are you sick of that digital sound?

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by seaneldon

::puts on pimp hat...and snake skin shoes::

Tired of kaka digital?

This JCF Audio D/A converter (or as we call it at the shop, the D/B converter...digital to better) can help.

Not subtle! Complete with tube recitified PSU and separate digital PSU.

Proving big iron is not reserved for tape machines!

That is really something else. I'll bet it really raises one's air conditioning bill, though...

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

Holy shit nice gear porn. Insane. How's it sound? Any matching a/d?

I think the A/D requires its own cool room.

[seaneldon]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Proving big iron is not reserved for tape machines!

That is really something else. I'll bet it really raises your air conditioning bill, though...

That's essentially eight Ampex 351 amps...

And yeah, it did make the machine room a bit warmer.

[seaneldon]

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

Holy shit nice gear porn. I can't stop staring. Insane. How's it sound? Any matching a/d?

8 channels, right? price?

He does make a multichannel A/D. It does not have tubes.

Yes, 8 channels.

We'll do a "New Product Alert" thing sooner than later with as much information as possible.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by FireMoon

You only have to listen to some early digital albums, to hear some very very good engineers and producers, make a right pig's ear of it, because it simply doesn't work like analogue.

You just reminded me of something that I think is worth noting. I'm basically someone whose music making experience started with DAW's and digital converters (actually it was a year of cassette 4-track first...but serious recording/mixing started with digital). So here I am for the last 13 years honing my skills, acquiring equipment, upgrading my signal path, and attempting to make music using computers. Really it's been all I know. I didn't have any experience with consoles or professional tape decks. The only mixer I had used for more than a minute was a Mackie 1402. Music production as I knew it was something you did with a computer and digital converters. Each year I strived to make better recordings than I had done the previous year and used my new acquisitions to inch along a little further. And I think I accomplished that for the most part. But as the years wore on I felt like I was banging my head against the wall fighting some invisible enemy to the sounds I was recording.

Then I decided a year and a half ago I decided after reading the Anamod thread: “you know what, why don’t I just buy a cheap tape deck and see what all the fuss is about. Prices seem ridiculously low and if it’s something I don’t like or it turns out to be a big hassle then I’ll just sell it and get my money back”. So I found some guy on Craigslist selling an Otari MX5050 ½” 4-track. I played with it a bit and felt like I was hearing something I liked. I modified the tape deck electronics and felt like I was hearing music for the first time. Soon thereafter I scored an Otari MX55 ¼” machine for $200 with a pile of new tape, and MRL tape, and a HanDMag. I brought the two decks to the studio and began using them in the manner I outline in the videos I link in my signature. All of a sudden I was achieving the sounds I had always heard in my head but never quite achieved recording without the tape decks. I was literally giddy. I felt like I had discovered the fountain of youth, or found the Ark of the Covenant or something. And I was getting these wonderful sounds using the same techniques I had been using to record to digital. I did absolutely nothing differently other than insert tape into my signal path.

Fast forward almost a year later and I’ve decided to stop using the computer as my main music making tool. I picked up a console, bought an MCI 1” 8-track, and upgraded my Otari 2-track to a Studer. The sounds I’m getting now are easily the best I’ve ever achieved. And I’ve done nothing to change the way I record music other than remove the DAW as the hub of my studio.

You know how people sometimes pose the question: what if we had digital first and then discovered analog? What would we think of analog?

Well I’m that guy!!! And I think I was an ass for spending so much time struggling to make music with tools that required the use of more tools to kind of almost get what I wanted, especially when there was this easy to use and amazing sounding tool available to me this whole time. I kind of feel ripped off. Shame on me for thinking that I needed another preamp, or compressor, or EQ plugin, or wordclock generator, A/D converter, or summing box. Shame on me for thinking that progress is always about walking forward in one direction. And shame on me for not having an open mind about my ability to adapt to new tools.

Brad

[steelyfan]

Wow.. this can give a brother a headache.
IMOP there is waayyy too much being put into this. Charts and Db schematics, all these gear suggestions.


Look, maybe I'm overlooking something. But the problem seems to ME that what ever is lacking in the OP music, is being neglected on the way in.
I saw that you have a nice piece for conversion, are you going direct in without using mics? Sorry if I missed this, but I susupect AGAIN that you are trying to impart something that is missing sonically to your mixes at the end of your mix. WRONG> WRONG>

Get it right UP FRONT> MIX WHILE YOU TRACK>

1>you can still use compression for your mixes.
2>they can still be punchy
3>you can still participate in the loudness wars
4>you mixes can still be marketable
5>mixes will still pro
6>for electronic compositions, your music will actually sound ORIGINAL in todays age of "ANOTHER LIFELESS AMBIENT TRACK"

Just get your audio sounding right(and interesting) on the way end. If your siginal for whatever you are recording is DEAD QUIET on the way end for everthing you track, even if you are layering 50 tracks, don't be suprised that they're is no ____(fill in the blank) to your mixes.

