Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

Kiwiburger · 3rd April 2006

Thanks Mike - good idea about using a control surface and ignoring the numbers.

Ziggy - from what I hear from Bob katz and others, they can't really tell if a mix has been summed digital or analog. It's largely a crock - and any differences are caused elsewhere.

I doubt that it matters how many pan positions there are - 100 each side is plenty. If you have 24 tracks, you only need 24 pan positions for them to be all different. It was the common practice of having many tracks pefectly centred that I think is very bad. And I like the idea of a control surface - the cheap pots and resistors in those would definatlely randomise things.

24 bits has 16million odd numbers. I know only about 20 bits are actually used for audio - but basically dynamic range is not an issue with digital. It was more of an issue with analog.

I agree that too much randomness can be bad. An SSL will be better than a Mackie - sure. But it will still be far more random than dsp maths.

The silly thing is that even when the best analog gear is used, the end product is reduced to 24 or 16 bits - and yet the perceived 'analogness' remains. The problem is not in the resolution. And since digital can record and playback analog sound, it is theoretically possible to emulate it to the point that nobody can tell.

It's an interesting idea that i'll use from now on. (I'm not claiming it's original - just that i'd never thought of it before I had that experience with my dodgy Mackie).

3rd April 2006	#6
Kiwiburger Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,075 Thread Starter	Thanks Mike - good idea about using a control surface and ignoring the numbers. Ziggy - from what I hear from Bob katz and others, they can't really tell if a mix has been summed digital or analog. It's largely a crock - and any differences are caused elsewhere. I doubt that it matters how many pan positions there are - 100 each side is plenty. If you have 24 tracks, you only need 24 pan positions for them to be all different. It was the common practice of having many tracks pefectly centred that I think is very bad. And I like the idea of a control surface - the cheap pots and resistors in those would definatlely randomise things. 24 bits has 16million odd numbers. I know only about 20 bits are actually used for audio - but basically dynamic range is not an issue with digital. It was more of an issue with analog. I agree that too much randomness can be bad. An SSL will be better than a Mackie - sure. But it will still be far more random than dsp maths. The silly thing is that even when the best analog gear is used, the end product is reduced to 24 or 16 bits - and yet the perceived 'analogness' remains. The problem is not in the resolution. And since digital can record and playback analog sound, it is theoretically possible to emulate it to the point that nobody can tell. It's an interesting idea that i'll use from now on. (I'm not claiming it's original - just that i'd never thought of it before I had that experience with my dodgy Mackie).