Digital Sucks! The sooner you understand this the better off you are going to be...

[dibravibra]

Obviously, the most people matrix suit just fine. My thirteen years old son listens exclusively to mp3. Modern stuff mostly. Today he commented first album of the Beatles that I was listening at. His words: "this sound is perfect". Recorded back in 1963..

[Batchainpuller78]

Well if you check out UBK's thread What year in music sounds the best to you?

you'll see that many of us still have a wee bit of a preference of stuff that has been recorded many many years ago.

Great son you have there! this just sounds perfect!! and kids don't lie when they are honest

[Careyn]

Originally Posted by theblue1

No, actually, you didn't.

Not only that, you attributed to me a number of positions and conclusions of which even a moderately careful reading of my posts would disabuse any clear-headed thinker.

Now, I have no interest in persuading you to see or do things my way -- in the slightest -- but I am concerned about your many extremely dubious, often misleading and sometimes just downright boneheaded public statements -- because they may confuse impressionable newbs.

Any clearheaded thinker would agree that you have difficulty answering the million dollar question of why should we choose expensive digital equipment that costs absolut **** to produce over analog equipment that is expensive to produce and gives us real tangible value for our money. You can't answer this so you hide behind intellectually haunting language. And it is not working.

I'm not sure what your experience base is.

I, myself, grew up with (analog) tape recorders, a love affair that began when I was under 5; I did my first 'serious' overdub project when I was 14; in the early 1980s, I went through two commercial music/recording programs and worked on many score projects from classical to jazz to punk to advertising in analog tape studios. I've owned 10 analog reel tape recorders, five of them multi-tracks. (I stopped counting the number of cassette decks I'd owned when it topped 25.)

While I was still in school, I began my continuing involvement with electronic synthesis, initially learning to patch synths on a Moog Model 15 modular synth where you used real patch cords to connect modules (similar to the system used by Wendy Carlos on her seminal Switched on Bach album from the late 60s [when Wendy was still Walter]). I learned to sequence on pre-MIDI voltage controlled sequencers.


Like I said, I don't know what your experience base is, but I really don't need you to tell me anything.

Even if you could.

You are constantly trying to turn this into a me vs you debate but the fact of the matter is...
Here we go again...
Once again in big bold letters so people can see how you are not responding to this:

analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear


My experience and your experience has absolutely nothing to do with this and doesn't change a god damn thing!

The truth is this argument is not is not in any way shape of form related to my or your personal qualities as an engineer and my or your personal experience.

When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digi gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:

''You have no experience.''

When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digital gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:

'' Digital gear has worked for some people''

When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digital gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:

''I used to work analog. I have more experience. I used to do this I used to do that''

All Absolutely irrelevant.

Will you stop blowing smoke up my ass with ''my experience'' and ''your experience'' and the rest of the bull and answer the question.

Do you think expensive digital equipment that costs absolutely **** to make represents greater monetary value in components than expensive analog gear that is costly to produce?

[gabetx26]

I agree with you Careyn. Nobody can dispute the fact that the monetary value of raw materials that go into analog gear will always be greater than that of it's digital software/equipment counterpart. Unless they start distributing software on solid gold disks or start making IC chips out of platinum this will always hold true. I'm not sure why you decided to make this your main point on why analog is great and digital sucks since I doubt anyone would ever dismantle their Fairchild 670 and sell it one component at a time. I would like to think that the monetary value of most analog equipment has more to do with things like craftsmanship, collectability, function, and the ability to make music that sounds good to your ears. In fact the only reason I can think of for you to have reduced your original argument down to the issue of monetary value of raw materials, which is both irrefutable as it is silly, is that you’re not really looking for anyone to present a valid rebuttal but rather you just want to be right.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Careyn

Any clearheaded thinker would agree that you have difficulty answering the million dollar question of why should we choose expensive digital equipment that costs absolut **** to produce over analog equipment that is expensive to produce and gives us real tangible value for our money. You can't answer this so you hide behind intellectually haunting language. And it is not working.



You are constantly trying to turn this into a me vs you debate but the fact of the matter is...
Here we go again...
Once again in big bold letters so people can see how you are not responding to this:

analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear


My experience and your experience has absolutely nothing to do with this and doesn't change a god damn thing!

The truth is this argument is not is not in any way shape of form related to my or your personal qualities as an engineer and my or your personal experience.

When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digi gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:

''You have no experience.''

When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digital gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:

'' Digital gear has worked for some people''

When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digital gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:

''I used to work analog. I have more experience. I used to do this I used to do that''

All Absolutely irrelevant.

Will you stop blowing smoke up my ass with ''my experience'' and ''your experience'' and the rest of the bull and answer the question.

Do you think expensive digital equipment that costs absolutely **** to make represents greater monetary value in components than expensive analog gear that is costly to produce?

I haven't attempted to answer your million dollar question simply because I don't think there is a single proper answer that will fit every situation.

What is of value to me may not be of value to you and vice versa.

Value is, indeed, relative to the value holder and his situation, your peculiar absolutism notwithstanding.

If you want to talk monetary value, that's an interesting discussion to some folks but not particularly to me.