It a VERY easy fix. USE MICS AND AMPS TO RECORD YOUR MATERIAL UP FRONT.
You DO NOT NEED TO GO OUT AND BUY MORE GEAR.(unless you have no mics or amps)

Follow my advice on my first post, try just a test. A 10 minute test.
Record 5 sounds through a mic and amp, using what you have, work the same way you have been, just don't record the material direct in.

This is NOT an old school way of working, it should be the norm, but it's not anymore. That's why so many people LUST after the secret to "warmer, more analog, less harsh, more exciting, not cold, organic, etc.etc." sounding mixes, ..........and why you are posting your unsatisfactory feelings about your present product.

I'M GIVING YOU THE "Secret" ...he.he.he........ take the ball a run.

Plus you will have ALOT more fun.

TIPS:

Have more RESPECT for each sound that you record, take the tracking VERY seriously, don't try to "VIBE IT' later. There is no "MAGIC BOX" you're going to run your finished mix through to get the results you are after if you aren't close to begin with.

Again......these are the differences that will make your music sound more
"VITAL" to the world, and less "I'm a talented sound arranger with with fruity loops and 3 keyboards."
PLuggins will not do this, compressors, higher bit rates, nicer pres',
will not do this. It ALL IN THE INPUT SOURCE. Record it how you want it to sound.thumbsup

Steelyfan

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

You just reminded me of something that I think is worth noting. I'm basically someone whose music making experience started with DAW's and digital converters (actually it was a year of cassette 4-track first...but serious recording/mixing started with digital). So here I am for the last 13 years honing my skills, acquiring equipment, upgrading my signal path, and attempting to make music using computers. Really it's been all I know. I didn't have any experience with consoles or professional tape decks. The only mixer I had used for more than a minute was a Mackie 1402. Music production as I knew it was something you did with a computer and digital converters. Each year I strived to make better recordings than I had done the previous year and used my new acquisitions to inch along a little further. And I think I accomplished that for the most part. But as the years wore on I felt like I was banging my head against the wall fighting some invisible enemy to the sounds I was recording.

Then I decided a year and a half ago I decided after reading the Anamod thread: “you know what, why don’t I just buy a cheap tape deck and see what all the fuss is about. Prices seem ridiculously low and if it’s something I don’t like or it turns out to be a big hassle then I’ll just sell it and get my money back”. So I found some guy on Craigslist selling an Otari MX5050 ½” 4-track. I played with it a bit and felt like I was hearing something I liked. I modified the tape deck electronics and felt like I was hearing music for the first time. Soon thereafter I scored an Otari MX55 ¼” machine for $200 with a pile of new tape, and MRL tape, and a HanDMag. I brought the two decks to the studio and began using them in the manner I outline in the videos I link in my signature. All of a sudden I was achieving the sounds I had always heard in my head but never quite achieved recording without the tape decks. I was literally giddy. I felt like I had discovered the fountain of youth, or found the Ark of the Covenant or something. And I was getting these wonderful sounds using the same techniques I had been using to record to digital. I did absolutely nothing differently other than insert tape into my signal path.

Fast forward [...]

Brad

Brad makes a pretty swell case for this analog tape stuff... I might have to get around to checking it out. Oh... wait... been there.

Seriously, how could one argue with what Brad is saying? He's talking about his own experience. He is making some big statements about what it did for him and his practice, to be sure -- but he's not making any unsupportable factual claims.

I suspect some folks around here must think I would have a problem with what Brad says... but I don't. Because he knows how to say what he wants to say without making unsupportable or worse, easily refutable, statements.


See? That's my 'crusade,' here. Clarity and soundness of expression.




PS... And Brad sounds like someone I'm glad to see with "stewardship" over some nice old tape machines. I suspect he pays serious attention to both session and long term maintenance. And that will help preserve these beautiful machines, not to mention help achieve the best recording accuracy -- er, let's say, since that's now apparently some kind of ugly hot button word -- fidelity.

(I left old out of beautiful machines because I was afraid folks would assume it was be used in some pejorative sense. Not the case, though. I love beautiful old machines, from cars to printing presses to -- some of my faves -- airplanes from the first half of the 20th century... I swear, if they still have airplanes in my next lifetime I'm gonna learn to fly... Or maybe we'll have flying cars by then. Oh...wait... I'm an agnostic. I guess I'll just have to wait and see... )

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by steelyfan

Wow.. this can give a brother a headache.
IMOP there is waayyy too much being put into this. Charts and Db schematics, all these gear suggestions.

[...]

I only posted those specs because a certain party all but demanded I post them or face his withering scorn.

