has a DAW. Someone has to be here to help a handful standout.

~Τιμόθεος

Beck, again I dont know what to say.
You are the one who dislikes the "sound" of commercially recorded CD's, converts them to analog, records them to reel to reel, converts them back to digital and burns CD's from them, which you say you are then happy with.

The only common factor you seem to dislike is if you didnt have some hand in "controlling" it. Once you do your D/A, reel to reel and then A/D "thing" you seem happy. You seem so easily pleased! Surely if you are happy with your CD's why arent you happy with the CD's of others?

Have you never asked yourself the same questions? Obviously you are not condemning Redbook CD in itself or you would stop dead before burning a new CD from your reel tape copy! Your final product is still a Redbook CD, the same as any other, commercial or not.
I feel we still need to thrash this older issue out. At one point you condemn Redbook CD as "harsh" and then you happily use it. What is anybody reading your posts supposed to make of this?
If the sound is "harsh" to you, and your judgement is valid, surely it will sound "harsh" to lots of other people, including record company staff. Why dont they just do what you do with your tape machine before releasing the CD and save you and anyone else who feels the same, all the trouble? They dont because they dont agree with you, both in theory and in practice. Who is right? Again Tim, why dont you back yourself?
Sort this previous issue out and then we can start to deal with the other things you have said in your current post.

Tim G

 

[Tim Gillett]

Beck,
The other irony is that by using analog tape in the way you earlier described, you are demeaning it to the level of a mere effects unit, something the pioneering analog tape engineers would turn in their graves over. They worked so hard to make it approach as linear a recording device (in every respect) as possible. But generational losses were probably their biggest obstacle.
By using analog tape in the way you apparently do with your CD's, are you that much different to a young guy with his DAW, selecting a VST plug in from his menu?
Is THAT how you want analog tape to be thought of by future generations? Not for me, anyway. I have more respect for it and its history than that.

And in your current post I suspect deep down that's how you do feel too. But as I said I feel we need to come clean on this issue.

Tim G

 

[Dr ZEE]

... surely it will sound "harsh" to lots of other people,

I'd say it does.

... , including record company staff. Why dont they just do what you do ... They dont because they dont agree with you, both in theory and in practice. Who is right?

I'd say it's safer to say, that they don't do it (among many other things) because they ARE company staff. Whether they agree or disagree you don't really know (not about all of them, that's for sure).

Who is right?

I'd say it's an open question, also depending on what you mean by "right". I'd say they are right in respect to doing their job as staff mebmers of a company, because if they were not, then they woud not be on staff.

Also, a fact about what staff mebers of companies (including recording ones) do or do not do proves nothing in respect to anything. All it does - it shows what companies staff members do or don't do.
************
Beck! You MUST come clean now about your dirty trick with those commercial CDs. DO IT, or else!
Drop The Gun NOOOOOW!

 

[Beck]

Beck,
The other irony is that by using analog tape in the way you earlier described, you are demeaning it to the level of a mere effects unit, something the pioneering analog tape engineers would turn in their graves over. They worked so hard to make it approach as linear a recording device (in every respect) as possible. But generational losses were probably their biggest obstacle.
By using analog tape in the way you apparently do with your CD's, are you that much different to a young guy with his DAW, selecting a VST plug in from his menu?
Is THAT how you want analog tape to be thought of by future generations? Not for me, anyway. I have more respect for it and its history than that.

And in your current post I suspect deep down that's how you do feel too. But as I said I feel we need to come clean on this issue.

Tim G

There's no irony except in your head. I don't have any religious feelings for analog tape or how it will be remembered. It’s not a celestial entity to kneel before or a deceased friend to eulogize. Your language is patronizing and very telling of your profound misconceptions concerning the current role of the technology, and the experience and sophistication of those who use it. I find the tone offensive; so distracting as to make an attempt to answer seem futile.

You might just as well go to an African American cultural forum to extol the qualities of watermelon and fried chicken.

Your assessment of my point of view is incorrect. I cannot engage you if you cannot comprehend my posts for lack of background. What you have written is a mischaracterization. It is not what I think or practice.

You've got a bit of a journey ahead of you, Tim. I simply don't have time to take it for you. I can't correct all your misconceptions, one after the other, ad infinitum. You'll have to search them yourself. However, your effort would be better spent reading some standard works on the subject. Most of your questions would be answered there. No, they’re not on the web.

A person's experiential knowledge is most valuable when built upon a foundation of technical learning. IMO, debating the fundamentals is not the best use of our time.

I'm accustomed to swimming deeply in the waters of music recording, for many, many years. I don't care to go back and discuss what people see faintly from the surface.

I didn't intend to spend my entire time as lifeguard when I joined this forum. I'd like to have a recreational swim with my peers now and then. I'm sure you understand.

~Τιμόθεος

 

[cjacek]

Hey, Tim Gillett. Is this an interrogation ?