FWIW, I do not spend a lot of money on gear or software these days -- though I've spent what seem to me like enormous amounts in the past on (mostly) hardware.*

I will say that, while you seem to be very attuned to the cost of raw materials in the manufacture of hardware, you seem to miss the very real consideration that a greater cost in the early stages of a hardware product is in the design and development and manufacturing process set up of that product.

Those costs of 'intangibles' parallel in ways both direct and indirect the design and development costs of software products -- which you appear to be hellbent on ignoring.

[And this is an aspect of personal interest to me, because I write software: database and web developing. The work I put in is real work. The product of my efforts manifests in enhanced business productivity (we hope) as well as enhanced product marketing and support (we hope). I haven't engaged on these topics in this thread, however, because this is GearSlutz not an econ or business site and I figure my parochial concerns are just that.]


On the language thing... have you ever seen me attack anyone because they had bad grammar or spelling?

I don't think so.

I should hope that you would afford me the same consideration and respect for my freedom of expression even when I occasionally allow myself the quaintly peculiar luxury of good grammar.


PS... With regard to software vs hardware expenditure:

I don't use expensive plug ins; all my plugs either came with my DAW or were free or shareware. I do pay the extra ~$100 for the add-on package when I update my DAW software. (I'm currently two versions behind.) I've never really felt shortchanged on extras.

In the mid-late 90s, I bought Sound Forge and CD-Architect and I've updated SF twice. Around 1996 or so I bought some compression non-realtime FX (also from Sonic Foundry, now Sony) and used them for a few years before switching to XP and having to leave them behind. Everything else is shareware or freeware.

By contrast, I've spent many tens of thousands of dollars on hardware but 99% of the time all I use is one 88 key piano weighted MIDI controller, my converters, one of my two favorite mics [I hardly even use my '57s anymore now that I realize I actually like my vocal mic, an Oz-made NT1 on my Blues Jr amp], an old ART Dual Levelar (love that thing, can't help myself), and my mixer, which I use for its none-too-glamorous (but to me quite likable) pres and for delivering realtime tracking cues (the one place where digital fails me is in cue mixing -- even a couple ms of latency makes me uncomfortable in some circumstances like tracking solidbody electric D.I. -- basically when there is no appreciable real world acoustic sound to 'cover' the tiny delay).

[Careyn]

Originally Posted by theblue1

I haven't attempted to answer your million dollar question simply because I don't think there is a single proper answer that will fit every situation.

What is of value to me may not be of value to you and vice versa.

Value is, indeed, relative to the value holder and his situation, your peculiar absolutism notwithstanding.

If you want to talk monetary value, that's an interesting discussion to some folks but not particularly to me.

FWIW, I do not spend a lot of money on gear or software these days -- though I've spent what seem to me like enormous amounts in the past on (mostly) hardware.*

I will say that, while you seem to be very attuned to the cost of raw materials in the manufacture of hardware, you seem to miss the very real consideration that a greater cost in the early stages of a hardware product is in the design and development and manufacturing process set up of that product.

Those costs of 'intangibles' parallel in ways both direct and indirect the design and development costs of software products -- which you appear to be hellbent on ignoring.

[And this is an aspect of personal interest to me, because I write software: database and web developing. The work I put in is real work. The product of my efforts manifests in enhanced business productivity (we hope) as well as enhanced product marketing and support (we hope). I haven't engaged on these topics in this thread, however, because this is GearSlutz not an econ or business site and I figure my parochial concerns are just that.]

To be honest, design plays an important part in every product, from electronics to computers and everything else. Is the design by itself it something to be in awe of? No. Because the best design in the world cannot make up for the ridiculous compromises in manufacturing the equipment to be as profitable as possible. That is like... thinking the air in the ballon is enough to make you fly! Sure the air is important but if you take away the ballon and replace it with an imaginary one you are not going to get any where...
You want to impress me, Gearmakers, go all out and build a good piece of gear like they used to and spend real money to make it after you design it. That would work great. You know it and we know it.

On the language thing... have you ever seen me attack anyone because they had bad grammar or spelling?

I don't think so.

I should hope that you would afford me the same consideration and respect for my freedom of expression even when I occasionally allow myself the quaintly peculiar luxury of good grammar.

I said answer my question and tell me why we should use expensive digital gear that doesn't cost much to produce over analog gear that gives us real tangible value instead you piss on my foot and tell me it's raining. Is reading comprehension important to you when you are debating an issue or just flowery language?
You are not impressing anybody or furthering your point when you use vague words with cloudy meanings Blue.
Remember... the more you try to jerk me around, the more I ll just make you look like a ****ing idiot.

[Batchainpuller78]

Careyn I'm all for your analog rant but could you somehow do it without acting so tuff like a 16 year old & have some manners in conversation and word choice.
67 posts as a guest on this forum and mouthing of to long time contributers somehow does not make anybody else but you look like a f*** i****.
besides that go team analog!

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Careyn

To be honest, design plays an important part in every product, from electronics to computers and everything else. Is the design by itself it something to be in awe of? No. Because the best design in the world cannot make up for the ridiculous compromises in manufacturing the equipment to be as profitable as possible. That is like... thinking the air in the ballon is enough to make you fly! Sure the air is important but if you take away the ballon and replace it with an imaginary one you are not going to get any where...
You want to impress me, Gearmakers, go all out and build a good piece of gear like they used to and spend real money to make it after you design it. That would work great. You know it and we know it.




