Tom Scholz and analog tape as EE

[miroslav]

I don't think this is the case here. Numbers are being used here to show that digital does not degrade an audio signal. All along, the people who have been putting that case have also been saying, as you have, that a preference for a particular sound (i.e. analog or digital) is independent of accuracy.

Again...it's all about perception, isn't it?

Looking back at this thread, and the other thread, and the many other threads that Tim has started and/or pushed on with the same reoccurring analog/digital showdown theme, I have to wonder about that......

 

[miroslav]

Numbers are being used here to show that digital does not degrade an audio signal[/d].

Oh...and that would only be in some cases and in theory...because implementation is always the pivotal aspect of both digital and analog design.

I think it is crucial to note that "more accurate" does not, repeat, not translate to "intrinsically better".

And I would think that should be the end of most analog VS digital arguments...becase if we agree on that, then wanting/needing to endlessly beat the "accuracy" argument would only be of interest to niche number crunchers or people with an anti-analog agenda.

 

[Greg_L]

No it aint "just about Scholz". Nobody said it was. But this thread is about discussing openly and fairly some of his views.

Strange that for someone who claims such little interest in the subject, your posts here are so frequent and long... How long and often would you post if you were interested in the topic? We might equally ask what is your agenda here?

Miroslav, if you're not interested in the topic or this thread, no one's forcing you to read it. So please stop trying to shut down the discussion for those of us who are interested in participating.

Tim

Wow, well said.

 

[Greg_L]

I knew it was a lot, but didn't know it was that much!

Well yeah...YouTube, MeSpace, etc...has created thousands of "artists", "producers" and "engineers".
Kinda' brings it home that the initial ideals and selling points about digital making it easier for the home-rec guy to "make it"...were somewhat of a wet dream.
Sure...you can churn out a "product" easier these days, but so can 100,000 other people....per month.
Not that's one serious competition scale.

Oh...and I agree with you that it's science and art combined. There's so many ways to get to the finished product and that will affect it's quality, that getting lost in the "numbers" of one piece of gear is almost pointless.
Just work the problem with your tools as best you can.

I do agree with this. I've said it all along.....I think digital is a blessing and a curse. It's good because it allows a shmoe like me to record whatever I want whenever I want and I can unleash it on the world without ever even having to put pants on. On the flip side, the ease of digital recording means anyone else can do the same and the landscape is flooded with crap. At least in the "older" days of analog-only a shmoe like me had to have his shit together and be quite serious about going through the time and expense of an all analog self-recording.

 

[Greg_L]

Pretty much all the above.

It is really all down to the skill of the engineer. That is going to have far greater impact on the quality of the final product than the notional differences between formats.

Yes! In my mind there's little doubt that anyone can make a really bad recording with the best analog stuff around. I know that I've done just that myself.That's part of why I don't see the usefulness of these kinds of "discussions". Really, why? One is not better than the other outside of pure personal bias/preference. All that matters is how you use it.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I didn't "pounce"...but be honest, based on some of our past history...with you starting off with a post/quote aimed at me....well, you know...

Anyway...I didn't think you were going to go back through the whole thread picking out stuff to respond too, but that's cool. Then I won't rehash any points already made unless you raise/ask a specific question.
See you when you get to page 4.....

com'n dude .... he immediately quoted you in a post, agreed with it and made an on topic observation and you choose to ignore that but go back twice to argue about his first post?

Why not not go there so quickly yourself?

Same thing with me ..... you carefully don't respond to me even when I'm agreeing with you .... of course that's your choice and I won't mention it again but com'n ........ lets all try to move on and grow a little bit here.



OK olive branch extended ...... I still agree with your position in this thread either way.

 

[miroslav]

com'n dude .... he immediately quoted you in a post, agreed with it and made an on topic observation and you choose to ignore that but go back twice to argue about his first post?

Honestly...I didn't see his quote/agreement of my post until after I responded the next time...and when I did, I really wasn't going back to argue, but rather to explain why his initial post seemed like a shot at me.
I think based on past stuff which maybe we both still recall...it was a valid knee-jerk, on both sides...but I said it's all cool, so I agree let's move on.

I even PM'd him to say we should both take a step back and start over...so I don't want the old stuff to come back.
I don't mind arguing over on-topic stuff...but we're probably all tired of the off-topic arguments...agreed?

