are you sick of that digital sound?

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by Audiop

The brain is amazing, the hearing and the ear has limitations though. You bring up arrogance, what about ignorance?

/Peter

Uhhh...Dr Kuncher (Dept of Physics & Astronomy, Univ of South Carolina) is currently researching this very topic. What he and his team discovered in the last 2 years:

1. Even with the most modern, fastest, ultra-high fidelity testing equipment, the human ear is faster than the testing equipment. Therefore, no limitations can be documented other than by frequency...

2. However, frequencies well above the range of human hearing (20kHz) can be heard in the aspect of timbre of sounds in the upper ranges of the human hearing range (how I understand this the graphic EQ analogy: adjusting the 16k slider makes an audible difference to the frequencies below.).

3. "Sampling rates in consumer digital audio are insufficient for complete fidelity".

(the links to those studies are posted in my previous post above).

DY

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I beg to differ - according to my pro audio dealer there is a definite resurgence of interest in tape. My guess is that in a few years all those guys who dumped their tape machines in favor of digital rigs will be regretting it.

Got both in abundance - wouldn't part with either!!

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

Uhhh...Dr Kuncher (Dept of Physics & Astronomy, Univ of South Carolina) is currently researching this very topic. What he and his team discovered in the last 2 years:

1. Even with the most modern, fastest, ultra-high fidelity testing equipment, the human ear is faster than the testing equipment. Therefore, no limitations can be documented other than by frequency...

I think you have made some misunderstandings and/or taken things out of context.

People often mix up bandwith of our hearing apparatus with interaural time differences.

If these things keep you up at night you better drop stereo recordings and playback..

2. However, frequencies well above the range of human hearing (20kHz) can be heard in the aspect of timbre of sounds in the upper ranges of the human hearing range

Theres not one single evidence to support this claim. There are some manufacturers that claim this without any thing to back it up. OTOH there are lots of studies that indicates this is a pure form of BS.

(how I understand this the graphic EQ analogy: adjusting the 16k slider makes an audible difference to the frequencies below.).

Misunderstanding again.. first of all 16kHz is within the audible range and an EQ always have Q that desribes how narrow or wide it is.. it always efect "more than one frewuency". This is not an indiction of ultra high frequencies having an effect on audio.

3. "Sampling rates in consumer digital audio are insufficient for complete fidelity".

Is that proven in the studies you linked to?

I'll go check but I strongly doubt it.


/Peter

[FireMoon]

Might i ask a seemingly obvious question at this juncture?

How do you measure and what instrument is there that does the job, measuring the depth of an image created by a recording?

By that I mean this... Get a decent vinly copy of Transformer by Lou Reed... Stick it on a top notch Hifi with a turntable sit back and....

The bit where the chorus girls go... Doo dee doo doo doody doo etc....

I have heard that replayed where they actually seem to walk into the room and past your sitting position.. I have heard exactly the same song through a high end CD player over the same system and it just just doesn't do that. Now yes, that maybe inherent in the CD transcription process not being treated with sufficient care. However I have heard exactly the same *artifact* on some classical transcriptions that were mastered with scrupulous care...

Now I am sure that, the measurements would tell you the CD is more *accurate* than the vinyl, but my ears tell me, when it comes to a solid, almost holographic presentation of a performance, analogue still knocks digital into a cocked hat. Furthermore that vinyl being able to capture that holographic image better than digital we need a new scale to measure "accuracy" that takes into account something more than just frequencies...

You can quote all the science in the world, but my ears, and any others who have heard such a comparison as i have quoted, tell me different. OK so it might not important in the scheme of things and it sure as hell isn't going to stop anyone making damn fine recordings but ignoring it won;t make it go away and it won;t stop people asking the question, why?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Batchainpuller78

Narcoman in Classical music recording i'd bet one is happy with some of today's microphones and Digital recording systems, but mind you, there the composer did a lot of the work and the music work leveled and eq'd in itself by the composition wich respects the volume, timbre, tessiture & positioning of all instruments, there it's up to the room & the microphones and their positioning to capture it as accurate as possible and you want silence to be silence.
but as soon as popular music was recorded and musique concrete developed and multitracks developed there's a lot of modulation of the sound and coloring of the sound involved to get something unusual or fresh sounding... so accurate is not the point there... not really in rock, reggae, pop, metal, whatever you name it, maybe Jazz and other acoustic styles as there again you get acoustic instruments meant to be balanced by the band and record that.
Still in Jazz I prefer all the old recordings not many of the new.
and classical music can also sound sweet, or minimal music I find Steve Reich's recordings during the 70's far more pleasing to listen to than the recent Cd's.