I said answer my question and tell me why we should use expensive digital gear that doesn't cost much to produce over analog gear that gives us real tangible value instead you piss on my foot and tell me it's raining. Is reading comprehension important to you when you are debating an issue or just flowery language?
You are not impressing anybody or furthering your point when you use vague words with cloudy meanings Blue.
Remember... the more you try to jerk me around, the more I ll just make you look like a ****ing idiot.

Oh, I'm not to worried about looking the idiot in this thread.

That said, I'm certainly not trying to jerk you around -- in what way am I trying to jerk you around?

I am a person with a point of view -- but one thing I know in my gut is that there are an infinite number of points of view. And I think much can be gained from looking at any given subject from multiple points of view. It strikes me as simple common sense. (I can be a bit of a stickler on facts and logic, but, unlike so much in our art and craft as music makers and recordists, facts and logic are not subjective, and do not depend on point of view.)


But I'm certainly not trying to tell you or anyone to do things my way.

Do a search on my posts across this forum and I think you'll find a consistent theme in them is that there are many ways to do any given thing and that one set of tools that may fit one craftsman and one task may be wrong for a different task or a different craftsman.

What I am sticking up for is my right to work the way I want to and not be insulted and derided for it. I'd do the same for you.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Careyn

Do you think expensive digital equipment that costs absolutely **** to make represents greater monetary value in components than expensive analog gear that is costly to produce?

Yup. Because there are some high priced pieces of shit in analog world too. It's not shit, but a 670 ain't worth the prices they go for... componentwise OR designwise.

And DESIGN specifies components/software methodology. Poor components implies poor design.

[Careyn]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Oh, I'm not to worried about looking the idiot in this thread.

That said, I'm certainly not trying to jerk you around -- in what way am I trying to jerk you around?

I am a person with a point of view -- but one thing I know in my gut is that there are an infinite number of points of view. And I think much can be gained from looking at any given subject from multiple points of view. It strikes me as simple common sense.

If I say in my point of view Paris is The capital of Spain it doesn't make it right no matter how I try to flower it up. Regardless of whether I have or have not been there.
Points of view can be right or wrong and that is why we argue.

But I'm certainly not trying to tell you or anyone to do things my way.

Do a search on my posts across this forum and I think you'll find a consistent theme in them is that there are many ways to do any given thing and that one set of tools that may fit one craftsman and one task may be wrong for a different task or a different craftsman.

The smoke and mirrors are not really that convincing Blue.

What I am sticking up for is my right to work the way I want to and not be insulted and derided for it. I'd do the same for you.

I am all for you working strictly digital as long as you admit that this technology is inherently, from a production standpoint, inferior and you do not lie to yourself and to others about why this technology came to buy off the recording industry.
They wouldn't make the gear like that if it wasn't so profitable. That's an important piece of the picture

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Careyn

If I say in my point of view Paris is The capital of Spain it doesn't make it right no matter how I try to flower it up. Regardless of whether I have or have not been there.
Points of view can be right or wrong and that is why we argue.



The smoke and mirrors are not really that convincing Blue.



I am all for you working strictly digital as long as you admit that this technology is inherently, from a production standpoint, inferior and you do not lie to yourself and to others about why this technology came to buy off the recording industry.
They wouldn't make the gear like that if it wasn't so profitable. That's an important piece of the picture

You apparently don't know what a point of view is, if you think a point of view can be 'wrong.'

A point of view -- a vantage point -- may well put one at a disadvantage for observing events or objects. It might even make it impossible. Or it may well afford one a superior vantage point for observing specific events or objects.

But a point of view can't be wrong.

See, I can be a stickler for facts and logic. They are crucially important for productive and accurate communication.


Smoke and mirrors, of course, are what magicians and sleight-of-hand artists use to distract observers from where the real action, the real trickery, is. Just what smoke and mirrors am I throwing up here? What trick am I trying to pull? How am I trying to deceive you or others?


Digital technology may well be inferior for your purposes. That's your business, and it doesn't really concern me.

For my purposes, the blend of hardware and software I described above (which is, indeed, pretty long on software considering how I approached things 10 -- or 25 -- years ago) is superior.

I have an entire room of various forms of hardware, and before I sold my old house, I had more than twice as much hardware.

I wouldn't be using all this software if it wasn't producing better results for me.



With regards to why the various music industries have evolved in the manner in which they have -- there is one place where I think the bottom line of your analysis is smack on:

Those companies that make the hardware and the software that we as recordists and musicians use do what they do with an eye to being able to pay employees and overhead, survive as companies, and, hopefully, return some profit to those who funded or built them.

I, personally, don't view that as a threat to me, my way of life, or my music. It's just some people trying to make a living. I even like to throw them a little business when I can.

[Careyn]

Originally Posted by theblue1

You apparently don't know what a point of view is, if you think a point of view can be 'wrong.'

A point of view -- a vantage point -- may well put one at a disadvantage for observing events or objects. It might even make it impossible. Or it may well afford one a superior vantage point for observing specific events or objects.

But a point of view can't be wrong

See, I can be a stickler for facts and logic. They are crucially important for productive and accurate communication

A crucially important fact is the fact that analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear.

This is a fact.

Whether it works for somebody or not or whether it works for a task or not is is an opinion.

