Why analogue and not digital?

[evm1024]

Remind to never, ever, rely on you on for any technical advice.

Objective data is truth. Validity of opinion is indeterminate.

At least you spelled truth with a small "T". Objective data is not truth. It is:

------------------
1a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

c: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

2: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs

3a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b: of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
---------------------------

Audio is always subjective and thus not subject to the limitations of objective data.

We might measure and calculate to our hearts content but that will not tell us that digital sounds good or sounds bad. Measurement must be corrolated to the subjective to be useful.

We are dealing with people who do say "I recorded to digital for 4 years and then I tried a tape deck and was blown away". This is not something that all can hear (or can they?) But it exists. And then if you are hard into digital you may feel a need (an emotional need) to correct them and show that the objective data that proves their subjective experience is invalid and just can't be.

Without casting any bad thoughts to MSH or APL, People who rely on objective data here at work don't know what they are talking about. Every new post doc that comes through the door makes their initial major mistakes when they rely on objective data and don't bother to look at reality.

Regards, Ethan

 

[Dr ZEE]

My Gump But True story

the word "choose" might be giving people too much credit.

Now nobody "chooses".
Some time ago there was a short period of time when people were "facing the choice", so you could "choose" and maybe even believe (of feel like) that your decicion will make a difference in the way it'll go.

Also, I personally did not "choose" when I've got into recording. I went digital straight forward and specifically because of its great sound quality. Also I knew how great it was before even trying it out ( I was well educated, you know ). I never cared about plug-ins, (they were not around). For some reason "no moving parts"-thing and instant access were always very "sexy" in my mind , and of course - no generational loss! - that one was the thing to die for.
And then as I've got in I've found myself being sucked into the continuous process of upgrading and improving, upgrading and improving, upgrading and improving, upgrading and improving .... And I would not say that it was an "easy" thing, and it was NOT cheap - >>>"hell NO"!
Then one day, I am not sure for what reason, but I just stopped. Just like that, I guess, just like that guy, you know , ... And I mean I've just stopped "recording and producing" period. And during that period, I guess, I had a chance to just look around and fool around and check out something "strange" with no expectation and for no specific reason. And that's pretty much was how by accident I've "re-discovered" analog recording and the whole lot of other things consequentially as a "package".

Sometimes it pays to just stop.

Here's, that guy, you know....

 

[cjacek]

So what are you saying? Digital recording is too technically challenging for you?

Oh, 'cmon man... He's relaying his experiences and thoughts which, surprise surprise, are shared by many on this analog only forum.

------

 

[Beck]

It's cheap and it's easy. If I need thirty takes to get that riff right, I'll use thirty takes then cut and paste. If someone in Spain wants to do a drum track and ez_ wants to cut the bass track in sunny southern California, we can do that. Digital is way flexible in ways that analogue will never be.

Yeah, but if you need 30 takes to get that riff right it's time to turn off your recorder and practice your riff.

And back in the day we did send tapes all over the country for people to lay down their parts. It was snail mail, but many albums were done this way. It's nothing new, just faster now. But it still comes back to the sound. Do you want it done fast or do you want it done right?

 

[ausrock]

Oh, 'cmon man... He's relaying his experiences and thoughts which, surprise surprise, are shared by many on this analog only forum.

------

Don't worry about it Daniel. Based on some of his posts, apl seems to have a "symbiotic" relationship with msh.

Kinda reminds me of a guy where I used to work, his nickname was "nails".....short for "toenails"

 

[cjacek]

From sample to sample, nothing is changing, or seems not to be. (actually that's not quite true. It is changing but so infinitesimally slightly that we with our ears are unable to detect it) So from a strict scientific measurement point of view, yes, information is being lost, but from a human hearing point of view, we cant detect such tiny changes) Above a certain sample rate, you gain nothing extra.

Our ears are limited in what they can pick out. Perfect accuracy in audio sampling is therefore both unattainable (whether with analog or digital) and gains no advantage in what we as humans can hear.

Science can only detect what it can measure and this leaves out a vast area of the universe and human biology which is yet unexplained. How arrogant a scientist must be to claim what the person can't hear is unimportant?

IMHO, the assumption that the human hearing range is between a certain value and that everything between that value will be sampled [at a certain value], flies against natural order of things. This 'manipulation' is, at least to me, a bit unnerving.

There is so much 'noise' around us, which is felt, perceived and experienced, that I'd like to call the 'glue', which holds everything together, that to possibly omit that very thing, is very likely disastrous and a caricature of the original source.

Again, how does one fully explain, using science, when it [science] can only measure what it 'sees'.

-----

 

[cjacek]

As for me, magnetism is everywhere. It's organic. Even keeps the universe glued together and our feet firmly stuck on the earth. God must love it. That's good enough for me.

Excellent post pianodano. You and me alike, man!

----

 

[cjacek]

I am not particularly interested in opinions with respect to this thread. I am only interested in objective data.

Are you not open to the possibility that there is much around us which cannot be measured or quantified, that there is much to the biology of man that simply cannot be understood and may never be?

I think that the human is a far more sophisticated tool of detection than any technology and that to dismiss 'opinions' of such is being rather arrogant and closed minded, don't you think?

Some of us are better 'detectors' than others...

----

 

[mshilarious]

Are you not open to the possibility that there is much around us which cannot be measured or quantified, that there is much to the biology of man that simply cannot be understood and may never be?