Now, there is some withering scorn I rather consider a badge of honor -- but I was afraid others who either might not be reading that closely (lucky people ) or simply not as familiar with the fairly wide breach between the measured performance of the best tape recorders and the best digital audio would, indeed, think I had made some sort of claim I couldn't back up.

[kats]

More BS. Do those THD numbers include aliasing? Do they include how the distortion of frequencies above Nyquist affect those frequency below? Do you think this is false information I'm providing? It's very well documented in the field of spinal chord research. As a matter of fact my good friend and neighbor designs converters for this very specialized field and has shown me this effect in person.

Here's another fact. It's a fact that theoretically there should be no sonic difference between 44.1k and 96k according to Nyquist. Yet in the practical world this has been proven not to be true. It is testament to the fact that practice has still not caught up to theory.

You cannot cut and paste yourself out of this argument. Furthermore, the specs you provide on the Studer include the whole frequency range. When I quoted you +/- .25dB, that was for the top end of the machine. That was to counter your myth that analog recording requires heavy shelving of the top end to make up for it's inadequacies. But you know that, and you know exactly the point I was making. Your cutting and pasting "defense" is purposefully disingenuous.

Originally Posted by theblue1

OK, my man. You wanted numbers.

Compare measured performance specifications from manufacturers or a legitimate, bonded lab, I don't care, for any production tape machine, your choice, against, let's say, A digital recording system built around a Lavry AD122-96MKIII
and a DA924:
And a Studer of your choice -- or any other production analog tape machine with verifiably source official specs. (Here's a directory of their machines: ftp://ftp.studer.ch/Public/Products/Recording_Analog/ See -- I've done half your homework for you.)

Just because I happen to have Studer's own product specs for itin front of me, let me post some of the specs for the A827 (sadly, the Studer PDF is in bitmap form, but you can download the PDF here.)

Here are images from the Studer Specs PDF for the A827:

















Kind of a lopsided competition, innit?

Satisfied? If not, pick out another machine and post its specs.


Or do we now get a round of, "Well, numbers don't matter, my ears tell me..." bullshit?

Well, let me just point out -- these are the numbers that Studer used to sell these machines. And they were very good numbers for an analog tape recorder. I'd be proud to own one of these. (Or at least a little giddy.) But a quick comparison between the two recording platforms as measured by the manufacturer's own numbers should give more than a few clues, at least in part, as to why the paradigm has shifted.


Since you seem obsessed with alias error, please take special note of the THD figures above. Take a good look, you might have to to see the Lavry THD figure, it's so small. (That is a joke. See, I can joke, even through clenched teeth.) You won't have any trouble counting right side of decimal points for THD for the Studer though... we're not talking thousandths of percent, anymore -- Studer pegs harmonic distortion in the A827 at "no more than 1%" at typical studio tape speeds.

Are we done yet?


Oh... one last thing... just who or what do you think I'm posing as? Some old guy in a BB? You find me one place here at GS or another recording board where I claimed to be something I'm not, and I'll happily own up to being a poseur.

But until you've got some evidence on the table, I think I'd take it down a couple of notches -- if I were you.

[kats]

More BS. Do those THD numbers include aliasing? Do they include how the distortion of frequencies above Nyquist affect those frequency below? Do you think this is false information I'm providing? It's very well documented in the field of spinal chord research. As a matter of fact my good friend and neighbor designs converters for this very specialized field and has shown me this effect in person.

Here's another fact. It's a fact that theoretically there should be no sonic difference between 44.1k and 96k according to Nyquist. Yet in the practical world this has been proven not to be true. It is testament to the fact that practice has still not caught up to theory.

You cannot cut and paste yourself out of this argument. Furthermore, the specs you provide on the Studer include the whole frequency range. When I quoted you +/- .25dB, that was for the top end of the machine. That was to counter your myth that analog recording requires heavy shelving of the top end to make up for it's inadequacies. But you know that, and you knew exactly the point I was making. Your cutting and pasting "defense" is purposefully disingenuous.
Studer A827 Plot:


And another thing. I never asked you for numbers - so why are you misquoting me? Here is what I said:

3X I've asked you. Tell me which converter lives up to your "best ability to measure" argument. Tell me which converter does not introduce distortion into the audible ranges. Yet you haven't.

Where the hell does it ask you for a spec sheet? I simply wanted to know which converter on the market does not exhibit the negative characteristics associated with digital conversion. I haven't heard of one yet.

Originally Posted by theblue1

OK, my man. You wanted numbers.

Compare measured performance specifications from manufacturers or a legitimate, bonded lab, I don't care, for any production tape machine, your choice, against, let's say, A digital recording system built around a Lavry AD122-96MKIII
and a DA924:
And a Studer of your choice -- or any other production analog tape machine with verifiably source official specs. (Here's a directory of their machines: ftp://ftp.studer.ch/Public/Products/Recording_Analog/ See -- I've done half your homework for you.)

