Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantumphysics  For the past week I've run several test songs using mixing ITB - OTB - multitracking at 44.1 - 96K - anyway you get my drift. I appreciate all the great information (perceptions) on these types of threads. It is all subjective - and really boils down to what does the individual prefer. I read people buying and selling gear just to find the mojo. The other day me and a friend were going through my archives of the past decade of my recordings. Now - most of us know arrangment - dynamics/mix is critical to the mojo factor. But even in some of the rough mixes the old (cheese I know) Tascam TSR8 and mackie 1604 vlz (not xdr) came up with the most depth and girth. Willing to spend the money to do major upgrades - first I wanted to see if I could find the mojo in the digital rig that I have in the TSR rig. This motivated me to to do the tests.
Music type - rock - funk - real drums and amps - no DI except bass guitar.
Digital rig - Samplitude 7.23a - RME ADI-2 clocking a delta 1010
Analog - Peavey VMP2 - FMR RNP - RNC - RNLA and Mix Wizard 2
AKG 451B's - AT4033 - and sm57's and 58's (I said it was modest)
Monitors NS10m's - Celstion SL600si (audiophile speakers) - Sony MDR7506 - car stereo - and various other systems.
Before going out and buying tons of new gear (I'm not in this for the money - maybe 4 clients a year - mostly my own material) I painstakingly ran the tests and the results were as follows (probably no suprise for some of you)
Low level multitracking at 96K 32 bit float (the 1010 sounds pretty good at 96K clocking from the RME)
Mix into 10 channels of the Mix Wizard (coming in at the insert - still 10Kohms - bybassing the mic pres)
Print hard (not slammed) to two inside tracks (no DBX) of the TSR8.
Bring back into Samplitude via RME at 44.1K 32 float.
Master in the object - pwr3 dither when burning cd.
The major drawback (which I'll overcome the more I do this) is I can't monitor in real time whats coming off the tape. But in time I get used to this analog processor called tape.
It's seems every change that is made in digital takes aways some of the mojo.
For my type of mind - mixing while not looking at a computer screen is more fun and the outcome is more musical (I listen more - one sense compared to two uses less "intuitive resources in the brain)
So when stacking tracks - is 96K "better" than 44.1K - it's a matter of opinion - and though the western mind loves exacting formulas on paper - there is a reason why some recordings don't fatgue the listener. I firmly believe our BRAIN can percieve frequencies well above 20K and it knows what's up there - so I'll take 96K OTB to tape (infinite sampling rate) any day.
Now I just need to get a good 1/2 inch two track mix down machine (see I knew I'd still want to buy something) It's all about the chase - us humans.  |
Oh no... here it comes. The great "We can hear / we can't hear + 20K frequencies debate..."
I disagree with a lot of what you posted Quantumphysics, sorry. I am not even going to touch the magical "we can hear above 20 K" argument even when there are no
substantiated scientific research findings to prove it and none of your other capture or playback gear can reproduce these frequencies in the first place.
Your assertion that a tape machine has an infinite sample rate is a little misleading. An ATR DOES in fact have a high frequency cut off, there is a top end to what can be captured and played back.
You are implying in your argument that the sample rate is about frequency response (which is not the whole picture). With that are the basis for your argument, comparing frequency response between digital and analog, the sample rate does not matter because both machines are limited on what they can reproduce above 18 k or so.
A tape deck using your argument is NOT a infinite sampling rate device. I know what you are getting at and I know the argument but your definition is not making that argument.
On top of that, if analog tape decks are all about capturing this mystical high ultrasonic information why do so many 60's, 70's and 80's recordings sound so good but have little to no high end content above 16 k or so?
Hummmm?
It seems to me that the people complaining about digital (and how did this turn into a digital vs. analog thread again) are 1) using bad digital 2) using analog techniques in the digital world 3) are fooling themselves.
Look, I LOVE analog tape but the reason for that is because it is
NOT accurate. I feel people complain about digital and lack of depth (which I fight with as well) because digital is too good, not because it is limited. That is why some people choose 44.1, it helps knock back that "perfection" in digital.
Anyway, I don't want to rant but there are so many things I disagree with in your post there Quantumphysics. It's all good, we all have different opinions about this stuff, that's what makes the world go 'round.
