Pro Tools vs. Analog Mixing (video)

[Sampire]

[MichaelAngelo]

Originally Posted by Sampire

Don't believe the hype.. Voltage is voltage.. bits are bits... both will get you to a place.. but why do we keep wanting there to be little or no difference..

Many miss the way... this business is about ART.. not just science..

Of course you can make a hit on a mbox.. It will also sound like a hit done on a mbox...

You can always use a 2012 les paul, instead of a 1958 les paul.. as a matter of fact, so much infomation is lost on most digital systems.. I bet most people would not even be able to tell the difference between a vintage GTR or a modern one..on a DAW setup...

So lets just use all cheap stuff and just throw the CD's away after a few listens

[Sampire]

so dudes in this video are either just tripping out or lying?

are you sure that you're not buying into a hype?

not saying I know one way or the other. Just curious.

discuss.

[JoRillo]

Originally Posted by Sampire

so dudes in this video are either just tripping out or lying?

are you sure that you're not buying into a hype?

not saying I know one way or the other. Just curious.

discuss.

Digital is the perfect version of audio - it is accurate and clean as can be (if done correctly). The problem is that people are so use to the distortion and unique sound of analog that we work backwards to achieve a sound characteristic of our past. Which one do you like more - that is the only hype you can buy into.

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

Digital is the perfect version of audio - it is accurate and clean as can be (if done correctly). The problem is that people are so use to the distortion and unique sound of analog that we work backwards to achieve a sound characteristic of our past. Which one do you like more - that is the only hype you can buy into.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. It's not perfect or accurate in all cases, even when done correctly. What it is - is totally accurate to itself. If you power off your computer then turn it back on or run the same signal through the same chain twice, you will get the same results.

Then there's the idea that perfect isn't really a real concept. For example, when you clip inside the digital world, you end up with flat square wave distortion. When you clip in the analog world you end up with modified square wave distortion. Which is better? Well, most of the time I think the latter sounds much better.


Overall, I try not to compare digital to analog though. I just look at my favorite pieces. Most of my favorite pieces are hardware, some of my favorite pieces are software.

[Phizal]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

Digital is the perfect version of audio.

Maybe how you hear it in clarity, but as if now, analog captures audio more accurately. Accurately as in it's true form.

[JoRillo]

Maybe I overstepped by bounds on what to say - *correct me if I am wrong* aren't we capable with digital, not necessarily practical or probable in most cases, to record a perfect signal to what is being recorded? I understand that there will always be a round off at the end in digital, so never perfect, but so conceivably close that the final round off doesn't matter?

This is assuming you had top of the line converters, and a good chain of coarse - maybe I was lied to - but I have been told more then one time that digital is capable of perfect, the human ear just likes distortion so we cling to analog.

Is that just BS?

[Retrofreak]

imperfection is perfection for me.

Analog>>>Digital

[Dayl]

Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo

Don't believe the hype.. Voltage is voltage.. bits are bits... both will get you to a place.. but why do we keep wanting there to be little or no difference..

Many miss the way... this business is about ART.. not just science..

Of course you can make a hit on a mbox.. It will also sound like a hit done on a mbox...

You can always use a 2012 les paul, instead of a 1958 les paul.. as a matter of fact, so much infomation is lost on most digital systems.. I bet most people would not even be able to tell the difference between a vintage GTR or a modern one..on a DAW setup...

So lets just use all cheap stuff and just throw the CD's away after a few listens

Hahaha PREACH!

Sent from my Nexus One using Gearslutz.com

[Oatbunches]

Originally Posted by Phizal

Maybe how you hear it in clarity, but as if now, analog captures audio more accurately. Accurately as in it's true form.

What about the distortion caused by transients and the existence of harmonic excitation in many analog circuits? This distortion is not part of the original waveform and is the reason why Analog has it's 'warm' character. This imperfect sound which incidentally is pleasing to the ear is what is sought after. Digital is accurate.

The Analog vs. Digital debate is purely a matter of taste, a dash of e-penis measuring, and a sparkle of fanboism.
Apple vs. Android
Xbox vs. PS
Need I continue?