Just because I happen to have Studer's own product specs for itin front of me, let me post some of the specs for the A827 (sadly, the Studer PDF is in bitmap form, but you can download the PDF here.)

Here are images from the Studer Specs PDF for the A827:

















Kind of a lopsided competition, innit?

Satisfied? If not, pick out another machine and post its specs.


Or do we now get a round of, "Well, numbers don't matter, my ears tell me..." bullshit?

Well, let me just point out -- these are the numbers that Studer used to sell these machines. And they were very good numbers for an analog tape recorder. I'd be proud to own one of these. (Or at least a little giddy.) But a quick comparison between the two recording platforms as measured by the manufacturer's own numbers should give more than a few clues, at least in part, as to why the paradigm has shifted.


Since you seem obsessed with alias error, please take special note of the THD figures above. Take a good look, you might have to to see the Lavry THD figure, it's so small. (That is a joke. See, I can joke, even through clenched teeth.) You won't have any trouble counting right side of decimal points for THD for the Studer though... we're not talking thousandths of percent, anymore -- Studer pegs harmonic distortion in the A827 at "no more than 1%" at typical studio tape speeds.

Are we done yet?


Oh... one last thing... just who or what do you think I'm posing as? Some old guy in a BB? You find me one place here at GS or another recording board where I claimed to be something I'm not, and I'll happily own up to being a poseur.

But until you've got some evidence on the table, I think I'd take it down a couple of notches -- if I were you.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by kats

More BS. Do those THD numbers include aliasing? Do they include how the distortion of frequencies above Nyquist affect those frequency below? Do you think this is false information I'm providing? It's very well documented in the field of spinal chord research. As a matter of fact my good friend and neighbor designs converters for this very specialized field and has shown me this effect in person.

Here's another fact. It's a fact that theoretically there should be no sonic difference between 44.1k and 96k according to Nyquist. Yet in the practical world this has been proven not to be true. It is testament to the fact that practice has still not caught up to theory.

You cannot cut and paste yourself out of this argument. Furthermore, the specs you provide on the Studer include the whole frequency range. When I quoted you +/- .25dB, that was for the top end of the machine. That was to counter your myth that analog recording requires heavy shelving of the top end to make up for it's inadequacies. But you know that, and you know exactly the point I was making. Your cutting and pasting "defense" is purposefully disingenuous.

Uh... just what do you think Total Harmonic Distortion means, Jack?

I haven't seen you provide any information yet. Some bizarre off topic prattle about spinal chord research -- frankly I have no clue as to why you brought that up or what you're trying to get at with it.

Can anyone else make sense of what kats is trying to say there?


And -- get this -- kats is now calling me a liar -- not in so many words, of course, he's weasle-wording down to me being "disingenous" -- well, kats, that means you're saying I'm being intentionally dishonest.

IOW, kats -- you're calling me a liar.

And just why are you calling me a liar?

Because -- at your demand that I provide numbers to back myself up -- I posted the specs from two high end recordign platforms -- specs from the manufacturers.


Can anyone explain how that makes me a liar?


kats -- you've crossed a line here.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by steelyfan

Wow.. this can give a brother a headache.
IMOP there is waayyy too much being put into this. Charts and Db schematics, all It a VERY easy fix. USE MICS AND AMPS TO RECORD YOUR MATERIAL UP FRONT.
You DO NOT NEED TO GO OUT AND BUY MORE GEAR.(unless you have no mics or amps)

Follow my advice on my first post, try just a test. A 10 minute test.
Record 5 sounds through a mic and amp, using what you have, work the same way you have been, just don't record the material direct in.

This is NOT an old school way of working, it should be the norm, but it's not anymore. That's why so many people LUST after the secret to "warmer, more analog, less harsh, more exciting, not cold, organic, etc.etc." sounding mixes, ..........and why you are posting your unsatisfactory feelings about your present product.

This is a great tip. I find myself recording electronic and synthesizer sounds through guitar amps and pedals all the time...using microphones. The end result always fits in the mix much better!

If you listen to the track called "Ship to Sail" from my band's latest album you can hear an example of this. All the synths in the song went through guitar amps. The synths playing the middle octave and lead parts (panned on the sides) were from a Micron played through a Twin Reverb and miked with a Karma K55. The bass synth was a Juno 106 through a Traynor YBA-3 and 8x10 cab miked with a Heil PR40. Way more fun than pluggin in direct!

SoundClick artist: Plot Against Rachel - Indie-Rock with early Nineties Emo-core and Post-Rock influences.

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

Do you boys mind taking your squabble out back?

Brad

[kats]

There are many forms of distortion. Harmonic distortion is just one form. Distortion is a general term that should be prefaced as in THD. You can consider a phase anomaly a distortion of the original signal. For example, a NFB circuit in a microphone or a filter in a digital converter. Aliasing isn't the same form of distortion as say a vacuum tube.