OK olive branch extended ...... I still agree with your position in this thread either way.

Anyway...I'm not ignoring your agreements with me.
I know that you've had some hits with Tim...so I didn't want it to appear we were just tag-teaming him....which we certainly are not.

You made some strong on-topic points in this thread that I agree with too....and I feel the same way, I'm not going to lose sleep if some folks don't accept my perspective on analog and digital. I will still have the same views.

(I will delete Greg's and mine off-topic banter so as not to cloud the thread...I'm sure he won't mind.)

 

[miroslav]

Now back to the thread....

Here is a nice read about the "The Unique Evils of Digital Audio"....this is not just anti-digital, but it sheds light on why digital audio hasn't been liked for a long time in the past, and why some strong feelings have developed. This even has some "math" for the number's crowd to digest.
There even some insight about the whole "phase" issue thing.
When readin this...you get a clearer picture of why maybe Tm Scholz made the comments about his experience with 16/44.1 digital audio.


It also ends by stating that it has improved to the point where the "evils" are almost insignificant, but the reality is that they are still there in minute quantity...so no one should think that digital was and is 100% pristine.
Also...they argue for higher bit rates and higher sampling as part of the cure. I know Ethan has always argued that higher sampling is another unnecessary myth, and I think (?) he even feels that 16 bits is more than enough.
I'm not trying to pick on Ethan...just making the point that again...there are many views and even many opposing views within the digital realm...same as with analog.

The Unique Evils of Digital Audio and How to Defeat Them | Benchmark Interaction


.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Good to see you cite a proper technical discussion paper Miroslav. I'm currently digesting it.

A search on the same website found a customer's question. He was concerned about his CD collection. After having read the above article you cited he was considering throwing out some of his large collection.

I found the response from Benchmark interesting.

When did audio industry start recording with more than 16 bits? | Benchmark Interaction

 

[Ethan Winer]

so what do you really prove with the numbers?

What's proven is that high quality digital recording more accurately reproduces its input than high quality analog recording. For people who prefer accuracy, digital is clearly the better choice. Now, before you say "Duh, we all know that digital is more accurate," understand that many people do not understand this. All the time in hi-fi forums I see people claiming their LPs sound more realistic than their CDs, confusing the artificial "clarity" of Aphex-like euphonic distortion with increased accuracy. So this is an important point that must be made. For the 75th time, if you like the colored sound of analog tape you should absolutely use it and I'll never object.

AFA you reducing high-end gear to nothing more than a desire to add some distortion which can be had with just a few resistors and diodes...and that it doesn't warrant the price of high-end gear....well, I find that rather absurd, Ethan.

But you haven't explained why that claim is wrong. The only rebuttal you have is telling me to ask gear designers who profit from up-selling distortion, or random forum posters at GS and PSW. Please explain clearly and specifically what more there is to analog coloration than added distortion and frequency response changes. If you can't, then perhaps you should change your opinion?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I'm not a listener who wants euphonic distortions ..... I prefer recordings to sound as close as possible to what I hear live.

We need to remove this one step from "live" to "what's coming through the microphone," since that's all a recording medium can deal with. The best way to test this (preferably blind) is to set up your group in a pro studio, then compare the live sound off the console to playback from simultaneously captured digital and analog recorders. Do you agree with this so far? Or do you believe that analog tape somehow restores realism that is lost in the mic'ing process so the end result sounds more like live music?

amplifiers clearly sound very different from each other.

Some amps do sound different, but most competent amps sound identical. Have you ever done a proper level-matched blind test of power amps? Do you understand the need for proper testing? Earlier you wrote:

we also have no way to judge Ethan's ears simply because he wrote a book.

As I already explained, my ears are irrelevant. What matters is provable fact. In that earlier thread you claimed we are influenced by ultrasonics, and that two amps can measure the same but sound different. I asked you for evidence but you offered none. I usually avoid plugging my book, but it explains these issues in great detail, at a level appropriate for typical readers of this forum. Bob, I'm not looking for a fight, but it's exasperating to have someone make a claim, then refuse to back it up when pressed. It's even more exasperating to see someone make the same claim again in a different thread a week later. That happened here recently when I proved that recording at low levels doesn't sound "more professional" than recording close to 0 dB FS. I did a controlled test and posted files, and not one of the "believers" was willing to state which file they thought was recorded softer. $100 says they still believe that recording softer sounds better.