Of course. wado said he could hear comb filtering in digital EQ that couldn't be measured. I did not challenge that statement (although perhaps an experiment could be set up that compares measurable and audible comb filtering).

But I know I can measure things I can't detect. If we have failed to design a sufficiently sophisticated objective test that explains our listening experience, that does not necessarily mean it is it impossible to design such a test.

This thread started from the premise that there was such a flaw in digital that could be heard. But the reasons given can all be easily measured objectively, and thus rejected. So if digital is flawed, it is for a reason that has not yet been described. Therefore, the reasons that have been given should no longer be posited as they are not compelling.

 

[mshilarious]

Don't worry about it Daniel. Based on some of his posts, apl seems to have a "symbiotic" relationship with msh.

Kinda reminds me of a guy where I used to work, his nickname was "nails".....short for "toenails"

apl is a good friend of mine, but we have had no discussions outside this thread related to this topic (or any other discussions during the term of this thread, actually).

He's also an engineer who works in the industry of noise & vibration analysis.

 

[Dr ZEE]

...engineer who works in the industry of noise & vibration analysis.

Sounds good enough to impress your friends, and No! built in soundcard nor freeware required.

/later

 

[ofajen]

This is not true. The sampling is discrete in time, but the resulting information is continuous in the frequency domain. Unless I really, really missed something big in Signal and System Analysis.

But, hey, I've been wrong before.

Got a link explaining it?

Wouldn't the signal approach continuity in the frequency domain only in the theoretical limit of infinite signal length (in time, that is)?

Cheers,

Otto

 

[ofajen]

Going back to the original post and the comment quoted therein, I have a couple of observations based on my experience:

Music recording is generally (or at least formerly was) about creating art, not documenting an audio event. This is even true to some degree in pure acoustic performances.

For me, there may be varying considerations on what tools fit the artistic needs.

Maybe I need lots of tracks and lots of effects. I'd lean toward using the DAW. But I recognize that using a general use computer that sees lots of system changes for serious audio can be frustrating. Mine is an old Mac and relatively stable, plus I mainly just use it for audio.

Maybe I need portability, so that I can record the piano upstairs, the drums downstairs and some vocals at church. Then I'll use the digital standalone.

Maybe I want to record drums, bass and guitar and get the sound I only know how to create on a wide track analog machine. Then I use the M-79.

Maybe I want to mix to tape. Then I use the M-23.

Maybe I want to record straight from the digital output of the DAW or standalone. I can either use the digital two track portable in digital mode or mix tracks on the standalone.

Maybe I want to record something live in stereo, just to keep the idea around. Then I use the digital two track portable.

Pretty much all the time, the sound of the final result is primarily dictated by the quality of my musical ideas, the performance, the sound of the instruments, the sound of the room, and my choices of mike and mike placement and use. The choice of recording tool is usually based on meeting the artistic needs in a practical way.

Just my one and a half cents. (Half a cent reserved to cover the rising cost of motor fuel.)

Cheers,

Otto

 

[mshilarious]

Sounds good enough to impress your friends, and No! built in soundcard nor freeware required.

/later

Hmm . . . so an appeal to authority works for medicine, but not physics . . . got it now!

 

[Dr ZEE]

Hmm . . . so an appeal to authority works for medicine, but not physics . . . got it now!

Nop. You don't get it.
Your authoritarian approach (or , say -style) in conducting the conversation stinks.
One who detests such approach can choose to laugh at it, knowing that fighting it is something that never pays anyway.
When you said "medically speaking" - I just could not miss it, because, excuse me, but it was nothing less, but hilarious.

Appeal to "authority" sure works, (we know that), But not for everybody, not everywhere and not all the time, So this is one of those times, my friend.

If somebody asked me: "Why bother?", I'd say: Here's why:
Because I despise!!!!!!! when "engineers", who claim sleeping with their oscilloscopes wrapped in and covered by "white papers", start picking on and bullying recording artists with their "knowledge".
So, Knowing a little bit about artists' sensitive nature in general, if you excuse me, - I've got some obligations to fulfil, so, go ahead, tell me how juicy is your "burger" and how crispy your "burger" is:

 

[Beck]

... so, go ahead, tell me how juicy is your "burger" and how crispy your "burger" is:

Mike, I'll have a double with cheese and supersize fries if you're going out. Just PM me when you get back. I have drinks here already.

 

[Dr ZEE]

...PM me when you get back...

"I" won't be back.

 

[Beck]

"I" won't be back.

Sure you will...

 

[Dr ZEE]

BTW, in case if "digital advocates" somehow see or feel me being unreasonable and unfair to their case.
You've got it! You're damn right! - I AM unfair to their case, nor am I ever going to be fair to thair case. Well, unless, The Industry will voluntarily reimburse me for all my loss, which of course, will never happen.
Also, I am the only one to be blamed any way, because nobody really forced me to submit to their "truth" and "objective data". My submission was volunteer.

 

[apl]

All that time wasted trying to keep a bunch of junk cobbled together and working?

Are you suggesting that a nice multitrack tape deck takes less maintenance than a digital recording set up?

Futhermore, I was trying to be especially gentle and nice in my post above when I did not conclude with: To pull it off on tape . . . you have to be able to play. But in your last post, you had a different way of saying it.

Yeah, I'm not much of a musician.