As for the rest of my post, I stand by it and am sure it is clearly and understandably written even if you don't get it.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Do you boys mind taking your squabble out back?

Brad

I'm done here. I think anyone who reads my posts can see that I'm only saying one very simple, narrow thing: by the best of our ability to measure, the best analog tape is not as accurate as the best digital recording.

But simple linear accuracy is not, to my way of thinking, what draws people to or keeps people with their analog tape machines.

And I am 100% OK with that, as I think you, Brad, clearly understand.


With regards to kats, well, I think his posts also reveal much about him, even as it's hard-to-impossible to pin down precisely what it is he's trying to say. I'm still scratching my head over the spinal column research reference...

Anyhow, I glanced down and see he's "standing by" those posts so, hey, I'll let all those reasonable minds out there make themselves up about who is on point and backing up what he's saying and who is incoherent, rambling and insulting.




All you tape guys -- take care of those things! The best of them are gorgeous machines that were the state of the art when they were made and can still record and reproduce glorious music.

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by kats

There are many forms of distortion. Harmonic distortion is just one form. Distortion is a general term that should be prefaced as in THD. You can consider a phase anomaly a distortion of the original signal. For example, a NFB circuit in a microphone or a filter in a digital converter. Aliasing isn't the same form of distortion as say a vacuum tube.

I don't know much about this stuff so I my be reading this wrong, but that really makes to me based on what I've heard. If I had to describe what I don't like about a/d/a - the cold hollowness - it is very reminiscent of phase artifact. On the other hand, while analog tape has higher THD than conversion, it does not seem to suffer from this effect and can remain fuller in capture.

If this difference is due to greater phasing/aliasing of the converter, how can you scientifically state this type of degradation is universally any more or less significant to sonic accuracy than the THD of analog? Again, it's a matter of personal preference and no definitive overarching conclusion can be drawn.

Originally Posted by theblue1

I think anyone who reads my posts can see that I'm only saying one very simple, narrow thing: by the best of our ability to measure (THD, dynamic range, and frequency response), the best analog tape is not as accurate as the best digital recording.

Again, I'm not sure this is a statement you can make as fact, only opinion, unless you add the above bracketing qualifier, and then it gets even narrower.

[kats]

Since we've now gone full circle, I'll end on this post.

Originally Posted by theblue1

I'm done here. I think anyone who reads my posts can see that I'm only saying one very simple, narrow thing: by the best of our ability to measure, the best analog tape is not as accurate as the best digital recording.

I believe this statement to be factually untrue, unless you define accuracy. It is not just a measure of THD and a frequency plot, attested by horrible sounding converters that spec out like champs. There are inherent inaccuracies in both mediums. My personal opinion and nothing more is that it is much easier to overcome the flaws in analog recording while very difficult to impossible to put back what is lost through the conversion process.

With regards to kats, well, I think his posts also reveal much about him, even as it's hard-to-impossible to pin down precisely what it is he's trying to say. I'm still scratching my head over the spinal column research reference...

To map the electrical impulses of the spinal chord into a digital format we use digital converters. Part of the analyses involves differentiating the true frequencies from the "echos" caused by aliasing. IE, aliasing is affecting the frequencies below the "cut off" frequency. Same thing in audio.

Anyhow, I glanced down and see he's "standing by" those posts so, hey, I'll let all those reasonable minds out there make themselves up about who is on point and backing up what he's saying and who is incoherent, rambling and insulting.

Normally I don't get that way. But your condescension in thanking us for maintaining museum pieces, coupled with graphics of guns shooting ourselves, as well as your smugness in how you hate to be wrong got the best of me.

[steelyfan]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

This is a great tip. I find myself recording electronic and synthesizer sounds through guitar amps and pedals all the time...using microphones. The end result always fits in the mix much better!

If you listen to the track called "Ship to Sail" from my band's latest album you can hear an example of this. All the synths in the song went through guitar amps. The synths playing the middle octave and lead parts (panned on the sides) were from a Micron played through a Twin Reverb and miked with a Karma K55. The bass synth was a Juno 106 through a Traynor YBA-3 and 8x10 cab miked with a Heil PR40. Way more fun than pluggin in direct!

SoundClick artist: Plot Against Rachel - Indie-Rock with early Nineties Emo-core and Post-Rock influences.

Brad

thumbsup
Cool, I'll check it out.
Always curious to hear a fellow Slutz' music.
I'm at work though, no computer speakers...AARGGGHH!! he.he.
But yea, for sure, electronic stuff, or just synths and keyboards in general always sound better through amps.
As soon as you run keyboards through an amp, a lightbulb goes off!
"So THAT'S how they get that sound!!"
The sooner people start to realize that amps add to a keyboards general circuit chain, (it's like the amps' parts become one with the synths parts, like they are the same instrument),...... the sooner they'll get it.
Steelyfan

[theblue1]

AV, again, we can only go on the best of our ability to measure.

