The Cold sound of Digital

[enferno]

Digital sound is regularly referred to as "cold" or "harsh" sounding. Analoge is deemed "warm" and "full" toned. Technically, if you were to run, say, an Access Virus synthesizer, through, say, an expensive and good sounding Tube Amp, would, technically, the sound 'warm' up from the harshness of digital?

 

[Massive Master]

That's a pretty typical application. Keep in mind though, just because something SAYS "tube" or HAS tubes, doesn't mean it will give a "tube-like" sound.

 

[SonicAlbert]

I would say no, it wouldn't make much difference.

What people refer to as the cold harsh sound of digital is, in my opinion, the cold harsh sound of inferior converters. Coupled with the sound of inferior analog electronics ahead and after the AD/DA stages. Putting a tube amp ahead of poor converters is not really solving the problem. Putting the original signal through some great converters will give you a bigger, warmer, and non-harsh sound.

The thing about digital is that most people are recording and listening through poor-to-mediocre converters. So that, plus the way early DAT machines sounded, and you have this reputation for digital being cold and harsh. It needn't be that way any more, given the current availability of some really fine converters.

I'm referring to converters like those made by Benchmark, Mytek, Lavry, and on up.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I would say no, it wouldn't make much difference.

What people refer to as the cold harsh sound of digital is, in my opinion, the cold harsh sound of inferior converters. Coupled with the sound of inferior analog electronics ahead and after the AD/DA stages. Putting a tube amp ahead of poor converters is not really solving the problem. Putting the original signal through some great converters will give you a bigger, warmer, and non-harsh sound.

The thing about digital is that most people are recording and listening through poor-to-mediocre converters. So that, plus the way early DAT machines sounded, and you have this reputation for digital being cold and harsh. It needn't be that way any more, given the current availability of some really fine converters.

I'm referring to converters like those made by Benchmark, Mytek, Lavry, and on up.

....times 10 (if I had more thumbs they'd be up too!)

Someone should make this post a sticky!!!!!!!!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Albert,

> What people refer to as the cold harsh sound of digital is, in my opinion, the cold harsh sound of inferior converters. <

Or just as likely, they don't know how to get a good recorded sound in the first place.

If the goal is to accurately capture exactly what you hear off the board while laying down tracks, modern digital beats analog handily every time. Now, if someone wants an affected sound, that's fine too. But it's important to understand that's an effect, not superior fidelity.

--Ethan

 

[SonicAlbert]

Or just as likely, they don't know how to get a good recorded sound in the first place.

If the goal is to accurately capture exactly what you hear off the board while laying down tracks, modern digital beats analog handily every time. Now, if someone wants an affected sound, that's fine too. But it's important to understand that's an effect, not superior fidelity.

--Ethan

Yes, true.

However, I feel there's a another common misconception about recording digitally. I realize this is not what you were saying in your post, but what I often see is that people equate an accurate capture of the source as being sterile or antiseptic. I've found the opposite to be true. The most accurate and detailed recording of a cello is going to be the warmest, because the cello is a warm instrument. Anything beyond or other than that is an effect, as you say. You may like the effect or not like it, but accurate can be absolutely warm if the source is warm.

Obviously, mics, preamps, and even cables have much to do with the recorded sound, it's not just converters. That's why this is an art *and* a science (heavy on the art part).

 

[Ronan]

The gap is narrowing, but when people ask about analog versus digital I sum it up this way:

"Digital is getting so good that what you put onto it is almost exactly what comes back, but with analog what you put onto it comes back sounding better."

Analog versus digital is a religious debate, so I can only chime in with experience and not change any minds. (I use both all the time for the last 15 years).

Oh and to answer the original questions, running things through a "good" tube amp can give you some of the coloration some what similar to that which is associated with analog recording, but it is not the same.