Why analog rocks: It sounds bad!

[Neil Ogilvie]

Theres a hell of a lot of good points here.......

I just record to Analog (I got my Fostex G16 eventually £100 )then transfer to computer? That way you almost have the best of both worlds.......

...... Or do you? I know nothing of analog, so correct me if I;m wrong.

 

[regebro]

And burning a CD is digital recording you know.

Yes, but the analog counterpart is engraving a vinyl master. And few of us to that.

I listen to CDs on the exact same amp/speakers and so on as I do for analog.

And then indeed the A/D and D/A is the most important part. If you are uing standalone stuff it should be reasonably good, so we can suspect that most of the differences you hear are indeed due to the format and not the converters. What are you using, btw?

I don't have any good quality converters, so I don't really have any possibility of a fair comparison between the analog source and different formats...

 

[Beck]

The Myth of Digital Accuracy

I’m not sure when it started. Maybe it was all those overly frantic reviews of digital recording equipment in the 80’s, in magazines such as Home & Studio Recording, Music Technology, etc, by reviewers that had no idea what they were doing, but were assured that digital was the new messiah. I truly believe the digital phenomenon was contrived ex nihilo.

However it came to pass, it is now dogma and digital has been accepted by most as the standard by which truth and accuracy are measured.

To me it has always been the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. I’m not alone, it seems. Even after all these many years, hardcore audiophiles are still renowned for their vinyl and open reel systems, not digital CD of any species.

Digital sampling (recording) and reproduction of sound is by no means “flat.” The properties of certain frequencies are perceptibly accented or diminished in an unnatural way, and there are annoying “artifacts.” This is distressing to my ear. Music should blend in a gratifying way. In some cases I would say that digital does a poor job of blending. It is the process of cutting up music into “snapshots” (sampling) that causes digital to lose its grip on the real world of sound.

For example, if I record a chorus of 3 voices onto tape I hear a chorus. However, if I record it onto digital I hear three separate voices that don't completely merge into one sound as in nature.

Likewise, if I record a 3-note chord from piano onto tape I hear that chord, which is greater than the sum of its parts. Record the same chord onto digital and I hear three separate tones played simultaneously, again that don't quite become one sound as in nature. The digital process seems to strip natural sound of some acoustic qualities. People describe this with terms such as “sterile,” “cold” and “harsh.”

I agree that magnetic tape is superior for many types of music because it linearly reproduces natural phenomenon such as intermediation distortion and other harmonic interactions where digital quenches them by leaving out vital information.

As some have already said, we are talking about different aspects of the recording process -- laying tracks, mastering and finally the finished end-product, such as cassette, vinyl, CD, etc.

Digital CD as an end-product is obviously what we have. The best compromise is analog multitracking and mastering to begin with. The result is that more of the sound, which begins in the linear-acoustic realm, will be available for the conversion to ones and zeros.

The real trouble as I see it began when the recording industry began abandoning analog tape in the recording studio, not when CD became the predominant medium for the end-user. Many professionals are bringing analog machines back after a less than satisfactory experience with entirely digital systems.

All other things being equal I’m convinced that those who understand the role of analog hold the secrets to producing music that will more effectively move the listener.

Tim

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Minus the following statement you made, Tim,

Likewise, if I record a 3-note chord from piano onto tape I hear that chord, which is greater than the sum of its parts. Record the same chord onto digital and I hear three separate tones played simultaneously,

I would tend to agree with you. Piano chords should always blend into a chord sound no matter what they are recorded on unless you are using a very poor piano and microphone technique to capture it?

Cheers!

 

[regebro]

Digital sampling (recording) and reproduction of sound is by no means “flat.” The properties of certain frequencies are perceptibly accented or diminished in an unnatural way

"The properties of certain frequencies". What does that mean? Which properties, which frequencies?

Measurements are not the whole truth, that is obvious, but the fact is that the frequency response of a good digital system is as flat as it is practically possible to do things. The same actually goes for any high quality analog mixer with the filters bypassed. Making "flat" analog amplifictaion circuitry is today a non-issue. Filtes and in particular tape, is a whole differet issue though.

and there are annoying “artifacts.”

This is undoubtedly true. Of course, with better equipment and better specs these artifacts gets less and less noticable.

For example, if I record a chorus of 3 voices onto tape I hear a chorus. However, if I record it onto digital I hear three separate voices that don't completely merge into one sound as in nature.

This to mee sounds like a perfect case of what I am saying. It's too accurate, you don't get any "blending", it doesn't sound coherent.

 

[Lt. Bob]

This to mee sounds like a perfect case of what I am saying. It's too accurate, you don't get any "blending", it doesn't sound coherent.

But in 'real life'.....when you are listening to three singers do a nice harmony....their voices do blend into a chord. A good three-part harmony comes across as a whole chord and not as 3 seperate voices so it's not more accurate if it makes them sound seperate.
Let's not forget that actual sound as it occurs in nature is a completely analog phenomena.
Intuitively, it makes sense that analog reproduction could do some things better because of the direct connection with the original sound.