This doesn't change the fact that from a production standpoint the digital gear is inferior.
To me to you to everybody. Why? Because there is less money for you and bigger profit for them in the digital box.

Smoke and mirrors, of course, are what magicians and sleight-of-hand artists use to distract observers from where the real action, the real trickery, is. Just what smoke and mirrors am I throwing up here? What trick am I trying to pull? How am I trying to deceive you or others?


Digital technology may well be inferior for your purposes. That's your business, and it doesn't really concern me.

For my purposes, the blend of hardware and software I described above (which is, indeed, pretty long on software considering how I approached things 10 -- or 25 -- years ago) is superior.

I have an entire room of various forms of hardware, and before I sold my old house, I had more than twice as much hardware.

I wouldn't be using all this software if it wasn't producing better results for me.



With regards to why the various music industries have evolved in the manner in which they have -- there is one place where I think the bottom line of your analysis is smack on:

Those companies that make the hardware and the software that we as recordists and musicians use do what they do with an eye to being able to pay employees and overhead, survive as companies, and, hopefully, return some profit to those who funded or built them.

Hiring children for 20 cents a day at sweatshops in the third world to build their cheap digital shit while most of the money goes to the pockets of big corporate fat cats and media fails to inspire any ****ing sympathy to me.
And telling me that they don't get down like that is an insult to my intelligence.
I was not born yesterday.

This BTW is not exclusive to the digital gear or gear in general but most of the good analog gear is made by idealistic people who are not afraid to give us a little bit of value for our dollar and are not treating us a commodities whos purpose is to consume. It is made by people with a long term vision and is made with respect for our money and out studios.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Careyn

A crucially important fact is the fact that analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear.

This is a fact.

If you want to talk resale value, OK.

But if you are saying that analog gear has more real value to me than virtualized tools that attempt to do the same job simply by virtue of the fact that physical raw materials and not just labor went into it -- no, that does not make any sense to me.

As I previously noted, I use some analog gear because it works better for me in the uses I put it to -- but other, virutalized tools I also use for the simple reason that they work best for me in current circumstances. I buy tools to do work. The tool that works best for me in a given circumstance is the tool with the best tangible* value to me.

[*Dictionary.com: "2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine."]

Whether it works for somebody or not or whether it works for a task or not is is an opinion.

This doesn't change the fact that from a production standpoint the digital gear is inferior.
To me to you to everybody. Why? Because there is less money for you and bigger profit for them in the digital box.

Sorry, you're trying to tell me what is valuable to me, again.

Face it, that's just going to be an uphill battle.

And -- again -- if hardware worked better for me, I would be using much more of the room full of hardware I already have. I could, time-based FX aside, set up an entire, small, all analog 4 track project studio out of what I already own and have right here (complete with analog synthesis). And if I felt like going cross town to haul back my old 8 track 1/2" that I gave to my buddy and which has served as window dressing in his PT room for the last 5 years, I could have some big if not necessarily powerful or elegant iron.

No, I use what I use because it works for me. It has value to me.

But, I'm not sure why you keep going on about costs -- mine are minimal at this point: I run a refurbed P4 box that cost me $404 3 years ago (incl tax & shipping), a few extra HDDs, another GB of RAM, a decent monitor, DAW software I bought in 1997 and upgraded sometimes and skipped upgrades on sometimes, and plugs and VIs that either came with the DAW upgrades or shareware/freeware.

(It's also the machine I use for my dayjob. As well as for editing video.)

Hiring children for 20 cents a day at sweatshops in the third world to build their cheap digital shit while most of the money goes to the pockets of big corporate fat cats and media fails to inspire any ****ing sympathy to me.
And telling me that they don't get down like that is an insult to my intelligence.
I was not born yesterday.

This BTW is not exclusive to the digital gear or gear in general but most of the good analog gear is made by idealistic people who are not afraid to give us a little bit of value for our dollar and are not treating us a commodities whos purpose is to consume. It is made by people with a long term vision and is made with respect for our money and out studios.

Sweatshops are bad and I do what I can to avoid products that are made in them.

I don't wear designer sweat shop clothes. I try to buy local. In the 90s, most of the hardware I bought -- more than a bit of it digital, since I moved to an ADAT studio when they first came out around the start of '93 -- was made in the good ol' USA -- although the origin of electronic parts, I know, having worked for a small US electronics manufacturer, myself, is often suspect. Certainly, one can somewhat avoid that if he's got the kind of money required to buy gear made with wildly expensive, boutique components.

That said, the maker of my current two computers (I also have a laptop for business), Dell, has actively campained against sweat shops, as noted in this BusinessWeek article on sweat shops.

And, not only is my gear footprint low, with one ~6 year old laptop and one 3 year old, $400 computer, which support not just my vocation, but my avocation (recording, which I am still very active in, though I no longer take clients; my podcasts alone have been DL'd over 300K times; that's potentially pretty good reach for music made on a $400 computer, huh?) as well as my entertainment (my computer is my entertainment center, such as it is), my total carbon footprint is very low, addionally -- since in addition to virtualized tools -- my commute is also vitrualized.


Look, I get the sense that you are not enjoying this dialog. Obviously, people are breaking into it -- from the moan zone -- to comment that it sucks. It's pretty much down to you and me.

My only 'goal' here is to disabuse anyone of the idea that I am either a shill or a dupe, beyond that, I have no agenda.

