Why Analog?

[ausrock]

Great post jjones!!!

Quite some years ago I realised I no longer had the time for "serious" amateur photography, my 35mm had died from over-use, I sold my Bronica SQ-Am and finally, a few years ago, I purchased a reasonable digital camera..........fast forward to the last 12 months........I have bought a replacement 35mm and am now thankful that I didn't sell off all my processing gear........good times await.

Re recording (and forgetting about 40+ years of playing guitar, and the subsequent purchase of console, rack gear, etc).......about 7 or 8 years ago I started assembling recording gear (mainly to help my son and his friends out). The recorder, which still is used, is a Fostex D-160 16 trk, essentially 16 bit 44 kHz unit and to date no one has ever criticised the quality of recording done on that machine. Later on I added an ATR-69 1" 16trk and the first thing my son and I did was track some acoustic guitar similtaneously to both decks.............I still remember the "silly" grin on my son's face when he heard the analogue playback, the differences were subtle BUT there were differences.

 

[The Great Cobb]

yep

Interesting discovery!
So?
Get a laptop and sm58 and start creating already

/respects

Nah, id rather come here and go another 12 rounds arguing apples and oranges to infinity.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Again, quiet is fine and all, but chopping off the top abruptly and only sampling 44K doesn't do much for those smooth cymbal decays and ultra-high sweet harmonics.

You'e right that steep filtering can do some funny things to the sound up high. I'm no expert on this but I suspect this is overplayed in practice.

You mentioned cymbal decays. But decays and reverb trails are only problematic if the digital recorder runs out of bits or, as they say, has quantization errors. In 16 bit, we add dither (literally low level hiss) to mask this disconcerting sound. But even at 16 bit it's still very very low level stuff and unlikely to be heard unless it was a really quiet source with little ambience of its own and you have the gain up high, almost high enough to be unbearably loud when there's a loud passage.
OTOH 24 bit is so ridiculously quiet a standard that there's no need to even attempt to mask the quantisation errors with hiss as they are well below the noise levels of the very best converters out there. Our ears cant hear the errors either because it's far too quiet for them.

Again, if there are doubts about 44 sample rate (as opposed to bit rate) the best thing is a double blind test administered independently by someone else. Theoretical propositions, like discussions on forums, only partially convince.

Cheers Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

A recorder which can just record faithfully,.... is a dream come true, isnt it? .

If "faithfulness" is what you REALLY after, then your only hope is analog recording, where the fluctuation of energy is being transferred from entity (source) to entity (medium) within the matter by DIRECT IMPACT, and WITHOUT introduction into the "process" of a remote, completely independent and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT source of fluctuation of energy (a pulsar, aka "clock").
From science point, Sampling and Faithfulness don't stick together by default, period.
The claim/proof of "faithfulness" of digital recording of an AC signal is based PURELY and solely on math.
Math is not a science. Math is an exercise.
*************
P.S.
All major (or say, legendary ) TRUE scientists have never stood on math. They stood firmly on philosophy. They've kept Math on the shelf as a toll and/or as a "workout" device.

/later

 

[Blue Jinn]

We're living in a post-CD age. MP3 is the delivery method of choice. The average listener doesn't care about quality as much as they do convenience… partly because they don’t even know what quality is. A generation has grown up on CD. We've been in a sonic dark ages for sometime now.

I wonder if that is relative though. My first stereo was a hand me down from my sister, some piece of crap changer with 6" full range speakers on the side in a plastic case. (And no, not the audiophile full range )The amp was transistor, surely with all manner of compromises and corners cut, and the record changer probably was only a little better than the 78 rpm on top of the old Philco. As a kid I didn't mind too much that it wasn't the hi-est fi. Just like listening to my mono transistor radio under the covers like in that Ramones song... I knew there was something better to strive for. Is that the difference?

(snip) The pursuit of Hi-Fi went out with tape and vinyl, not long after CD became the dominant format (1993). Yep, it took 10 years for CD to overtake tape and vinyl sales.

IMO, (and it is just that, no math or anything to back it up -- so I don't need any flames or quotes to Ohm's law Nyquist or whomever....) hi-fi has been in decline since IC's started to replace discrete components and bigass transformers and capacitors disappeared in power supplies. My receiver in the late 70s early 80's required a forklift to move... (just kidding, but it was damn heavy.) Maybe I'm just nostalgic, but I won't give up my early 70s Teac receiver, because I'm not convinced that something newer is going to sound any better.

**However**

I saw something the other day that astounded me, a small low power tube amp (EF86 I think) with a full range speaker set in a nice cabinet. and the amp was designed and had built in attachment for an mp3 player. I think it *may* have had a line in.