[Phizal]

Originally Posted by Oatbunches

What about the distortion caused by transients and the existence of harmonic excitation in many analog circuits? This distortion is not part of the original waveform and is the reason why Analog has it's 'warm' character. This imperfect sound which incidentally is pleasing to the ear is what is sought after. Digital is accurate. I mean, this is what the whole Analog vs. Digital thing is about. Digital is TOO accurate.

It's not hard to look at a wave form between digital and analog and see which one is more accurate. We are talking about two different meanings of accurate. Yes, I agree Digital is more accurate in the context of being stable in time algorithms, but analog represents all the frequencies in it's natural form.
If it was possible to strip away all the bull crap like distortion and everything in between when audio comes in, I believe you would hear audio as clear as anything that digital could reproduce. I believe our tolerance in listening in digital is not as high as in analog because our ears have to work to fill in the missing data that digital does not record. Just by nature digital can not capture the nuances and frequencies of all the data from analog sound. The code would have to be infinite while analog already is. Again, depending on our interpretation of what the context of accurate is.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

Maybe I overstepped by bounds on what to say - *correct me if I am wrong* aren't we capable with digital, not necessarily practical or probable in most cases, to record a perfect signal to what is being recorded? I understand that there will always be a round off at the end in digital, so never perfect, but so conceivably close that the final round off doesn't matter?

This is assuming you had top of the line converters, and a good chain of coarse - maybe I was lied to - but I have been told more then one time that digital is capable of perfect, the human ear just likes distortion so we cling to analog.

Is that just BS?

No, your not.. It's the fact that digital simulates these distortion representations in a different way is what sounds a little un-natural. Technically digital is far superior to analogue, not only can some test scenario's reach from 1 - 100,000Khz it can be done well above a million samples per second.

This is all pointless as the human ear can reach 20K..

Issue is, digital has to be approached in a completely separate scenario. A hard disk won't roll of the high's like tape will, component's do not suffer wear like tape. Flutter and WOW are irrelevant, there is nothing to dirty the signal... It's like asking a 10 year old, would you like some chocolate or a carrot, we know in terms of health which would be the better choice. But it doesn't mean it's the preferential one.

I honestly believe, we don't like transparent and we don't like signals being too clean.. Especially with close mic'ing, it adds to a more artificial sound, in the real world we have real reverberations, decay from signal paths.. Vibrations, standing waves... etc. etc.

In music we are told to remove this from the equation, but nothing feels or sounds like a firework in the sky.. Or the sound of actual rain.

I know this is a rant, but it's perception and how you use this perception to your advantage..

One in my regards is better or worse than the other, the person's goal dictates that.

[Oatbunches]

Originally Posted by Phizal

The code would have to be infinite .

Very true, context has everything to do with this 'accuracy'. However, there would never be any practical reason to have an 'infinitely precise' algorithm for A/D conversion simply because the human ear has absolute thresholds of hearing for amplitude, frequency, etc. But even if we didn't have these absolute thresholds, it would be just a matter of waiting on technological advancement for the mass distribution of higher resolution media.

[Storyville]

This is a great topic cleverly disguised as a repeat topic!

To understand perfect, ya gotta step back from digital and analog entirely. What's accurate is the sound in the room. Not just the sound, but the feeling of the air moving and the psychology of our own ears selectively working the sound.

Recordings are a huge leap away from accurate to the sound as it's performed in the room. And even sound aside, there's also the feel of it. So accurate and perfect can mean very different things - accurate to sound or accurate to energy?

If a mic was built with an extended top end to sound more accurate to the source on tape - is tape or digital more accurate?

That said, the digital medium still has inaccuracies. One for example is with compression. There are many software compressors where no matter how fast you set the attack, there's still a click in the front of the signal, like it can't grab the very head of the attack. Don't seem to have that problem so much in the analog world. Another example is with EQ. Why is there phase distortion in digital plugins? Well, the digital plugins are using time-delay "circuitry" like analog eqs. Why are they doing that - it's digital - why not just calculate the frequencies and mathematically remove them. That's what FFT equalization does, and it sounds really weird - because it's difficult to accurately calculate a continuous signal on an digital level - works well for noise reduction, but it's trickier when you are trying to break down multi-variable sine waves.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by Storyville

This is a great topic cleverly disguised as a repeat topic!