But, since you're pretty much the only one left -- and I'm pretty convinced that arguing with you any further is a fool's errand, even with my limited goal in mind, I'm going to bow out of this thread and allow you to potentially have the last word.

Go for it...

[u b k]

Okay, here's the god's-honest truth: I resonate with lot of what OP said in his initial, admittedly inflammatory post. I don't feel the same energy he seems to in response to these observations, but a part of me feels respect for his claims that there's a big white elephant in the room that very few people are willing to discuss, let alone admit the possiblity of.

I view digital as an emerging technology; 10 years ago I'd have said it's still in its infancy, but at this point I'm fairly sure it's either in adolescence or just beyond. I think it has made promises it has yet to deliver on, but I have no reason to doubt that it'll eventually make good on them. But we're a ways off in some areas, imho.

My solution, though, is not to rant or to discourage people from pursuing their own personal path. Instead my response is to hone my own ears and skill for design and take what I'm learning into the world of DSP to see if I can't do my part to imbue it with more of the qualities that I love about analog while mitigating those qualities that I don't.

My gut tells me that part of what DSP currently lacks is simply raw numbers of golden ears working on its behalf, as so many of the most talented designers still seem to focus exclusively on analog hardware. But I figure the first and most critical step in sorting out the shortcomings of digital are hearing them in the first place, and if I can do that, surely there's gotta be a way to fix them.

Wish me luck.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[Happy Musicfan]

Dynamic range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From wikipedia's dynamic range entry : -------


The 16-bit Compact Disc has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB[5] (or about 98 dB for sinusoidal signals, per the formula[4]). Digital audio with 20-bit digitization is theoretically capable of 120 dB dynamic range; similarly, 24-bit digital audio calculates to 144 dB dynamic range.[2] All digital audio recording and playback chains include input and output converters and associated analog circuitry, significantly limiting practical dynamic range. Observed 16-bit digital audio dynamic range is about 90 dB.[5] Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[2] Multiple noise processes determine the noise floor of a system. Noise can be picked up from microphone self-noise, preamp noise, wiring and interconnection noise, media noise, etc. Early 78 rpm phonograph discs had a dynamic range of up to 40 dB,[6] soon reduced to 30 dB and worse due to wear from repeated play. German magnetic tape in 1941 was reported to have had a dynamic range of 60 dB,[7] though modern day restoration experts of such tapes note 45-50 dB as the observed dynamic range.[8] Ampex tape recorders in the 1950s achieved 60 dB in practical usage,[7] though tape formulations such as Scotch 111 boasted 68 dB dynamic range.[9] In the 1960s, improvements in tape formulation processes resulted in 7 dB greater range,[9] and Ray Dolby developed the Dolby A-Type noise reduction system that increased low- and mid-frequency dynamic range on magnetic tape by 10 dB, and high-frequency by 15 dB, using companding (compression and expansion) of four frequency bands.[10] The peak of professional analog magnetic recording tape technology reached 90 dB dynamic range in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion, or about 80 dB in practical broadband applications.[9] The Dolby SR noise reduction system gave a 20 dB further increased range resulting in 110 dB in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion.[11] Compact Cassette tape performance ranges from 50 to 56 dB depending on tape formulation, with Metal Type IV tapes giving the greatest dynamic range, and systems such as XDR, dbx and Dolby noise reduction system increasing it further. Specialized bias and record head improvements by Nakamichi and Tandberg combined with Dolby C noise reduction yielded 72 dB dynamic range for the cassette. Vinyl microgroove phonograph records typically yield 55-65 dB, though the first play of the higher-fidelity outer rings can achieve a dynamic range of 70 dB.[12] The rugged elements of moving-coil microphones can have a dynamic range of up to 140 dB (at increased distortion), while condenser microphones are limited by the overloading of their associated electronic circuitry.[2] Practical considerations of acceptable distortion levels in microphones combined with typical practices in a recording studio result in a useful operating range of 125 dB.[13] --- In 1981, researchers at Ampex determined that a dynamic range of 118 dB on a dithered digital audio stream was necessary for subjective noise-free playback of music in quiet listening environments.[14] --- Since the early 1990s, it has been recommended by several authorities, including the Audio Engineering Society, that measurements of dynamic range be made with an audio signal present, which is then filtered out to get the noise floor.[15] This avoids questionable measurements based on the use of blank media, or muting circuits. ----------






Here are some things the digital audio age has going against it :



* 1) The most creative/innovative era of rock and it's genre-branches was in the non-digital 60's, 70's and 80's. -


** 2) The common features of the main phase of the digital era were 16bit resolution, and the smiley eq (extreme bass freqs and extreme treble freqs boosted unnaturally). --


*** 3) Ironically, as society became more hectic and stressed, the perpetual & mandatory compression wars started (it's time for a peace treaty). ---


**** 4) Bands/Singers/Artists in the digital era are usually founded and funded to replicate previously fruitful music/image/dance/marketing formulas, with much less artistic progressivity required and allowed.... this leads to more mechanical and predictable sounds. ----


***** 5) Many modern artists can't (or won't) play an organic whole note (like plucking an open acoustic guitar string & letting it ring for 4 beats). Without organic notes, based on instrumental wood resonance and sonority, the original and ultimate manifestation of warmth doesn't exist. -----


****** 6) The subtle, ambient natural distortion (via tubes or tape) referred to in the wiki article is paradoxically PLEASING to the ear. The only type of distortion the digital audio era gives us is the harsh clipping effect - truly abrasive and annoying. ------


CONCLUSION : The digital age should now try to capture organic instrumental warmth in a nice, padded warm room with a flat/neutral recording system with the 24-bit standard. Employ some of the sweet reverb sounds from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Throw in some Tritone Colortone Pro and / or Antress Modern Analoger. Let the artist invent and explore, take risks. Capture their natural vocal nuances. Stop the compression wars. Allow more dynamics, more melody, complex chord patterns, intricate & agile rhythms......... let digital be warm and musical.