CD is partly to blame for this present situation. Compared to CD, MP3 is not that much of a loss. But compare MP3 to vinyl or even cassette (which I can do) and you’ve got a problem. The difference is striking.

The marketing geniuses convinced us that digital was better. Remember that bit (pun intended) on teh CD's about the "this wonderful gift from the gods that is digital can reveal the limitations of the source tape" meaning if this sounds bad blame it on the source tape... BUT, I also remember a review of a CD re-issue of an ELO album a while back complaining that the trademark Jeff Lynne acoustic guitars were missing something: the shimmering high end.

IMO mp3's are OK when convenience is an issue, like on the bus or in the gym with a cheap set of headphones. Even in the car, CD or cassette either one sounds fine, tape hiss isn't much of an issue on the freeway, and dolby B takes care of that anyway. A car isn't a living room. Maybe the real problem is that no one takes the time to sit down and **listen** to music anymore...

Found this interesting:

Trust your ears: If it doesn't sound right, its because there are other new, unknown problems. CD dampers, over sampling, green marker pens, followed by Krell's use of green LEDs in the disc bay, the realization that the S/PDIF interface was bad and that one should go with the coax, and then $1000 coax cables, and then jitter correction, have all reflected limitations of digital devices. Then came the realization that digital circuits dirty up the mains and cause problems for amps -- vide the need for things like MonsterCable's mains strip. And the discovery that CDs supply a lot of unnecessary, confusing info to the D/A converter -- vide the Genesis Digital Lens. Given the resulting sound that we are left with, I think there are still a few more, waiting to be discovered. When discovered, I hope the person makes some money off the discovery with yet another gadget to improve the sound of digital audio! The fact is, whenever one sees many after-market gadgets, there's something wrong with the basic implementation!

I suppose though that Dolby SR could be considered an "after market gadget"

 

[nate_dennis]

Lots of good posts, and truth is, I don't have the time or inclination to read every word. This thread, as I intended it, was not to debate the merits of one or the other, but to admire one for what it is. To find out why we have chosen this way. If anyone says that digital has no benefits they are insane. But some of chose to work with older gear, and the journey is fun. In the end, very few of us are doing this because we get paid to. Those of you that do, congratulations (and I mean that sincerely.) You need to do what will get clients in the door. For the rest of us, it's a hobby, passion, a side gig, whatever. We get to chose what we want because we want it. I never meant for this to be a debate. Can't we all just get along?

Now, would someone please pass me that Han-D-Mag?

 

[Dr ZEE]

...would someone please pass me that Han-D-Mag?

Sure. Here Ya'go:
A man walks into Penn Station and addresses the passengers awaiting the Acela Express to Boston:
-"Hear me, Folks! I have a question. Why Train? Why!? I know you can drive or take a bus or a plane. I don't want to hear any discussion about alternatives. Just tell me - WHY TRAIN! That's all. Also I don't have much time to listen to your every damn word. So be short and get right to the point."

 

[Blue Jinn]

Because I can get up and walk around, eat something, and get there just as fast as if I drove...

 

[nate_dennis]

-"Hear me, Folks! I have a question. Why Train? Why!? I know you can drive or take a bus or a plane. I don't want to hear any discussion about alternatives. Just tell me - WHY TRAIN! That's all. Also I don't have much time to listen to your every damn word. So be short and get right to the point."[/i]

OUCH!!!!!

I think you misunderstood me, or I miscommunicated. I understand disucussing differences, I just don't like (what I perceive to be) arguments over which is BETTER. But you make a good point.

 

[Dr ZEE]

OUCH!!!!!

I think you misunderstood me, or I miscommunicated..

happens all the time
But my "point" is that you could (or maybe should) of make it clear as you've started the thread, with something like a simple note, ala: "NO Analog vs. Digital Discussions, please!"
Also, even if you did make it clear, I think that the discussion one vs the other would be unavoidable anyway, because for many recordists choosing analog is/was directly related to experiences with digital recording.
So it would take only a one nice lady with a cool hat over the wig to state her reason in a form of saying: "Well, young fela', I Take that Train because driving SUCKS!" ...heh heh heh ...and there you have, let the discussion begin.

 

[Beck]

I never meant for this to be a debate. Can't we all just get along?

Well, we can't really ask a question like, "Why Analog?" without people referencing digital to answer the question, now can we?

After all "Digital Sucks!" is a legitimate answer... as good as any I suppose.

 

[Dr ZEE]

..."Digital Sucks!" is a legitimate answer... as good as any I suppose.

I dig your hat.

 

[Beck]

I dig your hat.

Thanks, I got it to match your shoes.

 

[cjacek]

Can't we all just get along?

I would have preferred: "Can't we all just get analog?"

