The devil's Advocate...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muckelroy
  • Start date Start date
M

Muckelroy

Member
Before you guys all stone me by the city gates, DON'T READ THIS POST if you absolutely hate digital recording, and think that it is the Antichrist.

So ANYWAY,

As much as I'm a lover of analog, I'm beginning to delve into the theory behind digital recording, and It's actually rather fascinating how it all works. The concept of digital recording has been thought out ever since the 20's, but only in the early 80's was the hardware available to accomplish it.

Magentic recording as we know it is roughly 60 years old.

Digital recording as we know it is roughly 25 years old.

It took about 25-30 years for magnetic recording to finally reach reach its audiphilie potential.

It wasn't until the early to mid 90's that digital ever came CLOSE to sounding as good as analog (in terms of sonic accuracy.) Thus the cause of the whole digital revolution which we either love or hate, or both.

I forsee a HUGE improvement on this stuff in the next few years. HOWEVER, I'm glad that I continually see the designers of the digital world referencing their sound to that of analog, even today. Most designers of digital gear that's worth its salt will tell you that they use analog as a REFERENCE for quality. They must ask themselves if the sound that equipment is dealing with is sounding as good, if not "better" (I use that term loosely) than analog?

Keep your eyes peeled for the next recording technology! But DON'T get rid of your analog stuff. Treasure it, and USE it, and if, 10-15 years from now, that awesome-gizmaton 4 billion digital recorder becomes affordable, and you use it, do an A-B comparison :D

-callie-
 
I’ve been fascinated with digital recording since about 1987. I used to preach the digital gospel to all my musician friends… that it would put small studios on par with the big boys. I was right about that, but not in the way I expected. :D

I keep checking in on digital for multi-track recording. I’ve been waiting for a long time for digital to mature, and have gained a few gray hairs in the mean time. The thing is, I’ve always expected it to arrive. I now consider the possibility that there are inherent limitations with the way digital technology is implemented and it may never arrive, bit depth, sampling rate and “better” A/D – D/A notwithstanding. More of the wrong thing won’t fix the problem.

I really don’t think Red Book CD is horrible as an end-product, as long as most everything stays in the analog realm up to that point, or at the very least is mastered to half-track analog.

I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I noticed the sound of CDs change in my lifetime for the worse when the entire recording chain from tracking to mastering went all-digital industry wide in the ‘90s. This is why I tell my wife if she is looking for a CD for Christmas or birthday not to get anything that’s “digitally remastered.”

However groups like Steely Dan and Rush, which were some of the first to track with early digital always hurt my ears even on cassette or vinyl. I didn’t know why then… I didn’t know until years later they were pioneers of the early tape-based digital machines. Good music, but it was always fatiguing to listen to for long.

Well, digital has come a long way and I’ve always said it has a place even in my studio in a support role.

Now and then I have to remind people that I, like many other analog fans, choose analog because we know all about digital. We’ve been there and done that. I’m a pragmatist – if something works for me I use it.

Super-duper digital has always been “just around the corner.” A lot of us, some sooner than later, started feeling like linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin.

:)
 
Last edited:
Great post, Tim. :)

Perhaps you can answer why there are those people, myself included, that would never delve into tracking on digital even if the actual "workstation" was as simple to operate as an analog recorder + seperate analog mixer and sounded like a $50,000 Studer ? I've oft pondered this very question but have no definitive answer. Any thoughts .. :confused: ;)
 
Muckelroy said:
Before you guys all stone me by the city gates, DON'T READ THIS POST if you absolutely hate digital recording, and think that it is the Antichrist.

So ANYWAY,

As much as I'm a lover of analog, I'm beginning to delve into the theory behind digital recording, and It's actually rather fascinating how it all works. The concept of digital recording has been thought out ever since the 20's, but only in the early 80's was the hardware available to accomplish it.

Magentic recording as we know it is roughly 60 years old.

Digital recording as we know it is roughly 25 years old.

It took about 25-30 years for magnetic recording to finally reach reach its audiphilie potential.

It wasn't until the early to mid 90's that digital ever came CLOSE to sounding as good as analog (in terms of sonic accuracy.) Thus the cause of the whole digital revolution which we either love or hate, or both.

I forsee a HUGE improvement on this stuff in the next few years. HOWEVER, I'm glad that I continually see the designers of the digital world referencing their sound to that of analog, even today. Most designers of digital gear that's worth its salt will tell you that they use analog as a REFERENCE for quality. They must ask themselves if the sound that equipment is dealing with is sounding as good, if not "better" (I use that term loosely) than analog?