[Darth Preamp]

Originally Posted by Careyn

most of the good analog gear is made by idealistic people who are not afraid to give us a little bit of value for our dollar and are not treating us a commodities whos purpose is to consume. It is made by people with a long term vision and is made with respect for our money and out studios.

That's simply not true! Much of the good - great analog gear is manufactured, at least the components are, in China, in less than ideal conditions.
So either you are simply ignorant of the market for analog gear, or you are talking about a very specific, and small group of manufacturers, in which case, could you be more specific? Which manufacturers don't use slave labor? As a moral person, hopefully, I would really like to know?
Also, really, why the insults? They detract from your ability to share and or convince others of what you deem to be true, and ruin what could be a very interesting discussion about the nature of digital vs analog and their perceived or real value. And if you don't want to convince others, why did you start this thread to begin with?

DP

[Duardo]

I apologize for responding to posts from all over this thread at once...but I honestly though that this was a thread I'd responded to months ago and didn't bother looking at it until today.

I am disgusted by all the hype surrounding new DSP ''innovations'' with usb connections that get marketed in magazines and sell for $3000 only to lose %80 of their value and go out of fashion in a few years to be replaced by whatever gimmick they put out this year.

I'm not aware of any USB audio device that costs anywhere close to $3000...

I am tired of plugins that cost absolute sh!t to reproduce costing $1000.

There are plenty of good plugins that cost quite a bit less than $1000, and probably plenty that cost $1000 that are overpriced. But there are also some great plugins that are quite expensive.

Emulators emulating emulations that fall short.

Be honest here...you just said that because it sounds cool, right?

When I buy a piece of gear the first thing I ask my self is how much money did the company spend to produce this. I am not talking about research. I am simply talking about components. The purchasing decision is based strictly on that.

If this is true, then you're certainly overlooking a lot, even if you only buy hardware. Doesn't it matter what the gear sounds like? There are plenty of poorly-designed boxes out there with expensive components in them. By your argument, then, they are better than a cheaper, well-designed (and better-sounding) box?

Insane for telling people to buy gear with actual components that cost money instead of buying software in a box bade in china? Is that so crazy?

Are most software boxes made in China?

More and more software isn't coming in boxes at all.

If you think of synthesizers as keyboards trying to reproduce the sound of real instruments you are missing the point of what synthesizers are about.

Actually, that's exactly what synthesizers are all about, or were at first...

I know that there are endless possibilities in the computer and great emulators emulating emulations but I am just not that open minded like that.

What do you think that the Eventide and Lexcion boxes you claimed you'd like to have in your studio are?

Digital does suck. I am disappointed there are so many internet bullies trying to make this a witch hunt with some mob justice thrown in.

I have been disappointed with digital sound so many times.
I kind of wish I hadn't bought a computer and endless frikkin upgrades just to hear good sound and touch real faders.

I now have Mac/Logic annd a Logic control. But I have to upgrade my m-audio converters to Lynx Aurora 16 cause these ones suck the life out of my beats.

So, you're not saying that digital sucks...just that [i]cheap]/i] digital sucks, right?

Either bring a valid argument to the table about why I should choose to buy digi-gear and invest my hard earned money into putting some rich fatcats kids through college over gear that gives me actual tangible components or shut up already.

You're making music, right? And the music you're making doesn't have any tangible components, does it? So if the digital gear you're looking at does a better job than an analog piece, making your music better, is that not a valid argument?

I guess I am not the only person to misspell the word lose but on a more serious note analog is better because it costs more money to produce and customers get a lot more tangible value for their money. This is the point I am stressing. I have yet to hear a valid argument from the opposing members.

I would take most $500 digital compressors over most $500 analog compressors on the market any day. Especially considering how you can use that $500 compressor on pretty much as many tracks as you want to.

Don't get me wrong, I own some fairly expensive analog gear that I don't know of a digital replacement for. But I also have some plugins that I use a lot that have their place as well.

And the undisputed fact you are constantly trying to divert attention from on your witch-hunt is that analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear.

I would say that if a piece of software helps generate more income than a piece that has components, then it's offering more value to a musician or studio owner.

It may not be "tangible" value, but who cares? Value is value. And in most cases I'd say income is tangible.

They wouldn't make the gear like that if it wasn't so profitable. That's an important piece of the picture

Another important part of the picture is that people wouldn't buy it if they didn't like it...or if it didn't work.

[soundeziner]

I only read the first and last page but that was all that was needed to see this whole thread is a continuous case of Argument FAIL

You are implying designers of physical gear care more about and/or invest more in their creation than the designers of software products. I think Steve Massey and his peers would strongly disagree.