Look it's all there now so that's great, I feel sometimes people get annoyed with those of us whining about non digital things, but heck sometimes it also sure feels as being forced and oppressed by surroundings and manufactures to conform to the latest craze. as if there is one way it should be done, It's just the people who crave the newest tech have a worldwide market investing, inventing and catering them with new technology, tape manufacturers and getting replacement part for machines is a bit more rare and should be sustained.
The pencil and paper is a very old technology yet it's still in use today, and I can tell you a handwritten letter is a hell of a lot more impressive and has more impact than a printed or e-mail variant, especially if it is concerning a distant loved one.
And Recording to tape and listening to vinyl 'feels' and 'sounds' different than recording to HD & listening to cd's period, both can sound good, both can sound bad but I feel emulating the one on the other is not the same, digital instruments do not sound the same as their real or electric counterparts there is a lot one misses out on.
and conversion of one the the other also loses something in the sound that's not there on the analogue playback.

But somebody said to me get a Burl and shut up :D i'll have to hear one for real one day.

indeed so for most of that ol' bean.

My contention has only been that digital recording is MORe suitable for some things - and for me that's mostly orchestral recordings I'm also only arguing that digital is more accurate. Better? Subjective - so doesn't carry much weight!!

Jazz - i think - carries some of it's weight in dusrty old distorted recordings... that works for me too! But orchestral - get me close to what I hear in the room - with a little teeny enhancement - done with mic position.... that's all!!

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Don't you understand ANYTHING?????? .

now you're just getting rude.



... an ex research mathematician and PhD in the subject with four published and peer ratified papers under his belt AND a number of awards for excellence in recording as well as over 100 million sales and I don't understand anything........ sheesh

as for analogue not being bandwidth limited - of course analogue is bandwidth limited. Vinyl by virtue of limits to the cutting equipment and consoles by tolerances in the filter circuits - the roll off becomes EXTREMELY steep at limits of tolerances in filter circuits......

so back at ya........ triangles in sampling indeed........


i've edited out my rudeness to ya - uncalled for.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Well, that's something we agree on - I'm an 88.2 guy as well. That's the lowest sampling rate that doesn't cause HF artifacts that annoy me. That being said, I really don't like digital for a variety of reasons, not all having to do with sound quality. I'm putting most of my effort into getting the Studer up and running (16 out or 24 channels functional right now)

I have 24 channels of digital (real time), not the best converters (I have 3 Laylas with a Lucid wordclock), but given the choice between shelling out for a rack of Apogees and buying another Studer, guess what? I'd go for the Studer........

I wouldn't mind having one of the newer Radars though......

Not to derail the thread, as I'm thoroughly enjoying the back and forth arguments here, but I own two Audiofire 12's (same conversion as the Layla if I'm not mistaken) and was looking at getting the Lucid Genx192. How much do you feel like the Lucid (which one are you using) improves the conversion in your Echo units?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

The theorem states when converting from an analog signal to digital (or otherwise sampling a signal at discrete intervals), the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the highest frequency of the input signal in order to be able to reconstruct the original perfectly from the sampled version. Correct?

The theorem states no such thing. It is concerned with the numeric of sampling only.

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

Now, put your O-scope on your analog signal going in to your DAW and record your sample. See the nice, round waveforms? Now put that O-scope on your DAW and playback that "perfectly reconstructed" digital recording.

What happened to that nice, round waveform signal that when into your DAW? Hmmm...oh, we have a problem with aliasing and need filters to fix that??? Then it's not faultless, is it.

yes - it is faultless WITHIN it's sampling bound. All the freqs that we intend to sample are reproduced perfectly. They don't become "jagged"...... Do it after the bandwidth limiting filter and you'll see. All before it hits the AD. Did this nearly 20 years ago. The aliasing problem is exactly WHY we use hard filters.... Now of course it relies on considering the higher level frequencies to be redundant. I have the opinion that above 30khz they ARE redundant. So that's MY assertion and the only bit of free thinking in this debate for me and of course deciding on THA value is up to the listener. .... You can set it as high as you like......