Take a look at Studer's official specs, take a look at Lavry's specs. If one understands what they're measuring, I think the conclusions are pretty clear.

Now, is it possible there is some other aspect of sound, some measurement we haven't figured out how to take? Maybe. I've stretched my imagination -- but I'm no theoretical physicist, not by a million miles. However, I will defer to those who are and who have done much intensive study of audio and audio transmission via electronic signals.


There are those who distrust science.

I would ask them, who do they think developed the technology that they favor?

It was scientists, rigorously applying the Scientific Method to their experiments and research.

Ask the guys at Studer if they reject science and measurement.

[madriaan]

Originally Posted by kats

When was the last time you compared the sound of a Studer A827 running high output tape to RADAR conversion? I listen to it every day. As well as many different types of highly regarded converters we keep at our studio. There is no doubt that the audio quality is superior in *most* aspects on the Studer compared to the converted signal.

You said *most*.... In what aspects or instances do you think digital sounds better?

M.

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Now, is it possible there is some other aspect of sound, some measurement we haven't figured out how to take? Maybe. I've stretched my imagination -- but I'm no theoretical physicist, not by a million miles. However, I will defer to those who are and who have done much intensive study of audio and audio transmission via electronic signals.

As will I. I have no distrust of science. I have a B.Sc. with high distinction. I just recognize, as those seasoned pros you mentioned do, our ears can pick up a near infinite amount of information an oscilloscope currently cannot.

To quote the great Klaus Heyne:

Originally Posted by Klaus Heyne

I am in the middle of working with Thiersch in identifying the characteristics which make a copy [M7 mic] capsule different from the original- both as far as sound goes and the minute, mechanical, build-differences.

This is the fun part (for me) and the crux (for most capsule makers): How do you know when you have it right? Whose ears can you trust when you are the capsule builder? What if several of the "Golden Ears" you lent your new capsule to, in order to decide on what design to go for, contradict each other?

Measurements certainly won't help the builder- we have discussed this ad infinitum here- the minute timbral differences that separate the wannabes from the jackpot are impossible to quantify and, if that was even possible, then to qualify!

There are exceptions, but the rule applies: the capsule builder must rely on a principal person to guide him, through listening tests, in the right direction.

That, imo, summarizes the truest reality of audio engineering. Listen, and judge. The basic science and measurements are most commonly just the starting point, rarely the conclusion.

[kats]

Originally Posted by theblue1

AV, again, we can only go on the best of our ability to measure.

Take a look at Studer's official specs, take a look at Lavry's specs. If one understands what they're measuring, I think the conclusions are pretty clear.

Now, is it possible there is some other aspect of sound, some measurement we haven't figured out how to take? Maybe. I've stretched my imagination -- but I'm no theoretical physicist, not by a million miles. However, I will defer to those who are and who have done much intensive study of audio and audio transmission via electronic signals.


There are those who distrust science.

I would ask them, who do they think developed the technology that they favor?

It was scientists, rigorously applying the Scientific Method to their experiments and research.

Ask the guys at Studer if they reject science and measurement.

Look man, you don't even understand what THD is a measurement of. It measures analog distortion. It doesn't measure digital distortion. Your stats on the Lavry SAY NOTHING about aliasing and DIGITAL DISTORTION of the frequencies. Only that of it's analog front end.

Ask the guys at Studer if they use a thermometer to measure speed - because that is essentially what your trying to parlay here as science.

If one understands what they're measuring, I think the conclusions are pretty clear.

IF is a pretty big word there "Jack"

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

As will I. I have no distrust of science. I have a B.Sc. with high distinction. I just recognize, as those seasoned pros you mentioned likely do, our ears can pick up a near infinite amount of information an oscilloscope cannot.

To quote the great Klaus Heyne:

That, imo, summarizes the truest reality of audio engineering. Listen, and judge. The basic science and measurements are most commonly just your starting point.

I don't get your analogy between ears and oscilloscopes at all. And I'm not just going out of my way to be pedantic, here, it just seems to me that you're comparing apples and rutabagas, and here's why I think that:

Our ears are not in any way analogous to an oscilloscope. An oscilloscope maps a wave representation of an analog electronic signal onto a variable series of 'frames' so that we can provide a hybrid view of the wave form. It is a device designed for the graphic representation of waves in electronic signals.

It has no acoustic to electronic transducers (unless it's got a built-in mic, of course), it has no directional focusing devices. It has no dedicated temporal signal collation used for spatial mapping. It simply puts a wiggling wave-like display on a screen and lets one dial in parameters like the sample rate of the screen display.