I own an extensive synth collection. Replacement parts aren't exactly readily available. Every year I painfully see these wonders lose a portion of their resale value (even the ones that are fully functional) just like all the 2" machines on the market. SOME older gear out there holds its value. A VERY VERY small percentage.

SOME analog gear is better than the digital equivalent but not all. If you can't make something sound decent with the abundance of digital tools out there you either aren't trying or you suck. "All digital is bad"... Really, you're that lost and closed minded?

[Batchainpuller78]

What this thread halted???

Soundeziner, yes yes, but anyhow i'll bet you people will be paying me more money in 10 years for my Rhodes, Clavinet, Hammond, Real Piano, Minimoog, VP-330 Vocoder etc... Outboard hardware than any software emulator or whatnot I can buy now.

When digital first entered, some guys sold their stuff for peanuts there are 80's secondhandlists around where you could get a La2a or a CL1B for 300 dollar.
the stuff they bought back then to replace that gear with isn't worth shit now, and low and behold what do we pay now for a La2a or anything in that category.
Ok a bit of fashion is in there, but still I think it will remain this way for a good more years to come.
and if not, i'll be happy buying that stuff at those dump prices again and have real knobs to fiddle with instead of mousing around behind a screen.
for me it's also the quality of a day, i'm already to much behind a computer screen.
when making music I want to sit behind speakers and have buttons and knobs that go on or off or more or less this way mixing stays a performance and is much more intuitive.
Okay I don't do commercial or ad work and actually I'd prefer to keep it that way.
I can pro tools with my eyes closed, shortcutting and clicking at great speed, but it is not my preferred medium of choice.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Happy Musicfan

Here are some things the digital audio age has going against it :



* 1) The most creative/innovative era of rock and it's genre-branches was in the non-digital 60's, 70's and 80's. -


** 2) The common features of the main phase of the digital era were 16bit resolution, and the smiley eq (extreme bass freqs and extreme treble freqs boosted unnaturally). --


*** 3) Ironically, as society became more hectic and stressed, the perpetual & mandatory compression wars started (it's time for a peace treaty). ---


**** 4) Bands/Singers/Artists in the digital era are usually founded and funded to replicate previously fruitful music/image/dance/marketing formulas, with much less artistic progressivity required and allowed.... this leads to more mechanical and predictable sounds. ----


***** 5) Many modern artists can't (or won't) play an organic whole note (like plucking an open acoustic guitar string & letting it ring for 4 beats). Without organic notes, based on instrumental wood resonance and sonority, the original and ultimate manifestation of warmth doesn't exist. -----


****** 6) The subtle, ambient natural distortion (via tubes or tape) referred to in the wiki article is paradoxically PLEASING to the ear. The only type of distortion the digital audio era gives us is the harsh clipping effect - truly abrasive and annoying. ------


CONCLUSION : The digital age should now try to capture organic instrumental warmth in a nice, padded warm room with a flat/neutral recording system with the 24-bit standard. Employ some of the sweet reverb sounds from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Throw in some Tritone Colortone Pro and / or Antress Modern Analoger. Let the artist invent and explore, take risks. Capture their natural vocal nuances. Stop the compression wars. Allow more dynamics, more melody, complex chord patterns, intricate & agile rhythms......... let digital be warm and musical.

I agree with all the points you made about digital. I'm 32 and have a burned in righteous arrogance towards a lot of music productions since I discovered and loved the sound of breakbeats that hip hop started sampling in the 80's. Man they sounded so other worldly. Maybe it was the looping that contributed to the freshness of the sound.

But they had a gritty fatness that causes people to go and search mostly the late 60's and 70's. Yep rock and roll etc. I am a huge listener of Jamaican recordings and the 70's is really cool.

Fill me up!

I giggled when I read your statement that a plucked string in air is the ultimate in warmth. Can't really argue ha ha.

I take particular interest in ubk's postings and illacov because they express opinions I enjoy and agree with and learn from.

I am still chasing the fat hip hop sound of the late 80's early 90's. And the rootsy warmth of 70's Jamaica.

I've got the hip hop beats nice like Pete Rock but as soon as I pipe them into my M-Audio sound card it loses way too much. Live monitoring through my analogue mixer is in the room and thumping. Through the sound cards 14 inputs it goes flat and distant. Very bad.

Should I follow my research info and buy an Aurora 16 sound card and then sum out of the computer through a Nicerizer 16 to an Otari MX5050 2 track tape machine.

All this for mix recall and automation. Or should I save $20K New Zealand dollars and just mix on my Mackie 1604vlz and bounce through an Apogee Duet?

Will the Aurora 16 still rob alot from the audio? I hope not. But so far digital has kept me struggling and not making music because of the false promises of plug in effects that don't sound good and what ever is killing the sound when it goes into the computer.
I want to send from the sound card to a spring reverb, tape delay and mutron bi phase that are all piped into the summing unit. Yea everything is recallableish and autmatableish.
But just like HappyMusicFan said, recording into good converters using real reverbs. He's kind of summed up my concusions. Because impulse responses of spring reverbs sound like a joke. They are a sonically predictable pattern that get's really annoying and sound stink. That's not gonna get me closer to Lee Scratch Perry of King Tubby's sound. And I wanna process heaps of tracks through the tape machine. UBK, will it work?