To understand perfect, ya gotta step back from digital and analog entirely. What's accurate is the sound in the room. Not just the sound, but the feeling of the air moving and the psychology of our own ears selectively working the sound.

Recordings are a huge leap away from accurate to the sound as it's performed in the room. And even sound aside, there's also the feel of it. So accurate and perfect can mean very different things - accurate to sound or accurate to energy?

If a mic was built with an extended top end to sound more accurate to the source on tape - is tape or digital more accurate?

That said, the digital medium still has inaccuracies. One for example is with compression. There are many software compressors where no matter how fast you set the attack, there's still a click in the front of the signal, like it can't grab the very head of the attack. Don't seem to have that problem so much in the analog world. Another example is with EQ. Why is there phase distortion in digital plugins? Well, the digital plugins are using time-delay "circuitry" like analog eqs. Why are they doing that - it's digital - why not just calculate the frequencies and mathematically remove them. That's what FFT equalization does, and it sounds really weird - because it's difficult to accurately calculate a continuous signal on an digital level - works well for noise reduction, but it's trickier when you are trying to break down multi-variable sine waves.

I actually learnt something from that, I wondered why FFT sounded weird when using it as a HPF / LPF.. Kudos.

[KT1]

Originally Posted by Retrofreak

imperfection is perfection for me.

Analog>>>Digital

THis thread should have stopped here

[Gax]

Mixing ITB is torture for me.

Mainly because of workflow:
Do one operation at the time, click, click, click, stare at screen, its not constructive for me at all. And whole point is to make ITB mix sound alike something that was done OTB.

Tho marketing behind plugins is brilliant, make eye-candy GUIs and sell fog to people that this new game changing plugin will make their music better and sell more because emulated hardware now available as plugin was used on countless of multi platinum classic songs.

[JoRillo]

I never understood why people like to mimic analog outboard with plug ins when they could just focus their energy on making a great new digital plug in

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

I never understood why people like to mimic analog outboard with plug ins when they could just focus their energy on making a great new digital plug in

+1000, some synth's you can buy sound superhuman.. Amazing depth and clarity!! Why? Because they haven't spent 99.9% of there time figuring out how something else works and just made something that sounds amazing.

[Smithcok]

Originally Posted by Phizal

It's not hard to look at a wave form between digital and analog and see which one is more accurate.

I think you have some misunderstandings about the fundamentals of digital audio. Additionally, analog has plenty of its own inherent shortcomings in terms of accuracy.

Originally Posted by Phizal

because our ears have to work to fill in the missing data that digital does not record. Just by nature digital can not capture the nuances and frequencies of all the data from analog sound. The code would have to be infinite while analog already is. Again, depending on our interpretation of what the context of accurate is.

The dynamic range of today's digital signals far exceeds that of analog tape, our ears only 'hear' up to ~20kHz, and based on prinicples of digital sampling - the "code would" not "have to be infinite".

I'm not here to debate which is 'better' (whatever that word means), but you are propping up quite a few straw men.

[KT1]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

I never understood why people like to mimic analog outboard with plug ins when they could just focus their energy on making a great new digital plug in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrofreak
imperfection is perfection for me.

Analog>>>Digital

THis thread should have stopped here

[JoRillo]

Originally Posted by KT1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrofreak
imperfection is perfection for me.

Analog>>>Digital

THis thread should have stopped here

I respectfully disagree. That's like having two sons age 12 and 34 who both play football and saying Older son > Younger son.

Give the kid a chance to grow up before you try to judge his ability's on the field.

I do agree sonically that right now analog is still in a better spot then digital, but give it some time, opinions will change.

It seems more then one person wants this thread to die - so I'll just leave it at that. I don't know why you guys want this thread to die though, seems useful for a lot of people to be able to read.

[KT1]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

I respectfully disagree. That's like having two sons age 12 and 34 who both play football and saying Older son > Younger son.

Give the kid a chance to grow up before you try to judge his ability's on the field.

I do agree sonically that right now analog is still in a better spot then digital, but give it some time, opinions will change.

It seems more then one person wants this thread to die - so I'll just leave it at that. I don't know why you guys want this thread to die though, seems useful for a lot of people to be able to read.

