Tom Scholz and analog tape as EE

[Tim Gillett]

Another Tom Scholz quote, this time to highlight not so much his negative view of digital recording as his extremely positive view of analog tape recording as "what goes in is what comes out".

It's from the same 2006 article quoted in the previous thread about A/D conversion messing up the stereo image. Here again is the link to the full interview.:

30 Minutes with Tom Scholz of Boston | thirdstage.ca | BOSTON News, Video, Audio, Articles and much more!

Quote:

In general, you've never been a fan of digital. (Interviewer)

" I work only in an analog studio, so I hear music at its very best. I mean, there's nothing like the sound of an analog multitrack recording playing back. You'll never hear it sound so good again because it actually is the real thing. It's the real music by the real musicians, the phase hasn't been all screwed up by the A/D conversion, and the high end isn't all messed up trying to fit a 16-kHz tone into three pieces of a 44-Hz sampling rate. In an analog studio, you're hearing pristine, real-world sound, the way it would sound if it was coming through the mikes, and you were listening to them in headphones right there in your room."

Somebody like to start the ball rolling?

Again, comments from skilled, experienced audio people preferred. Thanks.

Tim

 

[Farview]

It sounds like more of a religious/political point of view, rather than a factual statement.

If what goes in is truly what comes out of an analog deck, then there would be no generation loss.

It also seems to show a lack of understanding about how digital converters work. (referring to his comment about fitting a 16k signal into 3 pieces of a 44.1khz sample rate) It simply doesn't work like that.

 

[Chili]

Again, comments from skilled, experienced audio people preferred.

The forum is open to anyone who would like to participate.

If what goes in is truly what comes out of an analog deck, then there would be no generation loss.

Not to mention wow and flutter from an imperfect capstan motor and pinch roller, or cross-channel talk.

 

[Ethan Winer]

If what goes in is truly what comes out of an analog deck, then there would be no generation loss.

Bingo.

Someone should email him and ask him to run a stereo mix through ten generations of his beloved analog tape, and compare it to my results using a mid-level converter:

Converter Loop-Back Tests

I have nothing against analog tape, and I agree "that" sound can be pleasing on some types of music. But to believe the effect analog tape adds is somehow more accurate is ignorant, especially from an EE type. I see this with vinyl fans too. They like the grunge, and wrongly believe the added "clarity" proves vinyl is more accurate than digital. Aphex Aural Exciter anyone?

--Ethan

 

[GONZO-X]

it's hard to argue armchair-quarterback level ideas, against someone as successful and smart as Scholz.

it's a fools errand.

 

[miroslav]

it's hard to argue armchair-quarterback level ideas, against someone as successful and smart as Scholz.

it's a fools errand.

I'm sure a strong attempt will be made.


Look...you can pick up any audio trade rag, any month, and find some fairly known names touting one thing or another...digital or analog...etc.
The real point is that people are free to give THEIR opinions about how they work and what they prefer.
There are just way to many subjective variables in most things audio for anything to be proven as absolute truth....and I don't think those guys are really trying to prove anything...they're just saying what they prefer.

Someone can say that analog sounds like ass, and it would be THEIR valid opinon...and likewise someone can say that digital sounds like ass, and that to would be THEIR valid opinion.

(Comments from anyone, with any level of audio expertise are welcome.)

 

[gecko zzed]

See this on opinions:

No, you're not entitled to your opinion

Anyone can voice an opinion. Whether you should place credence on that opinion is another matter. No-one is entitled to present an opinion as fact, specially if they are not qualified to do so.

 

[WhiteStrat]

See this on opinions:

No, you're not entitled to your opinion

Anyone can voice an opinion. Whether you should place credence on that opinion is another matter. No-one is entitled to present an opinion as fact, specially if they are not qualified to do so.

Excellent read. Couldn't agree with it more.

And it was nice to see my name and my son's name in print. (I'm Bob Brown, he's Andrew Brown.) I should move to Australia just to have some fame and/or notoriety by indirect association.

 

[miroslav]

The only problem with squelching opinions is deciding who gets to be the judge AFA what is true and false.

Something that has been proven as 100% truth and where anyone can deduce that truth by simply following the analytical evidence...that is easy enough to defend if bogus opinion is given by a single person...
...but when dealing with very subjective matter, all opinions can be valid.

If someone says "analog audio sounds like ass"....that is usually understood that the person means "to me" without actually saying it. There is NO way to prove that person is "right" or "wrong"...and you just end up with partisan arguments on both sides.

Scholz saying that "there's nothing like the sound of an analog multitrack recording playing back" is a perfectly valid opinion and he is 100% entitled to that opinion. There is NO way anyone can prove anything to the contrary with that opinion as that is how he hears the audio.