Now... jumping way beyond particulars to what I presume you are getting at -- I'm not denying the possibility that we will find some new way to analyze and measure sound that has not occurred to our best physical scientists in the last hundred or more years. Although, let's face it, look at the depth and precision of our measurements of the physical universe, from the micro to the macro level... a lot of fine work has been done that tells us an enormous amount about how things work.

Hopefully, we'll never stop adding to that knowledge, but it has to be pointed out, audio has been studied quite intensively because of its importance to modern communications, entertainment and information media -- and while we've seen enormous strides on the practical implementation front, the science of audio measurement is pretty well established, I should say.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by kats

Look man, you don't even understand what THD is a measurement of. It measures analog distortion. It doesn't measure digital distortion. Your stats on the Lavry SAY NOTHING about aliasing and DIGITAL DISTORTION of the frequencies. Only that of it's analog front end.

Ask the guys at Studer if they use a thermometer to measure speed - because that is essentially what your trying to parlay here as science.



IF is a pretty big word there "Jack"

Please keep talking because I'm really enjoying the show you're putting on. It's deeply amusing.

At least now that I've written you off completely as not being someone who can or should be taken seriously.


Now, I don't want to cramp your style, but if you run out of things to sputter about -- how about explaining just what in heck spinal research has to do with anything. That's the most intriguing thing you've come up with and I find it quite promising as a source of ever greater amusement.

Or -- I blush to be so unhumble as to direct attention back to myself -- but I'm still waiting to find out just what qualifies me as being a "poseur" -- feel free to post any and all false claims I've made about myself, I'll own up to them if they are, indeed, false, it's how I do business. Or please explain why I'm "disingenuous" for posting the official manufacturer's specs for some more or less state-of-the art competing platforms -- when earlier you were all but demanding it and seemingly accusing me of all kinds of cowardliness for not doing so.

Really, I'm waiting for you to surpass yourself, here. I think you can do it. I'm rooting for you, man. Make a bigger fool of yourself.

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by theblue1

I don't get your analogy between ears and oscilloscopes at all. And I'm not just going out of my way to be pedantic, here, it just seems to me that you're comparing apples and rutabagas, and here's why I think that:

Our ears are not in any way analogous to an oscilloscope. An oscilloscope maps a wave representation of an analog electronic signal onto a variable series of 'frames' so that we can provide a hybrid view of the wave form. It is a device designed for the graphic representation of waves in electronic signals.

It has no acoustic to electronic transducers (unless it's got a built-in mic, of course), it has no directional focusing devices. It has no dedicated temporal signal collation used for spatial mapping. It simply puts a wiggling wave-like display on a screen and lets one dial in parameters like the sample rate of the screen display.

Now you're just being silly. You've clearly understood exactly what I meant. By definition, all analogies are flawed. Perhaps you'd prefer:

signal generator ~ acoustic sound
converter/tape ~ hair cells (organ of corti)
spec analyzer ~ brain

However you draw the parallels, the point remains the same.

Originally Posted by theblue1

Now... jumping way beyond particulars to what I presume you are getting at -- I'm not denying the possibility that we will find some new way to analyze and measure sound that has not occurred to our best physical scientists in the last hundred or more years. Although, let's face it, look at the depth and precision of our measurements of the physical universe, from the micro to the macro level... a lot of fine work has been done that tells us an enormous amount about how things work.

Hopefully, we'll never stop adding to that knowledge, but it has to be pointed out, audio has been studied quite intensively because of its importance to modern communications, entertainment and information media -- and while we've seen enormous strides on the practical implementation front, the science of audio measurement is pretty well established, I should say.

Yes, but such analysis is almost never the final arbiter of how something actually sounds in practical application. At our current level of understanding, trusting one's ears is not 'unscientific'. It's just good sense.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by kats

Since we've now gone full circle, I'll end on this post.

I believe this statement to be factually untrue, unless you define accuracy. It is not just a measure of THD and a frequency plot, attested by horrible sounding converters that spec out like champs. There are inherent inaccuracies in both mediums. My personal opinion and nothing more is that it is much easier to overcome the flaws in analog recording while very difficult to impossible to put back what is lost through the conversion process.

I actually agree with you. I think "accuracy" needs to be defined and "distortion" needs to be qualified for everyone to be arguing apples to apples. I think the quality of the distortion one gets from a tape deck is orders of magnitude more musical than the quality of distortion than one gets from the A/D conversion process. There is good distortion and there is bad distortion. The source of bad distortion in a tape deck is likely different than the source of bad distortion in an A/D process. You can abuse analog tape or be sloppy with it and it will be forgiving and give you distortion that your ears will happily integrate with the audio. An A/D converter on the other hand is in no way forgiving. If you cross the line then you are rewarded with unpleasant artifacts and non-musical distortion. Can we all agree on that as fact? Certainly if your converter has some tube gain stages in it then you can get nice coloration from that (are there tube A/D's out there? If so I want one.). I'm talking strictly about the PCM converter and the analog filters. I would agree with Kats and go even farther and say that A/D conversion gives you non-musical distortion regardless of how you gain stage. Again I'm not super well versed in the inner workings of A/D converters, but I'm assuming this is the aliasing distortion we're talking about.