I can spend money. I just need this solved quick so I can live a healthier more productive life.



I need to Private message illacov and ubk.

My email is reubennz@live.com

Peace yall.

[akai96]

[QUOTE=Roman;4364372]



Should I follow my research info and buy an Aurora 16 sound card and then sum out of the computer through a Nicerizer 16 to an Otari MX5050 2 track tape machine.

All this for mix recall and automation. Or should I save $20K New Zealand dollars and just mix on my Mackie 1604vlz and bounce through an Apogee Duet?

Will the Aurora 16 still rob alot from the audio? I hope not. But so far digital has kept me struggling and not making music because of the false promises of plug in effects that don't sound good and what ever is killing the sound when it goes into the computer.
I want to send from the sound card to a spring reverb, tape delay and mutron bi phase that are all piped into the summing unit. Yea everything is recallableish and autmatableish.

hey,you could track through a mixer that has spdif or adat out,that also gives you a sound you like,and Eq them the way you want before it goes back into protools.
I have tried tracking VI's,hardware synths,mpc's direct-in and it does loose it's punch,no matter what daw.....well having better convertors does help also.Anyways I have tried even tracking my VI's through my yamaha 02r and the difference is incredible!
As long as it's digital out from your board(console)to digital in your daw via M-box as you stated, you basically are getting the same sound from your board! hope this helps you out a bit.

[SOLOKJN]

What a idiot this guy is telling everyone to pretty much throw away every modern pro keyboard, and sampler they own...WOW!!!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Roman

And I wanna process heaps of tracks through the tape machine.

You need dirt. Are your source tracks dirty? Unless they're downright filthy, an Aurora/Nicer combo is only gonna give you a big, warm, clear sound.

You have to go way outside the box for what you're after... literally. Get an mpc, a rack of old akai samplers, a 70's/early80's pa or semi-pro mixer, crapass effects from the 70's and early 80's, old stereo gear, tape decks, equalizers from 60's-70's home hi-fi. Get dirty compressors like old ashly's, dynamites, anything that looks like it lived in a p.a. 30 years ago. Semi-pro gear from back then has the color, grit, and grime in spades. Old, old, old, can't stress it enough. Hit this gear hard, be merciless, find where it begins to break up, work that sweet spot, hear the harmonics bloom. Layer the filth.

If you can swing it, if you can muster the will to be guerilla creative and force yourself to work with a lot of 'limitations', I say try ditching the computer altogether and make it happen strictly in analog. Mix off of your samplers, keys, and mpc, thru a dirty little mixer, and mix to tape, preferably a ratty home stereo open reel deck from the same era as the other stuff I'm recommending. Once a sound is digitized it changes, something goes away that never comes back, and I say this as a guy with $5000 invested in 4 channels of a/d. Delay that step as long as humanly possible.

The path is crazy rewarding, I promise you that. Staring at a computer screen manipulating dozens of plugins isn't remotely the same thing. There is a realness here, and while you may or may not recreate the specific sounds you're reaching for, you will have the organic experience of the music that is much more in line with that of the artists you look up to, and this will dramatically shape the music itself in ways that were not previously available to you.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[Batchainpuller78]

Jawohl UBK!

for a lesson in vibe and tape
YouTube - The Heptones-Play on Mr Music

and those that handled tape in a most amazing way!
YouTube - The Alchemists of Sound (Part 1)
YouTube - The Alchemists of Sound (Part 2)
YouTube - The Alchemists of Sound (Part 3)
YouTube - The Alchemsts of Sound (Part 4)
YouTube - The Alchemists of Sound (Part 5)

[lowfreq33]

OK, time out.

Use what you like.

Don't worry about what other people like.

Get over yourself.

That is all.

[EstateMatt]

I think van gogh was a dick for using a paint brush. I use my cock to paint and it's a ton better. I'm GONNA YELL AND SCREAM ABOUT IT. YOUR ALL ASS HOLES RUINING MY LITTLE WORLD!!!!!!!

[Sqye]

.

biting the hand that feeds you, eh?


the ironic thing is - without digital, this thread wouldn't exist...



...someone here must have pointed this out already

.

[Justice]

A Man to the post!!!!

I'm not a fool....

Viva La Analog!!!!

[Coldbricks]

I have nothing to add really, but I just wanted to say...

Does anyone else find this ironic that this is a thread post? On an internet website?

Digital? who needs it!!

[hipass]

Originally Posted by Careyn

A crucially important fact is the fact that analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear.

This is a fact.

Whether it works for somebody or not or whether it works for a task or not is is an opinion.

This doesn't change the fact that from a production standpoint the digital gear is inferior.
To me to you to everybody. Why? Because there is less money for you and bigger profit for them in the digital box.



Hiring children for 20 cents a day at sweatshops in the third world to build their cheap digital shit while most of the money goes to the pockets of big corporate fat cats and media fails to inspire any ****ing sympathy to me.
And telling me that they don't get down like that is an insult to my intelligence.
I was not born yesterday.

This BTW is not exclusive to the digital gear or gear in general but most of the good analog gear is made by idealistic people who are not afraid to give us a little bit of value for our dollar and are not treating us a commodities whos purpose is to consume. It is made by people with a long term vision and is made with respect for our money and out studios.

Then how do explain why guys like Mutt Lange use Protools...