I love your attempts at analergies and sometimes i totally dig them..but this is one of those i dont. You're implying give digital a time to grow. It's irrelevant. Your question was why do software companies try and replicate analogue. My response , was in good humour of course as it is opinion, was in relation to that question .

Reason is because the thread is just another analogue vs Digital debate which is still a very subjective matter despite all the facts. You know my opinion

[JoRillo]

Originally Posted by KT1

I love your attempts at analergies and sometimes i totally dig them..but this is one of those i dont. You're implying give digital a time to grow. It's irrelevant. Your question was why do software companies try and replicate analogue. My response , was in good humour of course as it is opinion, was in relation to that question .

Reason is because the thread is just another analogue vs Digital debate which is still a very subjective matter despite all the facts. You know my opinion

You know how long it took analog to get the way it sounds? I think that time is totally relevant. Digital is still in its infant stages, there is endless potential that hasn't even been thought of yet. The digital revolution has been nothing but trying to replicate the past rather then push towards the future. Rather then investing in programs to design amazing things, they have been feeding sound waves threw analog gear and trying to replicate it into the digital world.

I don't feel like there was an argument of which sounds better, we were talking about facts on which is capable of the most accurate recording.

But I understand, so lets let this thing burn.

[KT1]

Originally Posted by JoRillo

You know how long it took analog to get the way it sounds? I think that time is totally relevant. Digital is still in its infant stages, there is endless potential that hasn't even been thought of yet. The digital revolution has been nothing but trying to replicate the past rather then push towards the future. Rather then investing in programs to design amazing things, they have been feeding sound waves threw analog gear and trying to replicate it into the digital world.

I don't feel like there was an argument of which sounds better, we were talking about facts on which is capable of the most accurate recording.

But I understand, so lets let this thing burn.

Just so you know, I wasn't saying it was not relevant only that your response to me was stating in analergie that give it time..etc..not fair to judge.

I dont disagree.

Only that my response..was talking about the present and not the potential of the future

God bless big guy.

[bgrotto]

There is no such thing as accurate audio recording or reproduction. Everything we do is an illusion based on compromises at every step of the chain, from the mic at the source to the storage medium. If you want accurate audio, go see a live acoustic show.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

There is no such thing as accurate audio recording or reproduction. Everything we do is an illusion based on compromises at every step of the chain, from the mic at the source to the storage medium. If you want accurate audio, go see a live acoustic show.

That's why I said and quote:

I honestly believe, we don't like transparent and we don't like signals being too clean.. Especially with close mic'ing, it adds to a more artificial sound, in the real world we have real reverberations, decay from signal paths.. Vibrations, standing waves... etc. etc.

In music we are told to remove this from the equation, but nothing feels or sounds like a firework in the sky.. Or the sound of actual rain.

I know this is a rant, but it's perception and how you use this perception to your advantage..

One in my regards is better or worse than the other, the person's goal dictates that.

[T. Gundersen]

*sigh*

The test is interesting, but so many people in these debates refuse to recognize that it is about the talent in front of the microphones. ITB or OTB is a factor to the finished result, yes, but it is an insignificant one. Significant factors count things like talent and knowledge of the artists and the engineers as well as the synergy of the people working with the project (the ability to feed off eachothers energy etc.).

Sorry, but whether ProTools is able to accurately recreate the sound of a large-format console is just not relevant to making good records in my eyes (even though as a gearslut, I still find it interesting to read and listen to).

[Sampire]

so....to those who stand by the belief that digital will never be able to replicate closely enough to compare to analogue -- Do you believe you would be able to take this test and spot the impostor?

[eighttwelve]

From what I've read, the huge difference is in what analog captures vs what digital captures. Digital has much clearer highs but loses much of the warmth in the mid lows and lows, whereas analog tapers off on both ends but has incredibly warm mids, mid-highs and mid-lows, giving things a bit more body (think of a parabola). Either way, it's a matter of taste and using various techniques you can still take advantage and find ways of grabbing the sounds you want to hear. Hearing these pros talk about it is pretty good evidence of that. Digital offers the ease of recording and the ease of non-destructible assets, so it's obviously the medium of choice nowadays. The advantage of analog is that you are a little bit less lazy when it comes to recording the sounds you want and need especially. At least, that's my impression.