192 khz in museum ?

[No4PCs]

I heard from an audio gear designer about cientists making 384/768 khz hd recorders audio definition.
The Studer analog tape owner said, even hd recorders in 4000 khz never will give the fat sound of analog tape " performance "
dfegad

[Nutmeg II.]

-Using higher samplerates doesn't have to do with tape compression at all!
-Tape could never get that true reproduction, dynamic range and silence that 24/96(192) gives you.

[No4PCs]

Hd based recorders transform music in metalic sound. tutt
The kick/snare through analog 2" tape machine? hahahaha, you dont need nothing more.Any monkey get the best sound through a 2" tape.
2006 in museum

[Nutmeg II.]

Originally Posted by No4PCs

Hd based recorders transform music in metalic sound. tutt

?AKAI ADAM System was metalic indeed but I have no problem with a nice 96kHz system at all. Heck I could even get nice sounds at 44.1kHz.

Originally Posted by No4PCs

The kick/snare through analog 2" tape machine? hahahaha, you dont need nothing more.Any monkey get the best sound through a 2" tape.
2006 in museum

A lot of monkeys didn't do good sounding albums on 2", but yes, there is something nice to a 16track 2" for bass, drum and electric guitar recording.
But I prefer Digital in a lot places...

[No4PCs]

Yes, kick/snare and vocal good in analog tape, but what you think about my modest rehearsal studio? In construction project yet. Hahahaha.
Than k you

[No4PCs]

my modest rehearsal studio pic

When we go to 32-bit samples, then we will really have something. At 24 bit, 192 and abovie is just not essential for great audio.

The only reason to use analog tape machines is to add distortion. I have a feeling that if you put old man Studer in a room with his machines, and then a current DAW with average convertors, he would say that the digital sound is what they were after. Sonic purity is also what drove Rupert Neve away from tubes, and from returning to previous designs now popular. I seem to remember an interview with Rupert saying that all of his previous stuff sounded like crap to him.

[No4PCs]

Originally Posted by Lowdbrent

When we go to 32-bit samples, then we will really have something. At 24 bit, 192 and abovie is just not essential for great audio.

The only reason to use analog tape machines is to add distortion. I have a feeling that if you put old man Studer in a room with his machines, and then a current DAW with average convertors, he would say that the digital sound is what they were after. Sonic purity is also what drove Rupert Neve away from tubes, and from returning to previous designs now popular. I seem to remember an interview with Rupert saying that all of his previous stuff sounded like crap to him.

Oh, i like tape saturation , Kevin Shirley told me about Iron Maiden album was recorded in 2" tape analog, then mixed in digital domain.
Thank you.

[GYang]

Originally Posted by Lowdbrent

When we go to 32-bit samples, then we will really have something. At 24 bit, 192 and abovie is just not essential for great audio.

I can make equally good song with 24/48 and 24/92, the very subtle difference is there, but in right implementation with 24 bit the target is already reached.
What can be always refined and improved are converters, digital processing and average engineer experience.
Don't think 192 brought any improvement to table.
IMO any sound in 32-bit is same as 24-bit to our ears and in real word (CDs, MP3s) even 24-bit is way too much.

Originally Posted by GYang

I can make equally good song with 24/48 and 24/92, the very subtle difference is there, but in right implementation with 24 bit the target is already reached.
What can be always refined and improved are converters, digital processing and average engineer experience.
Don't think 192 brought any improvement to table.
IMO any sound in 32-bit is same as 24-bit to our ears and in real word (CDs, MP3s) even 24-bit is way too much.

I think that you misunderstood. I am not talking 32-bit mix engines here. I am talking about 32-bit convertors. Very different.

You think that 24-bit samples are too resolute? Are you kidding? If you are talking about 24 bit mix engines, then the same holds true. Dynamic range is greatly increase over 16 bit.

[DrFrankencopter]

Originally Posted by Lowdbrent

I think that you misunderstood. I am not talking 32-bit mix engines here. I am talking about 32-bit convertors. Very different.