Keep your eyes peeled for the next recording technology! But DON'T get rid of your analog stuff. Treasure it, and USE it, and if, 10-15 years from now, that awesome-gizmaton 4 billion digital recorder becomes affordable, and you use it, do an A-B comparison :D

-callie-
Click to expand...

yeah I know an electronics engineer that works alongside with big name companies including fender and stuff. Right now he's been working on trying to make an amp (for sound system, not guitars) that has the lowest THD (total harmonic distortion.) He's gotten his amp down to .000001% THD which in most engineers minds seems to be insanity and inpossible, seing most amps can't even get close to that, and you know what he uses as a reference? Vinyl. He uses these vinyls that were directly cut from a live perfomance, and the signal was not run through any prossesors and not mixed or anything. I thought that was pretty cool.

And yeah, I have an unhealthy prejudice attitude towards digital too, and I kind of feel guilty about it seeing I got into recording on Audacity.......But I've always hated the "STATE OF THE ART" "CUTTING-EDGE" illusion. EVERYONE is turning to digital, if you go to any of the major companies that were big in the analog world, they are now all digital. Go to quantegy or otari.com, it's kind of disheartning. Then again to stay afloat, they have to, seeing it's the standard of "excellence" nowadays.
 
cjacek said:
Great post, Tim. :)

Perhaps you can answer why there are those people, myself included, that would never delve into tracking on digital even if the actual "workstation" was as simple to operate as an analog recorder + seperate analog mixer and sounded like a $50,000 Studer ? I've oft pondered this very question but have no definitive answer. Any thoughts .. :confused: ;)
Click to expand...

Oh that's easy... it's because Ampex/Quantegy 4xx smells so damn good. Maxell XL1 smells pretty good as well. The first step in any good recording session is opening the lid on a box of tape and taking in that wonderful "Aroma of Ampex." :D
 
Beck said:
Oh that's easy... it's because Ampex/Quantegy 4xx smells so damn good. Maxell XL1 smells pretty good as well. The first step in any good recording session is opening the lid on a box of tape and taking in that wonderful "Aroma of Ampex." :D
Click to expand...

Ok, that's definitely a part of it .. :D ;)
 
Day 1 of my recording lab, freshman year....

The guy takes a 2" reel of tape, and passes it around, telling us to smell it.

Then he says "Oh, how I miss that smell.........(long pause)..........." and then proceeds to lecture on mic placement.

-callie-
 
cjacek said:
Ok, that's definitely a part of it .. :D ;)
Click to expand...

Another thought... as far as PC-based recording goes, it could have something to do with how many times one has had to reboot, reinstall, or replace one's unresponsive hard drive. For me... I've lost count. Yet I have cassette tapes from 1980 that sound as good as when they were first recorded. Maybe it boils down to trust, based on experience. :)
 
I am an analog guy but I just don't see how that argument stands up.

Digital data from 1980 is just as good today...

you can copy data as many times as you need without any loss...every time you copy a tape you lose something.

so if the original is destroyed, you're basically screwed, or best case scenario losing a generation.

but not with data. the "backup" is identical to the "original".
 
FALKEN said:
I am an analog guy but I just don't see how that argument stands up.

Digital data from 1980 is just as good today...

you can copy data as many times as you need without any loss...every time you copy a tape you lose something.

so if the original is destroyed, you're basically screwed, or best case scenario losing a generation.

but not with data. the "backup" is identical to the "original".
Click to expand...

Ah, that is digital myth Numero Uno.

1) Digital copies aren’t exactly the same. Error correction (Reed-Solomon, Interpolation, etc), truncation and dithering make exact 1-to-1 copies nearly impossible. Translation to and from different bit depths and sampling rates creates audible differences in the sonic character of the recording.

When you go from a longer to shorter word length or visa-versa information is lost or changed. Even copies made with the same format won’t be identical several generations removed. Digital does in fact suffer from generational changes, but in a different way than analog. If you make high-speed copies of music CDs and think you have an exact copy, think again. If you’re copying at speeds greater than x4 the error correction going on in the background will blow your mind. The bottom line... the 1's and 0's on master and copy are not identical.

More info:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul99/articles/pcmusician.htm

2) Much music has been irrecoverably lost in the last 20 years due to catastrophic failure of digital medium – DAT masters falling apart, CD rot, hard drive crashes. And you can be sure we haven’t seen the last of these problems. If that 25-year old tape I mentioned was a CD I doubt it would be playable. We discussed this previously in one of Daniel’s threads.