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

Now conversely put your O-scope on your analog signal and record onto your Reel 2 Reel. Now put that O-scope on your R2R and playback the recording: THAT my friend is a "perfectly reconstructed" waveform. You can get a perfect waveform duplication on your reel to reel, but you won't get it on your DAW. And when that waveform changes, "sound" changes. It's audible, and people can hear it.

I've used all 32 of the tape machines available at the UKs most successful studio on various (you can read that as hundreds) occasions.

Not ONE of them sounds the same on reproduction. What goes in is most certainly NOT what comes out. No tape machine has EVER perfectly captured what goes in. Sounds lovely - sure.

I also own one of the UKs finest examples of an ATR 102 converted to 1 inch format. Certainly does NOT sound like the source..... sounds BETTER !!

[kats]

Ok narcoman, let me twist your arm a bit here.

Let's say we agree that Nyquist theorem is flawless. The real question then becomes; Has Nyquist been implemented in AD/DA converter units flawlessly? And if the answer is no, can we say some people prefer to live with the flaws of tape recording over the flaws manifested by digital converter units (note I did not say Nyquist)?

And if this is the case, would you not agree that it is a misstatement to say one is more accurate than the other without defining your measure of "accuracy". Moreover, as a person of much experience using both formats, would you not agree that the measure of accuracy can not be limited to only 20hz to 20khz frequency response, THD, and noise floor?

And lastly regarding frequency response, don't you think it's folly to place so much weight over minute differences in frequency response when nothing else in the recording chain is remotely flat in turn causing us to find the most flattering mic placements regardless? And perhaps more attention should be placed on other aspects, subjective or not?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by joeq

no you are the one making a linkage between 'band limited' and 'telephonics'. There is nothing semantic about my central point: that all audio systems are band-limited and a wide enough band permits digital to 'work' even if you don't like it.

No, if you know ANYTHING at all about telephonics, you know that the telephone system is band limited. Granted, I was using an extreme example in an attempt to inject a little levity into the discussion. Unfortunately, none of you apologists for the status quo of the industry seem to get it. And yes, your initial post does NOTHING BUT play with semantics.

Originally Posted by joeq

Neither the slope nor the corner of the filter is relevant if the bandwidth is high enough. As long as all audible frequencies are present and ringing does not extend to audible frequencies, why should it matter if the finite nature of the audio is caused by the roll-off of the microphone or a man-made fiiter?

Who knows what "high enough" is? Nobody, that's who. (And nobody is the onlu one whop knows - another of my little jokes that you don't get.)

Originally Posted by joeq

If you don't like the current implementation of the filtering fine, but that is not what you have been saying here. You have been implying that band limiting itself nullifies the possibility that digital can work.

It does - because the bandwidth of analog is, for our intents and purposes, infinite, as is the rsolution, and we do not yet know what the limitationsa of the human auditory system are. Nyquist is based on 30 or more year old research which is obsolete at the current state of auditory science, inperfect as it might be.

Originally Posted by joeq

Oh it's a joke! Since you made it several times, I thought it was just a cheap shot. In any case, your assertion that high sample rate digital is "not high fidelity" only represents your opinion.

No, it's fact - if not for bandwidth reasons, for reasons of phase shift and waveform distortion. Do you own a scope? Do you even know how to use one? I've been vievieng waveforms on a scope since the early '70s. I own several.

concerning the joke (a) see above, (b) just because the example is a joke (which you don't understand) does not mean that the point is not serious.

Originally Posted by joeq

However much I enjoyed More Than a Feeling and the Rockman, I would like to see this work confirmed by other researchers.

Who you wouldn't belive anyway, since it doesn't conform to your industry brainwashed viewpoint. Scholz is an engineering graduate of MIT with a masters, a raft of patents, and years of research on the subject. He is also a working recording engineer. What more do you want? A paper by some ivory tower type who has never even set foot in a studio? Give me a friggin' break!

Originally Posted by joeq

I never said I know everything, you are probably confusing me with one of the other know-it-alls who disagrees with you. I would say that I know enough to know that you don't know everything, which is not the same.

I never said I know everything - in fact I specifically have said numerous times that NOBODY knows everything (repeat Nobody Knows joke.....). If you don't belive in their point, why do you argue their side?

Originally Posted by joeq

Really? I might even agree with you there.