You think that 24-bit samples are too resolute? Are you kidding? If you are talking about 24 bit mix engines, then the same holds true. Dynamic range is greatly increase over 16 bit.

You've got to be kidding me....

32 bit samples....I don't think we'll ever get there. You'd need operating voltages around 1000V or so in order to make use of that kind of resolution. With true 24 bits you can already resolve resistor shot/thermal noise on devices powered from +/-24V rails. How much more do you really need? With electronics all tending towards low power/low voltage I don't think we'll be seeing any increases in resolution anytime soon....if ever.

What made 2" 16 track machines sound so great was not their ability to accurately capture the sounds at their input, but rather the way in which they add certain euphonic distortion to the sound via magnetic hysterisis and saturating electronics. It's like guitar amps....they don't accurately translate, they are a creative effect.

Cheers,

Kris

[dbbubba]

Remember that most of us (I said MOST of us) grew up with the sound of music created on analog tape.
That is the standard that we expect to hear.
Digital is trying to emulate that experience.

You also can't say that analog tape is a distortion of the original sound in a bad sense.
No matter how the original sound is recorded, proccessed or mixed it is a distortion of the original "sound event."
A recording on a hypothetically perfect recording medium will still be a "distortion" of the original event.

The distortion is what we call music production or in it's simplest form reproduction.

Unless you are recording with a stereo pair of mics and then playing back the binaural (stereo) recording it is all a giant distortion of the oiginal event. Even then you can't really capture the sonic event without "distorting" it.

It's all about distortion!
It's gotta' sound good though!

Danny Brown

[DrFrankencopter]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Remember that most of us (I said MOST of us) grew up with the sound of music created on analog tape.
That is the standard that we expect to hear.
Digital is trying to emulate that experience.

No digital is just digital....we (engineers) are trying to emulate that experience using digital. We want that fatness of tape...the distortion that we've become accustomed to hearing, but we also want the convenience of digital. Oh, and make it cheap too....ultimately, it's our fondness for cheapness that brings us into the digital arena.

Originally Posted by dbbubba

You also can't say that analog tape is a distortion of the original sound in a bad sense.

Not at all... That's why I tried to make an analogy to guitar amps. There, distortion is part of the sound...a desireable part. Same with tape, only its a more subtle distortion.

I agree with ya...it IS all about distortion. It always has been. Its only with the advent of clean digital that it's really becoming clear that squeaky clean isn't what we want for (most) music production.

Cheers,

Kris

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally Posted by Lowdbrent

I think that you misunderstood. I am not talking 32-bit mix engines here. I am talking about 32-bit convertors.

Until they repeal the laws of physics, we're stuck in a 20 (or so) bit world. Anything above about 22 bits is marketing.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by DrFrankencopter

No digital is just digital....we (engineers) are trying to emulate that experience using digital. We want that fatness of tape...the distortion that we've become accustomed to hearing, but we also want the convenience of digital.

Speak for yourself there Dr.



There are plenty of engineers that want nothing to do with "that fatness of tape" including some heavyweight cats like Michael Wagener and George Massenburg. Not picking a fight or anything man, just wanted to point out that there are people around who prefer digital and no one should assume that what works for one engineer works for everyone.

[DrFrankencopter]

I don't mean to paint all engineers with the same brush, because there certainly are those who have warmed up to, and favour digital over analog...but the overwhelming tone of this thread has been people looking for that 2" 16 track kind of sound from the digital format. Increasing bit depth and sample rates ad naseum just ain't going to do it....

Kris

[No4PCs]

Originally Posted by DrFrankencopter

.but the overwhelming tone of this thread has been people looking for that 2" 16 track kind of sound from the digital format. Increasing bit depth and sample rates ad naseum just ain't going to do it....

Kris

Yes, this thread about " digital " never will get the warmth " fat sound " of 2" analog tape recorder because 2 different phisical principles.
tutt