 

[cjacek]

because for many recordists choosing analog is/was directly related to experiences with digital recording.

... and that is "why analog" for me.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I would have preferred: "Can't we all just get analog?"

I would have preferred: "Can't they all just get digital and leave all the good stuff for me?"

 

[Beck]

The good stuff....

 

[themaddog]

Who are "they"?

The CD as a consumer format at 44/16 came out in 82.
27 years on, we still have the CD unchanged as a consumer format.

When I was born, in January 1983, CD's a new digital medium.

Computers have come a LONG way since my birth, but, aside from the benefits of faster and cheaper, I can't say that there have been that many improvements to the consumer end of the medium. Rather, I'd make the claim that MP3's have been a dramatic step backwards in terms of sound quality.

I like tape. I like the cheap cost of digital. I could crank out CD-R's for pennies, yet I'd still be behind in terms of consumers' preferred medium of the MP3. I think if an artist is willing to embrace both mediums, he or she can produce some very high quality recordings that could be widely distributed for next to nothing. If it is the intention of the artist to undermine the "business" of recorded music, then that artist couldn't be living in a better time.

-MD

 

[Tim Gillett]

When I was born, in January 1983, CD's a new digital medium.

Computers have come a LONG way since my birth, but, aside from the benefits of faster and cheaper, I can't say that there have been that many improvements to the consumer end of the medium. Rather, I'd make the claim that MP3's have been a dramatic step backwards in terms of sound quality.

I like tape. I like the cheap cost of digital. I could crank out CD-R's for pennies, yet I'd still be behind in terms of consumers' preferred medium of the MP3. I think if an artist is willing to embrace both mediums, he or she can produce some very high quality recordings that could be widely distributed for next to nothing. If it is the intention of the artist to undermine the "business" of recorded music, then that artist couldn't be living in a better time.

-MD

Firstly, I sometimes wonder why I occasionally find myself actually defending digital down on this little forum. What? There's no need to defend. Digital everything has had massive, worldwide acceptance. Hugely successful. Sure there are some still using analog in various areas, and that's fine. Vinyl record sales have apparently been on the increase but still they are a tiny minority.

No, I do it when someone seems to, intentionally or not, misrepresent the facts.

Funny that here we are on this Analog Only www forum which if not for digital wouldnt be here!

Here we are now on Analog Only exchanging photo, video and audio clips.
Compressed digital formats BTW like jpeg, mpeg. Apparently you/we judge that the loss of quality in both audio and video is an acceptable trade off compared to not sharing them at all. Good. So does most people. I use YouTube not because of its quality but its accessibility and the vast range of stuff available.

You maintain mp3's have been a "dramatic step back in terms of sound quality". Well in one sense yes but even with wav. too you could always record at lower bit and sample rates to cut file size, with a trade off in sound quality. Do we need hi fi stereo phone lines? Of course not. The phone service always traded off sound quality so we could have the service and at least talk to each other.

And it's not as if we started with some poor quality mp3 file and were hoping for an improved CD quality file down the track to supplant it. Our first consumer experience of digital audio was CD's. mp3's came along later as an efficient file size saving method.

Even so, it's dangerous to generalize about the audio quality of mp3's or similar audio compression codecs. There is no one standard of mp3 file compression, just as there's no one analog tape format, tape speed, track width. You cut your cloth according to your audio quality needs.

For much popular music, mp3's at a reasonably high bitrate are not a compromise in sound quality. Reason? Much popular music has narrow dynamic range and so little or no information at the deeper bit levels. So if you compress correctly you are only eliminating bits that are not even recorded on in the CD format or higher. They were blank all along, or at the least contained only noise that is irrelevent to the performance itself.

If you're a kid listening to an iPod on a noisy bus or train the last thing you need is a huge dynamic range anyway. All the quiet stuff that you might hear in a quiet living room is likely overwhelmed by the vehicle noise. You want the opposite. A narrower dynamic range to hear the quieter stuff above the vehicle noise while the louder sections of the track still dont blow your brains out.

The problem can come though when people take a standard CD with a big dynamic range, simply file compress it to a low bitrate and then wonder why the quiet sounds disappear. Of course they disappear because you told the codec to eliminate all sound below a certain threshold. It's just doing what it was told to do. Again, lack of understanding.

This in itself is not an analog vs digital issue. It's just a practical human hearing issue.

Any way, enuff from me for the moment.

Cheers Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

....when someone seems to, intentionally or not, misrepresent the facts.

....i do it.

....for analog tape to have an infinite sample rate it would need infinite tape speed, infinitely large reels, heads with infinitesimally small losses, etc..

BRAVO BRAVISSIMO!!!
!
[video=youtube;<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/RgV9CTTymTA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/RgV9CTTymTA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>]video[/video]