But earlier in this very thread you appeared to be arguing that Nyquist was "incorrect" - talking nonsense about triangle waves etc. - and only seizing upon the band-limited thing as a 'complaint' when you were corrected with regard to the reconstruction of sine waves using two points.

Thatr's because Nyquist's work is based on the fallacy that human hearing has a finite bandwidth. Maybe it does, but we don't know what it is and it's definitely a lot more that 20KHz.

Originally Posted by joeq

I would suggest that it is you who are disregarding the work of people who have been looking into digital not only longer but deeper than you have.

When teir work is based on a premise that is incorrect I see no need to go past that premise. If I say the sky is green and red paisley and you look up and see that it's blue would you feel a need to study the details of my theory - or mathematical theorems - based on my claim of a paisley sky?

note - it's not the fundamental concepts of avoiding aliasing that I dispute - it's only the assertions concerning the bandwidth of auditory perception.

Originally Posted by joeq

You are well within your rights to not like digital, but your tendency to put forward "what seems reasonable to you" as scientific theory on a par with known and accepted science is what everyone is complaining about.

Accepted by who? Which assertions are you talking about? The assertion that digital is "perfect" or "perfectly accurate" The first is obvuiously false - nothing's perfect - and the second is absurd.

Digital can never be perfect or perfectly accurate because the word and the phenomona of acoustics are analog and digital can, by definition, never be more than an approximation of analog. If you contest that, you simply don't understand the nature of analog phenomena.

Man, I am getting SO TIRED of talking at a wall.......

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by narcoman

now you're just getting rude.



... an ex research mathematician and PhD in the subject with four published and peer ratified papers under his belt AND a number of awards for excellence in recording as well as over 100 million sales and I don't understand anything........ sheesh

as for analogue not being bandwidth limited - of course analogue is bandwidth limited. Vinyl by virtue of limits to the cutting equipment and consoles by tolerances in the filter circuits - the roll off becomes EXTREMELY steep at limits of tolerances in filter circuits......

so back at ya........ triangles in sampling indeed........


i've edited out my rudeness to ya - uncalled for.

Oh for chrissake's...you're a bloody math genius! No wonder why you're swinging on Nyquist's nutsack like a monkey!

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by kats

Ok narcoman, let me twist your arm a bit here.

Let's say we agree that Nyquist theorem is flawless...

I'm gonna go get some popcorn - this smackdown is gonna be good...!

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Not at all. Analog filters which are minimum-phase devices have extreme phase shift when extreme slopes are used.

Most digital filters are of the type "linear phase".. sounds familiar?

Of course there also exist digital MP-filters or intermediate variations.

A modern AD-DA chain with a brickwall filter at 21kHz have perfectly flat phase response to 20kHz.


/Peter

As nyquist filters MUST be applied BEFORE digital conversion (otherwise they won't prevent aliasing), they must, by definition, be analog, and hence exhibit pase shift.

D'oh!

And most brickwall filters are closer to 18 KHz than 21 KHz, not that it matters much.

"perfectly" flat phase response to 20 K? Uh,....... no. Even if the filter actually was set at 21K, phase shift would, at best, run much, much lower - down to 10K or lower, else the filter wouldn't work.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Audiop

I think I see where your confusion comes from now..

You can not compare the output from tape on the scope with a DAW represantation of a sampled signal. You need to put a scope on the output of the DA. There are no stair-steps or triangular waves on a sine leaving the sampling system. You have a very very good representation of the analog original plus a minuscle amount of noise and distortion.

A good AD/DA chain have noise levels aprox. at level a thousand times below tape and harmonic distortion somewhere ten thousands times less. The bandwith of digital is good enough. If you have bat ears, go with 88.2kS/s or more, otherwise (as for the majority of the humans on planet earth) 44.1kS/s suffice.




Sorry I don't think you know what you are talking about here. There are no phase distortion within the bandwith of modern digital (which typically uses linear phase filters). The early days when analog filters (minimum-phase filters) were used was another thing though.

A good AD/DA will have flat phase response from DC to right below the nyquist frequency.



The brain is amazing, the hearing and the ear has limitations though. You bring up arrogance, what about ignorance?


/Peter

The fact is that when you put a dual trace scope on the input and output of a DAW the waveforms do not match.

QED.