I don't really care about convincing you

Sure you do. Otherwise you wouldn't reply to my posts.

I will probably get your book though .... I've researched you ...... you're fairly controversial yourself and I'm always interested in learning and I like to read.

I really hope you do get my book. Not because I need the $3.30, but because it addresses all of this stuff clearly and logically, and offers files you can listen to on your own system independent of what I can or cannot hear.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Here is a nice read about the "The Unique Evils of Digital Audio"....this is not just anti-digital, but it sheds light on why digital audio hasn't been liked for a long time in the past, and why some strong feelings have developed.

The Unique Evils of Digital Audio and How to Defeat Them | Benchmark Interaction

I see one big problem with that article, even though it's mostly correct from a science point of view. All of the "facts" about dither and jitter and aliasing are correct, but the key point that's missing is that none of those things are audible! Yes, at very low levels quantization distortion can be louder than the music, but you'll never hear the distortion unless you crank the volume 40 dB during a fadeout. Likewise for jitter, because it's typically 110+ dB below the music, and is masked by the music itself. Jitter can be measured, but it's never heard, and it's never the reason a newbie's recordings suck. Which takes us back to your earlier question whether companies are "perpetuating 'false myths' and with the main goal to sell high-priced gear." The answer here too is clearly Yes.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

Now, before you say "Duh, we all know that digital is more accurate," understand that many people do not understand this. All the time in hi-fi forums I see people claiming their LPs sound more realistic than their CDs, confusing the artificial "clarity" of Aphex-like euphonic distortion with increased accuracy. So this is an important point that must be made. For the 75th time, if you like the colored sound of analog tape you should absolutely use it and I'll never object.

But see...that's a mix of different words and meangins.
You saying "accuracy" and the vinyl guys saying "sounds more realistic than their CDs"....are IMHO, two different things, though again just one more point subject to individual perceptions.

I think of paintings...like the Impressionism period where the images at face value seemed less accurate, but the impression they left was more accurate depictions of how light really interacts with the objects in the painting.
My point is...you are again trying to debate against what someone ELSE perceives (how the vinyl guys hear their records)...which is not easy to do.

If all this is about proper word choices...OK, you can attempt to correct people about how they should describe what they hear so as not to confuse others...but I think that's going to be impossible on any meaningful scale.
I think though you should also consider that with constant attempts to correct those things...you run the risk of only continuing the same old debates, as everyone is going to have their way of hearing and describing what they hear.

But you haven't explained why that claim is wrong.

Well...you haven't explained why your claim is right.
Your earlier comments basically suggested that paying $2000 for analog gear was a waste of money just for the sake of some "distortion"...which implies you think that is ALL you get from high end analog gear...???
I didn't see how you clearly and specifically explained/proved that. Saying it's all just a "few resistors and diodes" is what I think is absurd and why I said you should run that view past the top analog designers while at AES on the 26th of October if your going to be there with your own booth selling your wares.
I'm sure they would be more than happy to explain it clearly and specifically way better than I ever could.

I don't see how you can justifiably suggest all high-end analog gear is a scam just to put money in people's pockets...?
I mean...that is what you are saying...right?
Maybe using different words, but that's it, isn't it?

 

[miroslav]

I see one big problem with that article, even though it's mostly correct from a science point of view. All of the "facts" about dither and jitter and aliasing are correct, but the key point that's missing is that none of those things are audible!

Well...it sure seems to me that they have been audible, hence all the agreements that during the various stages of digital audio over the years there were very clear "digital sucks" periods that a lot of people could hear.

I believe that is the basis for the Tom Scholz views...which IS what started this whole thread off. He too also said that with 24-bit, things got much better.
So what are you saying...that there was NEVER a period when lots of folks felt digital audio sucked because of what their ears where telling them...and not just some theoretical numbers and measurements?

You didn't comment on the Benchmark view about higher sampling rates and why they too help to make those *artifacts* less audible.

Also...the fact that there are artifacts and always have been....means that "accuracy" is relative to perception, which is all I've been saying all along. For the analog and vinyl guys, their perception is that it sounds more realistic to them, regardless if you have a problem with their use of the words "more realistic".
Why is it important that they not use those words...if that's what they perceive...?