Not that we'll ever come to a conclusion on this. Those who hear a difference are never gonna be convinced they don't, and those who dismiss analog as old technology are never gonna accept that some 60 year old technology could be better in any way.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Well said Lt. Bob!

Not that we'll ever come to a conclusion on this. Those who hear a difference are never gonna be convinced they don't, and those who dismiss analog as old technology are never gonna accept that some 60 year old technology could be better in any way.

I think that statement should be put at the head of any discussion on this topic!

Cheers!

 

[Beck]

I see what regebro is saying. I might use the term "too clean" instead of "too accurate".... maybe.

Hey, if a digital recording of a tree falling is played in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it still sound like crap?

Seriously though, most of us know both analog and digital add and detract things during the recording process. Talking about specs is so only so useful. I don’t really want to write a thesis right here on the HR bbs. But I don’t think the debate is a waste of time either. There’s a lot of good info here for anyone looking for input on the subject, now and in the future. It's not all here though, so don't be too surprised if I add to it.

To put it in street terms, I like to think of analog as the airbrushed Playboy centerfold, while digital is the raw photo, also imperfect -- a little too sharp and detailed -- more so than the real thing. Neither are the same as what the one sees in person (if we could be so lucky).

 

[Centeno]

Hello:

Take a snare drum, for example. To me the analog tracks just sound more realistic. You can almost visualize the snare drum tracked to analog, its like a 3 dimensional feel or something (harmonics, distortion, warmth, whatever).

I don't get the same feeling when tracking to digital. And the same thing applies to bass drum or any acoustic instrument tracked to analog vs digital. The digital tracks just seem flat, they may not necessarily sound bad (i.e. if that's the sound you're looking for), just lacking information, it's like looking at something with one eye covered (no 3-d perspective), I can't handle it...

 

[jake-owa]

Maybe actual sound is not always analog. The term phonon comes to mind. I have heard the word used in a few theories but I'm not sure of it's relevance here.

I was thinking about it and it seems like no matter how fine the frequency grain is it would always have an effect on the way a solid note will interact with other notes. I Have no problem getting a chorus sound from digital. The negative thing to my ears is the extra effect created by doing it.
Digital summing...at least in my system, is piss poor compared to even cheap analog mixers. It's almost like the difference between a soft synth and a hardware one, or a plug-in program vs. hardware processor.
Video games are fun but I like to do the real thing once in a while.

Speaking of video games:

I think a program that has a little studio technical drawing as a menu would be cool. You could model an actual studio with all their equipment. Click on the multitrack and you'd see the machine and control panel with ins and outs graphed out. It would be a killer training tool for students to learn real world signal chain.

Plus it would be fun to play.

 

[Reilley]

...and don't foget Jack's Law: even if a product is PERFECT for what it is supposed to do, the people who design and make such things will have to Jack with it until they create either a superior or inferior product, but they can't claim success and leave it as it is. If they did, zillions of designers, engineers, advertisers, and other folks would be thrown out of work. Obsolescense is REQUIRED to keep the economy going. If digital sound did not exist, it would have to be invented for economic reasons.

Most people couldn't tell the best digital from the best analog at 20 feet to save their lives.

[Pointing pistol: "Come on, which stereo sounds better?"
"I think I like the blue one..."]

 

[regebro]

But in 'real life'.....when you are listening to three singers do a nice harmony....their voices do blend into a chord. A good three-part harmony comes across as a whole chord and not as 3 seperate voices so it's not more accurate if it makes them sound seperate.

So you are saying that if you three people singing a nice tight harmnoy, and it sound good, and you pop a microphone instead of your head, and record it to digital, afterwards it would NOT sound good, but it would suddenly sound like three separate voices?

I just don't believe that, and it would require a double blind test situation before I would beleive it, because that is just simply "impossible".

 

[regebro]

Maybe actual sound is not always analog. The term phonon comes to mind. I have heard the word used in a few theories but I'm not sure of it's relevance here.

Well, you are correct of course. All we need to do is to have a bit depth that is so high that we can detect airmolecules moving just one planck length, and sample this every plack time unit, and nobody could complain about digital not being analog anymore.

 

[Lt. Bob]

So you are saying that if you three people singing a nice tight harmnoy, and it sound good, and you pop a microphone instead of your head, and record it to digital, afterwards it would NOT sound good, but it would suddenly sound like three separate voices?

I just don't believe that, and it would require a double blind test situation before I would beleive it, because that is just simply "impossible".