A good AD/DA MAY have flat phase response from DC to right below the nyquist frequency. ONLY IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE THE FILTER. Even so I don't believe that it will, due to the necessity to apply "smoothing" to remove stairstepping and approximate the original signal. PLEASE NOT THE WORD "APPROXIMATE". The output of a DAC is an approximation or the original, NOT a reproduction. What part of the word "Approximate" do you not understand?

"There are no phase distortion within the bandwith of modern digital (which typically uses linear phase filters)." As I pointed out SEVERAL TIMES previously, a linear phase filter CAN NOT be used for antialiasing, as the antialiasing filter must be applied BEFORE conversion and all linear phase filters are digital, not analog, and hence can only be applied AFTER conversion. What part of that do you not understand?

We are all ignorant. It is arrogance to claim otherwise.

Why do you guys have such a problem understanding this? It's really pretty simple.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by FireMoon

Asre bands and their ability to get a take down...

I don't know about the USA but this i do remember about Britain. At one point in the early 70s Rick Wakeman and Elton John claimed to have played the keys on 28 out of the top 30 songs in Britain that week. I believe the other 2 songs were American...

It'as pretty much the same band on just about every Motown record and they would have all the acts deliver a vocal performance over the backing and pick, what they viewed as the best, to release...

Many many big hit bands from Britain were lucky to have one maybe two group members play anything on their records. For the sake of time roughly 20-30 odd guys played on something like 50-75% of the hits from 68-75...

There has been a lot of revisionist, frankly, bs spouted, about the 60s and 70s , but the fact is. I know the guy who played the Bass of 4 consecutive number 1 singles by 4, supposedly, different bands..

I'm not knocking the musicians from back then, just pointing out that. Time was serious money and, yes live they played their parts, but in the studio, they simply weren't allowed to. That is one thing the Beatles and the Stones changed big time, they are often least credited for...

Other musicians demanded that. if the Stones and Beatles could sit around for 5-6 hours noodling away, in an effort to get a single take down , why shouldn't they?

And your point is? I think you're answering the wrong thread....... S'ok, done it myself once or twice.......

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Audiop

The axons fire or they don't. The information from the mechano-electro mechansim of the ear has discrete steps just as digital.

No misunderstandings. Full score on the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology at the university.

I thinks this is funny since hard core analogists love to make poetic claims about everything in nature is analog and so is our hearing... only they are wrong.


/Peter

No, Peter, it's a LOT more complicated than that.

First, the hair cells do have different levels of firing, based on intensity and repetition.

Second, single cells don't fire, groups do, and the resolution of the group is far greater than any single cell.

You're citing 50 year old research. It's out of date.

Hearing is analog, as are all our senses. Unless, of course, you happen to be a robot, which I'm beginning to suspect.......

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Theres not one single evidence to support this claim. There are some manufacturers that claim this without any thing to back it up. OTOH there are lots of studies that indicates this is a pure form of BS.



Misunderstanding again.. first of all 16kHz is within the audible range and an EQ always have Q that desribes how narrow or wide it is.. it always efect "more than one frequency". This is not an indication of ultra high frequencies having an effect on audio.



Is that proven in the studies you linked to?

I'll go check but I strongly doubt it.


/Peter

To you, maybe - only because you reject all the (substantial body of) evidence out of hand without consideration. Have you even TRIED the experiment propose by Rupert Neve and myself? Didn't think so.......

Studies, schmudies - you can prove to yourself that it is so. Anybody who has worked with audio test gear at all extensivelt knows it. You guys cite studies based on flawed premeses done some time ago, but reject studies done recently with the best equipment - because they don't support your fklawed technology. Pfui!

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by FireMoon

Might i ask a seemingly obvious question at this juncture?

How do you measure and what instrument is there that does the job, measuring the depth of an image created by a recording?

By that I mean this... Get a decent vinly copy of Transformer by Lou Reed... Stick it on a top notch Hifi with a turntable sit back and....

The bit where the chorus girls go... Doo dee doo doo doody doo etc....

I have heard that replayed where they actually seem to walk into the room and past your sitting position.. I have heard exactly the same song through a high end CD player over the same system and it just just doesn't do that. Now yes, that maybe inherent in the CD transcription process not being treated with sufficient care. However I have heard exactly the same *artifact* on some classical transcriptions that were mastered with scrupulous care...