And again....these arguments are not new and not only the result of what Scholz has said...so I don't know why the need to focus on his comments specifically? You can find dozens of similar pro/con arguments with VERY strong "proof" on either side...by major players in audio engineering.
As an example, to this day, you can listen to someone like Rupert Neve argue pro-analog...and then you can listen to someone like Bob Katz talk in favor if digital.
Who is more "right" or more "wrong" in their opinions...???

Why is it even important to prove or disprove either...?
Who is the fact-checker...who is the absolute judge...?

On typical audio forums, the judge usually ends up being the most popular opinon....and that's OK, these are just forums, not a court of law of science.
Anyone disagreeing with the popular opinon on a forum will not gain much from endlessly arguing against it, as the majority will always appear to win.
Of course, that "win" is no proof of anything, but for the sake of the debate, it's probably best to let the popular opinion be...unless you want to just keep arguing and arguing to try and sway people's minds.
Really...how does "your" world change if someone on the forums agrees or disagrees with you...?

 

[WhiteStrat]

...who gets to be the judge AFA what is true and false?

Me.

End of discussion.

 

[rayc]

"Again, comments from skilled, experienced audio people preferred. Thanks."
I hope this is an ironic twist that refers to another member's requests for responses from only professional.
If this is the case: bravo - funny!
If this is not the case: you'll need to specify what levels of across what range of skill and the depth, breadth, time and learning taken from which range of experiences.
If analogue was truly analogous it would be the same. Instead all recorded audio is a similie, the product of the ear of the listener as well as the imprint of the medium that is not unlike that which was recorded. Remembering that any recorded artifact is subject to temporal interference upon playback.
I read The Recording Angel at a relatively early age & it's smeared my mind.

 

[gecko zzed]

The only problem with squelching opinions is deciding who gets to be the judge AFA what is true and false.

Something that has been proven as 100% truth and where anyone can deduce that truth by simply following the analytical evidence...that is easy enough to defend if bogus opinion is given by a single person...
...but when dealing with very subjective matter, all opinions can be valid.

If someone says "analog audio sounds like ass"....that is usually understood that the person means "to me" without actually saying it. There is NO way to prove that person is "right" or "wrong"...and you just end up with partisan arguments on both sides.

Scholz saying that "there's nothing like the sound of an analog multitrack recording playing back" is a perfectly valid opinion and he is 100% entitled to that opinion. There is NO way anyone can prove anything to the contrary with that opinion as that is how he hears the audio.

And again....these arguments are not new and not only the result of what Scholz has said...so I don't know why the need to focus on his comments specifically? You can find dozens of similar pro/con arguments with VERY strong "proof" on either side...by major players in audio engineering.
As an example, to this day, you can listen to someone like Rupert Neve argue pro-analog...and then you can listen to someone like Bob Katz talk in favor if digital.
Who is more "right" or more "wrong" in their opinions...???

Why is it even important to prove or disprove either...?
Who is the fact-checker...who is the absolute judge...?

On typical audio forums, the judge usually ends up being the most popular opinon....and that's OK, these are just forums, not a court of law of science.
Anyone disagreeing with the popular opinon on a forum will not gain much from endlessly arguing against it, as the majority will always appear to win.
Of course, that "win" is no proof of anything, but for the sake of the debate, it's probably best to let the popular opinion be...unless you want to just keep arguing and arguing to try and sway people's minds.
Really...how does "your" world change if someone on the forums agrees or disagrees with you...?

I've no problem with any of the above. I do have a problem when people camoflage their opinions with the semblance of fact. So, to take an example, look at the Scholz quote:


"I work only in an analog studio, so I hear music at its very best. I mean, there's nothing like the sound of an analog multitrack recording playing back."

I can't disagree with that.

"You'll never hear it sound so good again because it actually is the real thing. It's the real music by the real musicians,"

No, it's not the "real thing". This can't be a matter of opinion. The real thing is the real thing, i.e. the actual musicians actually playing with you there in person listening to it. Not you listening through the intermediary of a medium.


"the phase hasn't been all screwed up by the A/D conversion, and the high end isn't all messed up trying to fit a 16-kHz tone into three pieces of a 44-Hz sampling rate."

This is presented not as an opinion, but as a statement of fact, and it has highly dubious scientific credentials. It it is a piece of misinformation.

"In an analog studio, you're hearing pristine, real-world sound, the way it would sound if it was coming through the mikes, and you were listening to them in headphones right there in your room."

This is nearly, but not quite, a matter of opinion. Analog supporters have frequently referred to the "warmth" that comes from analog gear. Scholz himself in the cited article says: "First of all, expectations for the tone balance on recorded music has changed considerably over the last 30 years. For example, the amount of low end in a bass instrument is a helluva lot higher in mixes today. And there were a lot of problems in the treble ranges, which I attribute largely to the trouble with 16-bit audio in general and maybe somewhat to the fact that vinyl and tape did a good job of toning those things down for reproduction back in the old days." [My emphasis]. So Scholz has a bet either way: analog is "pristine", but it also "tones things down". It can't really be both.