Anyway...I see that we have come back around to the beginning...and we haven't really changed each other's (and probably no one else's) minds and views....so unless there's some earth-shattering new proof or perspectives put out by someone....I'm going to take this as the stalemate point in the debate and step out, but I'll check back to see if there's anything new.

I'm going to go lay down some tracks on tape before I dump them into the DAW....

 

[grimtraveller]

I'm not trying to "shut down" the thread, but I am confident it will die off quickly just like the other Scholz thread did because this is old news.

Famous last words !

 

[DrumRookie]

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

(Yay!)

"Everyone, if you want smooth vocals via analog, you should rough up the tape a bit with some scissors ." -Troll

"Digital sucks who would ever use that like anal log is the best and I only think ppl should use tape because i don wanna mic recording frum a digittool computair!!?" -Troll the III

"Tape is cool because you can "touch" it, and that way the music sounds more "personal".. Hehe..." -Troll named Bubba

"The purpose of digital recording is solely for those who record techno music." -Troll the II

"I know nothing about tape, except that it's shiny" -DrumRookie

 

[Mo Facta]

"Realism" is a murky word that can have many meanings to many people.

People often don't have the vocabulary to describe what they are hearing.

Cheers

 

[Ethan Winer]

You saying "accuracy" and the vinyl guys saying "sounds more realistic than their CDs"....are IMHO, two different things, though again just one more point subject to individual perceptions.

But accuracy can be easily proven with measurements and null tests. Versus perception which is fluid and unreliable. That's why I have repeatedly avoided talking about preference (other than to acknowledge it exists) and addressed only accuracy.

you are again trying to debate against what someone ELSE perceives (how the vinyl guys hear their records)

I haven't tried to do that at all. This is called a straw man argument, where one attacks statements his opponent never actually said.

Well...you haven't explained why your claim is right.

I certainly did! If you prefer not to read or comprehend what I write, that's not my fault. I can define fidelity all day long, and I can prove that for raw fidelity competent digital beats competent analog in every possible way: Frequency response, distortion, and noise. So there's your proof. If you prefer a colored sound, that's fine, as I said many times now.

Your earlier comments basically suggested that paying $2000 for analog gear was a waste of money just for the sake of some "distortion"...which implies you think that is ALL you get from high end analog gear...???

Yes, that's all you get. If you believe there's more to it than distortion and an altered frequency response, the burden is on you to describe clearly and unequivocally what more there is. Can you do that? For extra credit, please post a pair of A/B wave files proving the point.

Saying it's all just a "few resistors and diodes" is what I think is absurd

Why is it absurd? Please be extremely clear in your explanation.

I don't see how you can justifiably suggest all high-end analog gear is a scam just to put money in people's pockets...?

I don't buy cheap junk because reliability and build quality, and even appearance and "knob feel" are important. So I don't think all high end gear is a scam, but a lot of it is.

--Ethan

 

[Lt. Bob]

Why is it absurd? Please be extremely clear in your explanation.

why? First off there isn't anything anyone could possibly say that you would accept and secondly ..... who cares what you think?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Well...it sure seems to me that they [dither, jitter] have been audible

I'm sure you believe they're audible, but only because you never did a proper level-matched blind test. I wish you lived near enough to me to visit, because I'm certain I could change your views in about five minutes with a few simple listening experiments.

So what are you saying...that there was NEVER a period when lots of folks felt digital audio sucked because of what their ears where telling them...and not just some theoretical numbers and measurements?

I think the perception that early digital audio "sucked" was only because some early CDs were made from tapes that had been mastered for vinyl. So the added highs needed to overcome vinyl's inherent HF loss made the CDs sound too bright and edgy. Most of the engineers who were there at the time loved the improved transient response and overall clarity of digital, and their main complaint was the cost of the hardware.

You didn't comment on the Benchmark view about higher sampling rates and why they too help to make those *artifacts* less audible.

I didn't read the entire article. But again, unless the tests were level-matched and blind, they are meaningless.

I see that we have come back around to the beginning...and we haven't really changed each other's (and probably no one else's) minds and views.

Agreed, though I have no idea why you stick to your same opinions even after being proven wrong again and again!

On the other hand, I'll gladly change my opinion as soon as you explain what more there is to "analog" gear than added distortion and a colored frequency response.

--Ethan