Now I am sure that, the measurements would tell you the CD is more *accurate* than the vinyl, but my ears tell me, when it comes to a solid, almost holographic presentation of a performance, analogue still knocks digital into a cocked hat. Furthermore that vinyl being able to capture that holographic image better than digital we need a new scale to measure "accuracy" that takes into account something more than just frequencies...

You can quote all the science in the world, but my ears, and any others who have heard such a comparison as i have quoted, tell me different. OK so it might not important in the scheme of things and it sure as hell isn't going to stop anyone making damn fine recordings but ignoring it won;t make it go away and it won;t stop people asking the question, why?

Thaqt's because the ear is far more sensitive than any test gear. Unless you're deaf or you don't clean the wax out, of course......

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by narcoman

now you're just getting rude.



... an ex research mathematician and PhD in the subject with four published and peer ratified papers under his belt AND a number of awards for excellence in recording as well as over 100 million sales and I don't understand anything........ sheesh

as for analogue not being bandwidth limited - of course analogue is bandwidth limited. Vinyl by virtue of limits to the cutting equipment and consoles by tolerances in the filter circuits - the roll off becomes EXTREMELY steep at limits of tolerances in filter circuits......

so back at ya........ triangles in sampling indeed........


i've edited out my rudeness to ya - uncalled for.

Sorry, just frustrated at repeating myself over and over.....

And the limitations of consoles affect all recordings that use them - including most big budget digital.

Analog isn't bandwidth limited in the sense of having a sharp cutoff filter whacking everything above a certain arbitrary point.

[DamnYankee]

All this bantering about has made me thirsty. Anyone ready for a refill? I only have Digital flavor tho...

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Quint

Not to derail the thread, as I'm thoroughly enjoying the back and forth arguments here, but I own two Audiofire 12's (same conversion as the Layla if I'm not mistaken) and was looking at getting the Lucid Genx192. How much do you feel like the Lucid (which one are you using) improves the conversion in your Echo units?

Have not used it extensively yet (moved the studio and still reinstalling stuff - been concentrating on the analog side and getting the extensive amount of cabling sorted out - lotsa Elcos on the console) but from what I can tell so far it's significant. I have the Genx192 - it's the only one they make right now, far as I know.

[gussyg2007]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The reason that Quantegy stopped production had nothing to do with their tape business, which was profitable. What happened was that the partners used company money to do some questionable real estate speculation and went bankrupt, forcing the company to shut down. No the bankruptcy has been resolved and the company reformed and is going back into production.

When Quantegy shut down it had a cascading effect on the tape deck industry, which is why the companies ceased production. If there continues to be a resurgence in interest in analog tape, my guess is that we'll see new machines on the market - and the prices of the classic decks should start to rise again. Incidentally, this isn't entirely my opinion - it's based to a large degree on the comments of Ron Timmons at Audio Images (on hearing of the return of Quantegy) who has been supplying top studios with gear for 30 years and knows the market intimately. We shall see - it should be interesting.....

i'm sure there is a resurgence of interest in analog tape and i'm sure it will carry on selling to ppl ,but i think if you compare the forcast of projected sales of say logic 9 (to be released)and mac book pro's to how many tape machines are gonna sell i don't think there's any way you can deny which is going to sell the most

[joeq]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Who knows what "high enough" is? Nobody, that's who. (And nobody is the onlu one whop knows - another of my little jokes that you don't get.)

I got it, I just didn't think it was clever enough to merit comment. Honestly.

It does - because the bandwidth of analog is, for our intents and purposes, infinite,

first I disagree that it is infinite. Second, analog recording which you find so satisfying is not capturing anywhere infinity. Roll off is roll off

If you don't belive in their point, why do you argue their side?

Because I believe a certain amount of intellectual rigor is necessary to have an intelligent discussion. Because I think fighting fair is more important than "winning". I argue not against analog, but against sloppy thinking and exaggerated claims.

Thatr's because Nyquist's work is based on the fallacy that human hearing has a finite bandwidth. Maybe it does, but we don't know what it is and it's definitely a lot more that 20KHz.

Are you seriously proposing that there is any possibility whatsoever that human hearing has an infinite bandwidth? I suppose you have to, because if human hearing is finite, then some bandwidth is acceptable, and if some bandwidth is acceptable, then Nyquist works.

I guess you have painted yourself into a corner.