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't think those guys are really trying to prove anything...they're just saying what they prefer.

I just do not think in many instances people give their opinions to merely inform. Especially in what is essentially a debate with at least two very clear lines of demarcation.
I think that 'preference' is often simply the cloud one hides behind in trying to prove a point that logically cannot be proven.

"I work only in an analog studio, so I hear music at its very best. I mean, there's nothing like the sound of an analog multitrack recording playing back."

I can't disagree with that.

I can.
I don't think I'm being cynical here but the opening sentence quoted is codedly presenting feeling as fact. It's possibly an aspect of us all as human beings at one point or another. Maybe I've watched too many courtroom dramas but for me the clear implication in Scholtz's words is that anything thing not in an analog studio is not music at it's very best. He's not merely stating that he prefers analog. He is stating that analog is and by extension digital is not. When we imply things, what are we actually implying ?

Really...how does "your" world change if someone on the forums........disagrees with you...?

Mine doesn't......but I can't say the same for the door to door salesperson/Jehovah's witness/traffic warden {etc} that gets on my wrong side and receives a "seeing to" directly after I've been beaten up on the interwebs by some plebs that won't agree with me !

 

[Tim Gillett]

Scholz saying that "there's nothing like the sound of an analog multitrack recording playing back" is a perfectly valid opinion and he is 100% entitled to that opinion. There is NO way anyone can prove anything to the contrary with that opinion as that is how he hears the audio.

Miroslav, I echo gekko!

In addition, you isolate and quote only the innocuous, uncontroversial statement from Tom Scholz, that he prefers the sound of analog tape playback. No one appeared to take exception to that statement. Scholz is just expressing a personal listening preference.

Significantly, you avoid any reference to the controversial statements he makes immediately after that.

All in all yours seems a pretty half hearted defence of Scholz. Are you tiptoeing around the hard things he said or am I just imagining it?

TG

 

[grimtraveller]

Again, comments from skilled, experienced audio people preferred. Thanks.

Tim, I'm curious about this. Do you feel that those that aren't skilled or experienced in audio will kind of water down the debate/discussion ?
Could you also explain what constitues "skilled, experienced audio people" to you ?
I'm not having a pop, just curious.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I hear what I hear and that's what guides me.
I'm indifferent to anyone else's ears or how they hear something.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Tim, I'm curious about this. Do you feel that those that aren't skilled or experienced in audio will kind of water down the debate/discussion ?
Could you also explain what constitues "skilled, experienced audio people" to you ?
I'm not having a pop, just curious.

he's trolling for a fight with beck.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim, I'm curious about this. Do you feel that those that aren't skilled or experienced in audio will kind of water down the debate/discussion ?
Could you also explain what constitues "skilled, experienced audio people" to you ?
I'm not having a pop, just curious.

As you know these HR forums are totally public and open , or are supposed to be... Anyone can read the posts and post themselves. I have no power to limit who posts but I expressed a general wish, (I used the word "preferred" which is a pretty mild word) that people with experience and skill in audio paticipate. They were the sorts of people I preferred to participate.

There are other threads and forums for novices to participate. (Over the course of my 7 years here I have started very few threads.) I preferred for this thread not to be at a novice level of discussion but as I said, I can only express my preference, my wish. Posters can completely ignore my request as is their right. Expressing a preference or a wish is a long way from making a directive, or presuming to do so.

Interesting that this relates to the discussions in the thread itself. Tom Scholz expresses a personal "preference" for listening to analog tape recordings. For that mere statement of preference he's hardly criticised. It's when he says that certain things are absolutely and objectively true, that people feel they have a right to question his "facts".

I'm not questioning Tom Scholz's personal preferences so why are you asking me about mine?

Tim

PS I'd not read before the article gekko posted a link to in his post #7. It made interesting reading. T

 

[Tim Gillett]

he's trolling for a fight with beck.

I regard it most unlikely Tim Beck will post in this thread, and speaking of preferences I would prefer that he didnt. But if he does post, he will be, or should be, bound by the same rules as everybody else.

Tim G

 

[mcmetal]

I could absolutely care less about what Tom Scholz has to say about analog vs. digital,what his preferences are,or what he states as "facts" to base his opinions on.I could less what the OP's preferences are for that matter.I'm just curious as to what his intentions are for the thread and what he's looking to get out of it.I mean who really cares enough to have another endless debate of opinions.
I'm not an experienced skilled audio person,i just decided to be a thorn in the thread just because i can.