First off.......I didn't say that.....Beck said that.....go back and read and pay attention to who said what this time.
I was simply replying to your post where you said that the reason they didn't blend was because of the 'accurracy' of digital.
Secondly.......I don't find digital to be as supernaturally accurate as you insist it is and plenty of qualified audiophiles agree. Once again, I am speaking of 16bit/44.1k which is what consumers hear. I have said many fucking times that the newer....higher quality formats finally live up to the promise of digital/
But 16/44.1 does not.......it has insufficient dynamic range......insufficient resolution.........these are things that have been documented by many sources and studies.
If you can't hear the difference then great.......I hear it and you can use any kind of word play or argument you want......I hear the difference.....period. That's the only thing that ultimately matters to me.

 

[regebro]

First off.......I didn't say that.....Beck said that.....go back and read and pay attention to who said what this time.

I don't interpret it in the same way. I interpreted it that three vocal recordings does not blend. That these three most likely are recorded one at a time, in a dead vocal booth or similar, each on a track of it's own. Which one it is only Beck can answer, of course. I do still think that it would be highly strange if digital causes a nicely blended vocal harmony to split up into three voices.

That's a whole different thing from recording three people singing with one mic.

Secondly.......I don't find digital to be as supernaturally accurate as you insist it is and plenty of qualified audiophiles agree.

I have NEVER claimed that is is "supernaturally accurate". I have claimed that good digital it is MORE accurate than good analog, and that this is the reason why we don't like it.

And in my book audiophile is a curse, no matter how qualified they are. Audiophiles are people who buy overprices stuff based on hype and religion. Pay no attention to anybody calling themselves "audiophile".

Once again, I am speaking of 16bit/44.1k which is what consumers hear.

And once again, I'm talking about high quality recording equipment, which is typically 24/96. If the worst digital bandwidth was all that mattered, then we could all record analog for all that we wanted, since it all ends up on a CD anyhow. The general agreement is that thisis not the case, what equipment we use when recording DOES make a difference, even though it end up on a CD in the end.

I have said many fucking times that the newer....higher quality formats finally live up to the promise of digital

Well, fine, I have no quarrel with this. But the fact is that many still argues that analog is superior, and I have offered my theory on why this is. I have seen little arguments in this thread to contradict these theories, and some argument that supports it. However, it is just a theory, and it has no scientific basis whatsoever.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I really have to wonder why threads of this nature are created in the first place?

This is an analog only forum, supposedly visited by analog enthusiasts who wish to speak with like minded individuals who wish to further their art, (hobby) of recording on analog equipment.

What good is served by these discussions ?

Does it make us throw our equipment in the garbage and run to the nearest Comp-USA to by a computer? Not me. Probably not anybody who likes their analog gear and the results they get with it.

I post quite a few of my tunes in the clinic and many people comment on how great my recording sound with regard to clarity and depth of sound. Those comments only re-enforce for me the idea to stay with what I have. Analog.

I think the bottom line here is to bare in mind that both analog and digital have varying degrees of quality as does the skill levels in musicianship to record with which ultimately is the biggest factor in achieving a good result when you press the record button.

Cheers!

 

[regebro]

I think it is an interesting question. So do others obviously. If you don't want to discuss WHY analog sound better than digital, you don't have to. I like the discussion, I think it's an interesting topic, so I carry on.

 

[Reilley]

Up here in Canada, we have been using a hybrid system called
digitanalog for some time now, with great success. It is the best
of both worlds.

.
.
.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

If you don't want to discuss WHY analog sound better than digital, you don't have to.

That's right. I don't want to discus WHY.

There is no need to explain why I like it to anyone in this forum because every who participates here are analog enthusiasts already.

I would just be preaching to the choir.

What's the point of that? I don't know

Perhaps If you are a man on a mission to spread the good word about analog, try starting a thread over in the Cool edit area of the site or similar digital zone of the site and see how many converts you get.

I wish you nothing but good luck with that.

Better still, let's keep the secrets all to ourselves. That way, more and more digital trackers will dump their analog gear even cheaper then they are giving it away for now and we can all reap the rewards at E-bay on other places.

I would rather post threads that help existing analog users with their stuff then defend my dis-like for cheer-leading threads like this one.

No offense intended.

Peace!

 

[Beck]

I don't know... Yeah this forum my be mostly choir members, but there are always curious digital sinners dropping by to see what its all about. We should remember there are long-term diehard analog gurus here, but there are also dissatisfied digital defectors that follow these discussions with great interest.

I view this forum for the info it archives for thirsty souls, 1, 2 or even 5 years from now, if its still here. Since I've benefited from info that is several years old on this forum and others, I don't see it as a here and now thing.

Some people are interested in “why.” That’s good enough for me. One never knows when one might have to persuade producers, band members, etc, to use analog tape in the recording process to solve a problem.

The only thing I think is not so useful is when the discussion becomes personal and disrespectful.

This form is a valuable reference, and this thread is as least as valuable as any other.

Thanks regebro for the initial post that started it. It clearly attracted interest -- what else is needed for a stimulating thread?


Tim