BTW, it is a gross mischaracterization of Nyquist to associate the 20k cut-off chosen by the Compact Disc people with the theorem itself. But you don't care, as long as it appears to support your "side".

note - it's not the fundamental concepts of avoiding aliasing that I dispute - it's only the assertions concerning the bandwidth of auditory perception.

Your history is revisionist.

Which assertions are you talking about?

here's one:

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I don't care who wrote what. Two points are enough to define a triangle, not a sine. Elementary geometry.

how many pages did that go on before you got it? You were whacking Nyquist before you even understood it what it said.

Now you are apparently telling us that it is possible that human hearing extends to infinity. Oh wait, is this another of your jokes that I missed?

Well what if I build an A/D that will sample at double infinity!??

The assertion that digital is "perfect" or "perfectly accurate" The first is obvuiously false - nothing's perfect - and the second is absurd.

I have never made either assertion. Nor would I ever. You may be confusing me with someone else. My posts are not in defense of digital but criticisms of unclear thinking and hyperbolic assertions.

Digital can never be perfect or perfectly accurate because the word and the phenomona of acoustics are analog and digital can, by definition, never be more than an approximation of analog.

You are confusing 'analog' with 'reality'. The "world" is ultimately composed of molecules of air and iron oxide - atoms, quanta of light. Discrete units. Our visual resolution is not infinite either -it is limited by the number of rods and cones in our eyes and so on. Does that make our world "invalid" ?

Analog recording will never be a perfectly accurate approximation of reality either. No model of reality will substitute for the reality itself. We pick our compromises.

You are working backwards from your aesthetic preference for tape and only then trying to justify it with half-baked science. I think I actually agree with your aesthetic preference, but the half baked science I find really bothersome.

[gussyg2007]

Originally Posted by joeq

You are working backwards from your aesthetic preference for tape and only then trying to justify it with half-baked science.

[gussyg2007]

nice !

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by joeq

first I disagree that it is infinite. Second, analog recording which you find so satisfying is not capturing anywhere infinity. Roll off is roll off

Because I believe a certain amount of intellectual rigor is necessary to have an intelligent discussion. Because I think fighting fair is more important than "winning". I argue not against analog, but against sloppy thinking and exaggerated claims.

Are you seriously proposing that there is any possibility whatsoever that human hearing has an infinite bandwidth? I suppose you have to, because if human hearing is finite, then some bandwidth is acceptable, and if some bandwidth is acceptable, then Nyquist works.

I guess you have painted yourself into a corner.

BTW, it is a gross mischaracterization of Nyquist to associate the 20k cut-off chosen by the Compact Disc people with the theorem itself. But you don't care, as long as it appears to support your "side".

Your history is revisionist.

how many pages did that go on before you got it? You were whacking Nyquist before you even understood it what it said.

Now you are apparently telling us that it is possible that human hearing extends to infinity. Oh wait, is this another of your jokes that I missed?

Well what if I build an A/D that will sample at double infinity!??

You're confusing my assertion that the resolution of human hearing is for all intents and purposes infinite (it exceeds the abilities of test equipment to measure) with a claim that the frequency response extends to infinity, which is patently absurd. Perhaps I didn't clarify my point sufficiently, if so, I apologize.

And I was merely pointing out that Nyquist does not give a model for audio reproduction which is "perfect", as the digerati are claiming. Please don't put words in my mouth, there are too many there already. I wasn't the one claiming that his preference is "perfect" and can't be improved on. I have always asserted that both digital and analog are imperfect - but I prefer the imperfections of analog to those of conventional PCM digital recording. That's all. I even stated that there is a different form of digital recording that I like the sound of - DSD. (Why do you guys keep missing that?)

Revisionist? Science is constantly revising itself. It has nothing to do with "my history" - it has to do with progress.

Originally Posted by joeq

I have never made either assertion. Nor would I ever. You may be confusing me with someone else. My posts are not in defense of digital but criticisms of unclear thinking and hyperbolic assertions.

HMMmmmm......

Originally Posted by joeq

You are confusing 'analog' with 'reality'. The "world" is ultimately composed of molecules of air and iron oxide - atoms, quanta of light. Discrete units. Our visual resolution is not infinite either -it is limited by the number of rods and cones in our eyes and so on. Does that make our world "invalid" ?

