Thoughts on Dylan on PBS and Analog

[guitarfreak12]

have you ever seen a thread that ended exactly the way it started?

 

[My Name]

My understanding of how bit depths work for digital recording is that each bit gives you something like 6 dB of dynamic range. So yes, if you increase the bit depth, you're increasing dynamic range.

On 16 bit systems, you get a range of 96 decibels. In the range of -90 to -96, you're working off of one bit. The amount of variation within each "bit block" will exponentially double as you work your way up the chain.

So in that last 6 dB block, all sound wave data that exists will play back at the same amplitude. That isn't realistic behaviour of the waveform, and analog simply does not behave like this.

So theoretically, a 24 bit system offers 144 dB of dynamic range. Find a preamp or a board or a condenser mic that can give you that much. Damn near most of them don't. Many will get you to -96 dB easily enough, but even in 24 bit recording, the math isn't too dificult to understand.

-90 to -96 in 24 bit will use 9 of those bits. The word length works like this:

2^9 = 512

That gives you 512 choices, or variations in amplitude to choose from, between the range of -90 and -144. It's the total range to that point. 8 bits represents the range that falls below that.

2^8 = 256

Now 512 - 256 is 256. The number becomes more accurate if you say that 0 doesn't count (no signal), so you'd subtract 1.

So in 24 bit, the range in which the amplitude can vary between -90 and -96 is now divided by 255 steps. The condenser mic and preamp can still represent the waveform more accurately than that. Once you start performing more math on the wave file with plugins and such, these areas of the waveform will suffer tremendously, making the advantage of all this extra range come into question.

Considering that the old, old digital recorders of the '80's that used tape typically ran on something like 28 bits, I think we're getting short changed.

To say that 24 bit digital has more dynamic range than analog is sort of true, but it's also necessary to achieve better dynamic accuracy, so it negates the point.


sl

Does anyone REALLY think that this would have any effect on wether Dylan would have been as successfull in the so called "digital age"???

Surely the social climate had a hell of a lot more to do with his seccess than whether you could here him fart on one of his tracks

 

[My Name]

My thinking is that the buyers of a Dylan record are gonna be listenning on home stereo equipment, yes?

Is that listener going to be able to pick up an any difference between the dynamic ranges of digital V analgue.

My thought is NO!!

So how could it possibly effect the success of such an artist??

I stand waiting to be kicked in the nuts!!

 

[apl]

Is that listener going to be able to pick up an any difference between the dynamic ranges of digital V analgue.

My thought is NO!!

We agree completely.

 

[My Name]

We agree completely.

I knew I liked the look of you

 

[snow lizard]

Does anyone REALLY think that this would have any effect on wether Dylan would have been as successfull in the so called "digital age"???

Surely the social climate had a hell of a lot more to do with his seccess than whether you could here him fart on one of his tracks

But digital would be able to capture that so well! I'm sure the analog gear he was using in the old days would also be sufficient.

I was never really a fan of Bob's work, although I am a fan of his success and the amount of work he's done over his career. He was a pioneer in an age where the music industry was allowing that sort of thing to take place.

As for the analog vs. digital thing, I'm reminded of a Black Sabbath tune (to me this is an interesting analogy, especially since this is a Bob Dylan thread...) that I heard on the radio. I've been listening to War Pigs for around 25 years, and it always seems like John Osbourne's vocals drifted into being just a hair sharp as the tune goes on. Now they have a very well remastered version of it where it's been pitch corrected. This might seem odd, but to me the pitch corrected version sounds wrong.


sl

 

[snow lizard]

The ADC divides the working range of voltage into 65,536 equal increments in a 16 bit converter. Each sample taken at the time dictated by the sample clock is measured for voltage and assigned a value between zero and 65,536. This value and its time is recorded in the data file. For a 24 bit ADC, the range of voltage is divided up into 16,777,216 increments.

The last 6dB block is the center around zero volts. If the ADC’s max range was set to ±1.000V, the last 6dB is between 0 Volts and 30.5µV. I would expect that if you were recording with a very nice LDC and pre, the background acoustic noise in the studio and the electrical noise would easily be smearing that area of the signal.

Maybe one of the things that’s confusing about your explanation is the use of dB. The difference between -90 and -96 dB is one bit, but it’s the least significant bit, worth 30.5µV, but the difference between 0 and -6 dB is also one bit, but it’s worth 1 Volt because that’s the most significant bit.

I think we're on the same page. As the amplitude increases, the resolution increases as well. The most significant bit will have 15 or 19 or 23 other bits to back it up. Having 16 million possible variations in level is obviously going to give you much better resolution, but as the amplitude drops, the resolution drops. Certainly nobody is setting their recording levels anywhere near the LSB. Having an increased dynamic range only serves to mask the quantization problems at the lean end.

The sad thing is that it's usually irrelevant these days since many recent recordings only have 6 dB of dynamics after they get smashed. All formats can do much better.

Can you provide a link? I am unaware of 28 bit ADCs being available in the 80s.

The link I'm thinking of escapes me at the moment, but the machines I'm talking about are the digital recorders that ran on 2" tape. These machines didn't actually create 28 bit audio, but there were extra bits added to handle the quantization noise problems so that the end result would be more accurate 16 bit audio. Today a guy can purchase an entire room full of gear for less money, and prosumer converters that run at 24 bits can get similar results. I think the article also mentioned that ADAT S-VHS recorders used 20 bits to get to 16 bit audio in much the same way.

This is a PDF paper by Dan Lavry that explains a bit more.

Here is a useful article on digital signal theory.

That's a great article - thanks for the link.

IMHO, the preference for analog is due to the aurally pleasant artifacts the analog process introduces, and not because analog is capturing a signal more accurately.

I agree with you here. I think harmonics have a lot to do with it, but it's just a blind guess on my part.


sl

 

[arjoll]

Why don't we just have one "analogue vs. digital" thread and keep all such discussion in there, so I know to ignore it

Maybe we should have an "analog" one for nationalities which can't spell as well.

Re: Dylan, I liked Infidels, Slow Train Coming and Shot Of Love weren't bad, haven't really listened to much of his stuff before or after that....

Oh, and I'm on-air at the moment, so far this hour have played As Cities Burn, Parachute Band, Casting Crowns, Juliagrace, Pillar, Haste The Day; about to play Eight, Kids In The Way and I'll make it up as I go after that (Community Radio... ). If anyone has music that 'fits' then PM me. (off-topic, but then I thought analogue vs digital was as well, maybe I just missed something? )

 

[Dr ZEE]

Maybe we should have an "analog" one for nationalities which can't spell

Maybe we should have one for self proclaimed "scholars" who think that they never misspell. This would most definitively clean up the place for people who have come over here from all over the world due to their interest in and passion for Home Recording.

 

[guitarfreak12]

Does anyone REALLY think that this would have any effect on wether Dylan would have been as successfull in the so called "digital age"???

Surely the social climate had a hell of a lot more to do with his seccess than whether you could here him fart on one of his tracks

ummm. yes, good show old chap now have a go at Janice Joplin.

I agree totally

 

[arjoll]

Maybe we should have one for self proclaimed "scholars" who think that they never misspell. This would most definitively clean up the place for people who have come over here from all over the world due to their interest in and passion for Home Recording.

Ouch. You missed the smiley:

Maybe we should have an "analog" one for nationalities which can't spell as well.