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=184198


3) Analog generational loss is way over hyped. I’ll take that over what the digital process does anytime. Before digital was the norm, music went through many analog generations – bouncing while tracking in the studio; then to half-track master; then dup master; then loop-bin master, and finally to cassette or reel. If the end-product was vinyl the process differed somewhat, but was similar. If you’re 30-something or older, your favorite classic hits were all done this way. IMO, about all music worth listening to was done this way.

We really don’t have a perfect, full-proof medium right now, digital or analog. Choose your poison. :)
 
Last edited:
"3) Analog generational loss is way over hyped. I’ll take that over what the digital process does anytime. Before digital was the norm, music went through many analog generations – bouncing while tracking in the studio; then to half-track master; then dup master; then loop-bin master, and finally to cassette or reel. If the end-product was vinyl the process differed somewhat, but was similar. If you’re 30-something or older, your favorite classic hits were all done this way. IMO, about all music worth listening to was done this way."

I've been trying to explain this to some of my friends- when I do a basic internal bounce on my 388,say bouncing 5 or 6 tracks of rhythm instruments down to a 2 track stereo mix, I find that I actually like the sound of it BETTER than the original 5 or 6 tracks. It kind of takes on a life of it's own at that point, possibly because of the natural tape compression from cramming all that music onto 2 tracks. (I don't use any outboard compression, ever.) And I find that 6 more tracks added to the two-track stereo rhythm track is more than I need for most of what I record.
Steve Z.
 
if the CD was burned as a data disc there is no way there would be any errors at all. If it was a text document or an executeable it would still open or run identically. I dont profess to know what makes Audio CD's so inferior to data, but I know that they do have errors.
 
Muckelroy said:
Day 1 of my recording lab, freshman year....

The guy takes a 2" reel of tape, and passes it around, telling us to smell it.

Then he says "Oh, how I miss that smell.........(long pause)..........." and then proceeds to lecture on mic placement.

-callie-
Click to expand...


I'll tell you, my Fostex A1 smelled heavenly. I don't know if there was too much static electricity in the tape path or what. But, it smelt great.
 
do not mean to argue here ... just blah blah...
Digital recording technology IS fascinating... so IS analog one. Actually Analog recording technology is much more fascinating to me and it's not just about how it works but also about what it DOES (result wise in the process of recording and producing musical material to TREAT listener's ear right - that is)
And to me it's less about how many times you can copy/paste your recordings with "no loss" and not about whether or not you can preserve your recordings/productions "forever", but rather more about will you WANT to copy it and/or preserve it for future generations or will you want to trash all your recordings/mixes/productions at the end of your days instead and then die in the silence with a feeling of your life being wasted :p ...

>>>>>
ohhh, and, btw, when tubes heat up they DO smell good too :D
 
MULEFAN said:
when I do a basic internal bounce on my 388,say bouncing 5 or 6 tracks of rhythm instruments down to a 2 track stereo mix, I find that I actually like the sound of it BETTER than the original 5 or 6 tracks.
Click to expand...

Sir Paul McCartney mentioned, in a recent PBS special, that he thought bouncing, despite the generational loss, made the tracks / instruments sound nicer together. Interesting.
 
I'm sorry,... 1980?

[RANT]
I dare you to find a credible example of any digital recording from 1980 that's stood the test of time. What were they recording on digitally in 1980? Maybe a Sony PCM or some other primitive format? How'bout stereo PCM adapted to a VHS sized tape cartridge, as in a Technics so-and-so PCM deck? (ADATs were not on the scene in 1980, IIRC). Ooh, maybe even BETA cartridges!!! What of Bits?? Word length?? Compatiblility??? Come on!! What "music/data" from 1980 stands out as an example of digital data stability? How many times would such "pristine" data have to be translated and ported to platform after platform,... as the years in digital technology marched on? And what specific "home recorded digital" data from 1980 survives as an example of this theory? Some Tandy Midi files, or something off the Commodore 64, maybe an Atari,... all surviving the test of time? No, I don't think so.

But, on the other hand reel tapes dating back to the 30's are readily "translatable" from "standard" old-school analog recording technology that's still available today. Go find your Tascam DASH or Sony PCM 24-track digital machine on the scrap heap of history.

Not that I'm adverse to resurrecting older obsolete formats, but your "data from 1980 having integrity" argument doesn't hold water with me.

Thank you,...
Cheers;)
[/RANT]
 
Last edited:
cjacek said:
Sir Paul McCartney mentioned, in a recent PBS special, that he thought bouncing, despite the generational loss, made the tracks / instruments sound nicer together. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Sometimes playing back a cassette of a mix with dolby on even when it wasn't recorded with it has kind of a nice gelling affect too. Although you lose too much high end so it's kind of useless but it does something interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top