Both our eyes and ears work with individual sensor cells feeding a neural matrix that we a just beginning to get and idea of the operation of (sorry for the clumsy construction of that) This gives resolution far in excess of the individual parts.

Originally Posted by joeq

Analog recording will never be a perfectly accurate approximation of reality either. No model of reality will substitute for the reality itself. We pick our compromises.

Quite true.

Originally Posted by joeq

You are working backwards from your aesthetic preference for tape and only then trying to justify it with half-baked science. I think I actually agree with your aesthetic preference, but the half baked science I find really bothersome.

"Half-baked science"? All I'm trying to do is describe phenomena that we don't yet have adequate tools to measure precisely, yet can be demonstrated experimentally to exist. If you can do a better job than I, please feel free.

[MR4791]

Originally Posted by narcoman

having just hear Tchad Blakes mixes of some of my work - all mixed ITB - i can tell ya it's down to the user...... his mixes are open, spacious and totally vibed and warm.... a GREAT job.

I'd love to hear those too...where can i buy them?

[Batchainpuller78]

Originally Posted by gussyg2007

i'm sure there is a resurgence of interest in analog tape and i'm sure it will carry on selling to ppl ,but i think if you compare the forcast of projected sales of say logic 9 (to be released)and mac book pro's to how many tape machines are gonna sell i don't think there's any way you can deny which is going to sell the most

Probably but quantity and sales say nothing about the quality or possible superiority of one system over another.
The big old video race which for the most part VHS won is kind of the same, the Betamax machine was superior in all respects to the VHS system but I guess they had better marketing. Proven today if you play back your VHS cassettes from the late 80's and early 90's they prolly look and sound pretty bad if you liked them, pop in a Betamax, the sound is a bit worse then it used to be but nowhere near the degradation on VHS and the image is almost jitter free when paused not so on VHS where everybody starts dancing the samba when you pauze and this after all these years.

Also because something is easy or cheap to use does not make it better.
Digital is far more easy to use for recording but is it therefore better?
Workstations provide you with a whole orchestra and any instrument you desire are they better than the real instruments?? I certainly think not.

I'm sorry but I feel economics & computers ruined something, I mean most music shops around here turned into some kind of hi-tech toy shops over the past 10 years with mainly cheap eastern plastic produced items... not much 'real instruments' in sight. I just get a pffff feeling walking through them or flipping through magazines, hitting my wok when it's filled with a bit of water is more interesting soundwise and more of an experience than what comes out of any of those virtual instruments.
as it is real, natural, unpredictable, has overtones, resonates etc...
The digital and virtual aspect hits us from a lot more areas than just recording to HD, I certainly hope there will be manufacturers of tape machines again other than the ATR thing, Studer in it again, a nice new 8 track 1" with a manufacturer that will provide 30 years of parts and supply & maintenance.

Again the whole thing also needs to be judged or I certainly judge it not pure by the sound result, as I'm also of the opinion one can make very interesting digital recordings, but other factors come in as well, to me the physical aspect of working with tape, the absence of a screen, the absence of a mouse and keyboard but faders and knobs and switches under your fingertips, the fact that one concentrates a hell of a lot more on the tracking and the performance, also musicians are more focused then when they know it's no prob to do it again or cut and paste a performance, the sound, the smell, the finishing up of a project usually involves less post production and editing time than digital weird but true why? because most of it was taken care of in what was put on the tape (instead of the behaviour a lot of bands have now in taking a bazillion takes with different sound or no sound at all and then trying to create a sound or choose from endless takes..)
And the whole process is almost organic it's electric, chemical, magnetic & mechanical & irons and pretty hard to calculate and emulate all those factors as the universe, planetary resources and chemical and environmental nature and evolution & brilliance of mankind are responsible for the resulting product the tapemachine.
so it has that sound & vibe to it... no you can't emulate it (yet), yes you can make nice digital recordings.

[gussyg2007]

i think there should be a thread where all the gs tape dude's can put down in verse or poetry your deep love of r2r's it starts to sound like shakespeare or keats when you guys talk about tape (no offense)

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by gussyg2007

i think there should be a thread where all the gs tape dude's can put down in verse or poetry your deep love of r2r's it starts to sound like shakespeare or keats when you guys talk about tape (no offense)

you would be picking up on the romance...

Never tell a poet that love is just a specialized regulation of neuromodulators.