Brad

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

Now you're just being silly. You've clearly understood exactly what I meant. By definition, all analogies are flawed. Perhaps you'd prefer:

signal generator ~ acoustic sound
converter/tape ~ hair cells (organ of corti)
spec analyzer ~ brain

However you draw the parallels, the point remains the same.



Yes, but such analysis is almost never the final arbiter of how something actually sounds in practical application. At our current level of understanding, trusting one's ears is not 'unscientific'. It's just good sense.

I'm not being silly. You offered an inept analogy that made little sense -- for the reasons I elaborated.

Now -- was I able to deconstruct what you did say and guess what you were getting at? Apparently.

But please do not go blaming me for your inadequate and confusing attempts to express yourself. That, it seems to me, is silly.


I've often said that our ears are the most important 'pieces of gear' we'll ever own and I think the common sense of that is self-evident.

The human auditory system, with its intricate and amazing spatial/cognitive mapping abilities is, indeed, one of "nature's wonders." It is an extraordinary system of sometimes astounding capabilities.

The human auditory system is complex and very flexible -- but it is not 'designed' for -- or good at -- objective measurement.

Additionally, it is yoked to the world of physical, acoustic sound and so it of surprisingly little use for analyzing the accuracy of electronic signals.

I reduce the issue to that because, let's face it, no matter what transcription medium we choose to use, we are dealing with the electronic signals we've captured with our acoustic/electric transducers, our microphones.

As I've noted repeatedly here, I have no position on whether or not someone should use analog tape or digital audio -- or wax cylinders, if one feels it.

No one should feel like they have to justify the use of analog tape to me. I really plain, don't care what folks use as long as they're happy and making/capturing the music they want to make in a way that pleases them (and/or their customers).

My only point here is in precision of analysis and expression.

My primary assertion here is not that digital recording is 'superior' -- depending on your own needs, it may well be inferior for what you want to do -- and, as I've pointed out, no one really needs explain that to me -- but a number have here, with fine clarity and admirable common sense. I respect them and value the difference in our approaches.

[steelyfan]

Yes, but such analysis is almost never the final arbiter of how something actually sounds in practical application. At our current level of understanding, trusting one's ears is not 'unscientific'. It's just good sense.[/QUOTE]





Bingo.
Listen... know .... understand. ......... with eyes closed.
(In Lotus position) he.he.he.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by madriaan

You said *most*.... In what aspects or instances do you think digital sounds better?

M.

I'm not Kats, but digital gives you better wow and flutter performance (zero), and better signal to noise ratio performance (>100dB). It also gives you more linear frequency response that is less dependant on operating conditions. I think in that regard it's superior to analog. I think this is probably a point that Theblue1 was making.

However, I think the point that Kats was making and I'm agreeing with, is that although those are nice specs to have they say little about the musicality of the medium. So along those lines I disagree with the statement that the science of audio measurement is well established.

How does one effectively measure and report musicality? I don't think scientists have completely figured out a good meaningful way to do that. Thankfully we have ears that give our brains instant feedback and allow us to make subjective judgements as they relate to our emotions. That's a complex process within the human heart and mind that FFT and distortion analyzers just can't explain. It would be awesome to see someone do some legitimate scientific research in this area. I bet you could even get some government grants to do it.

Brad

[Hugh123456789]

Matt I think I understand what you are getting at... I think - how to get close to a commercial CD sound (....perhaps...)- I've read pages 1&2 a bit of page 4 and page 5.

I think the best suggestion was on page one about 3/4 of the way down about sending a mix out to some outboard gear eq and comp and bringing it back in as a two track mix.

This method has proved the most successful , in my view, for bands that do not want to afford mastering (most struggle to afford recording !)...

The only thing I would add is that as well as doing one pass - nibbling out those freq. that muddy the track - I run it several times (so re run the two track mix .not the whole mix) and with each pass - gradually take out those frequencies that seem to be getting in the way. I hope that makes sense.

For me I found this was a really fast way of working as well. The mixes were easier - as I spent less time getting too anal about if the drums where to loud or the vocals were loud enough etc - just get a balance and interesting mix and get it down - (after all what else can you do ! life's to short!) ....then mix and eq the whole track and then repeat using the two track mix and you should end up with something that sounds relatively right sounding and slick.

The only difference then between the stuff I have recorded and commercial pro cd stuff, really, is the quality of the musicianship, voicing and material and more advanced mixing techniques but they are all interconnected in many ways.

Interesting thread .....would be interested if anybody else does this ...

[seaneldon]

...

Should I post that picture again? I feel like it's getting lost in eBattles.