The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality
Old 20th August 2005
  #421
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Nihilist,

While it's true that Digital can have nice editing features, which are about as exciting and boring as a Word Processor, simply placing a Zero's and One's Word Processor-Like Editor in someone's hands does *not* make them a creative artist. History shows that some of the most creative artists produced long-lasting achievements with excellent Sound Quality results by using "Analogue Tools." In fact, Digital has tried to "emulate" and "model" those "Analogue Tools" to varying degrees of success or failure, most honest people whould admit that the digital models and emulations are total failures in terms of being "exactly like" the "real deal" analogue device they are trying to copy.

But yes, you are quite right to point out this thread's primary focus is on the issue of "Sound Quality," and in that regard,

"Analogue Sound Quality Rules."
Old 20th August 2005
  #422
Here for the gear
 
jmossmusic's Avatar
 

The New Guyz Reply

Speaking as someone who came from digital, and then got exposed to analogue (Yes, I know there were still cassette tapes), I would prefer analogue by far. And if you're going to start comparing Digital to analogue... Digital is quieter and "cleaner", but so far they have not been able to compare to that smooth, warm sound that you get when you hit tape, or use anything with tubes, transistors, or capacitors. So in terms of sound quality, my vote goes analogue. That's my 2 cents.

Mosser.
Old 20th August 2005
  #423
Gear Maniac
 
rush's Avatar
 

So let's say that we accept for the moment that digital audio at present is sub-standard (and I agree) how far does digital have to progress before it's good (as good or better than analouge).

Say we threw away our CD's and put music instead on double layer DVD's reading at 800Mb/sec giving us ~ 80 mins of music. Would digital still sound flat at much higher sampling/playback rates?
Old 20th August 2005
  #424
Here for the gear
 
jmossmusic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rush
Say we threw away our CD's and put music instead on double layer DVD's reading at 800Mb/sec giving us ~ 80 mins of music. Would digital still sound flat at much higher sampling/playback rates?
That's where I hope that it goes. I don't think that it will ever sound like analogue does, but I do think that with that level of definition we are approaching a truer representation of what we are trying to record.
Old 20th August 2005
  #425
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmossmusic
That's where I hope that it goes. I don't think that it will ever sound like analogue does, but I do think that with that level of definition we are approaching a truer representation of what we are trying to record.

i agree with this if the source is great analog - if the source is digital, my ears
would imagine just the magnification of something flat, something 2 dimensional
1962 3 track has a higher resolution to my ears than any digital including
dsd.......


be well


- jack
Old 20th August 2005
  #426
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
Nihilist,

While it's true that Digital can have nice editing features, which are about as exciting and boring as a Word Processor, simply placing a Zero's and One's Word Processor-Like Editor in someone's hands does *not* make them a creative artist. History shows that some of the most creative artists produced long-lasting achievements with excellent Sound Quality results by using "Analogue Tools." In fact, Digital has tried to "emulate" and "model" those "Analogue Tools" to varying degrees of success or failure, most honest people whould admit that the digital models and emulations are total failures in terms of being "exactly like" the "real deal" analogue device they are trying to copy.

But yes, you are quite right to point out this thread's primary focus is on the issue of "Sound Quality," and in that regard,

"Analogue Sound Quality Rules."
Maybe if people would stop that annoying habit of trying to emulate whatever classic piece of machinery is in vogue this month, we'd actually get somewhere?

Anyways, I'm waiting to see what kind of "analogue equivalent" there is to the stuff I posted... oh wait, there is none.

EDIT: And I think this needs no comment

Old 21st August 2005
  #427
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
I agree with this if the source is great analog - if the source is digital, my ears would imagine just the magnification of something flat, something 2 dimensional, [a] 1962 3 track has a higher resolution to my ears than any digital including dsd.......


This is, of course, exactly why the "Old Earless" Digital Math Scoundrels must be fired from all the chip companies. Once all that old deadwood is removed, all the bad legacy code and silicon **** discarded, and the Digital Math Scoundrels are out of way and can do no more harm to Sound Quality, we can then safely impose fair retribution and severe punishment on these freakin' jerks. None deserve it more than they do.
Old 21st August 2005
  #428
Lives for gear
 
max cooper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmossmusic
That's where I hope that it goes. I don't think that it will ever sound like analogue does, but I do think that with that level of definition we are approaching a truer representation of what we are trying to record.

This is exactly the problem; the fact that something has greater 'definition' has never meant that it sounded more 'musical'. Historically, if fact, the opposite has often been true.

Musical qualities, to me, are: rhythm, pitch, tune, tempo.

Non-musical qualites, to me, are: definition, resolution, imaging and the classic 'soundstage'.

If you're walking down the street in New Orleans, you can hear music coming out of various clubs and bars. From the street, you can tell which band sounds more 'musical' and has better rhythm, pitch, tune and tempo (and thus make a decision about which band you want to listen to for two hours), but you may not be able to tell anything about definition, resolution, imaging, etc.
Old 21st August 2005
  #429
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by max cooper
This is exactly the problem; the fact that something has greater 'definition' has never meant that it sounded more 'musical'. Historically, if fact, the opposite has often been true.

Musical qualities, to me, are: rhythm, pitch, tune, tempo.

Non-musical qualites, to me, are: definition, resolution, imaging and the classic 'soundstage'.

If you're walking down the street in New Orleans, you can hear music coming out of various clubs and bars. From the street, you can tell which band sounds more 'musical' and has better rhythm, pitch, tune and tempo (and thus make a decision about which band you want to listen to for two hours), but you may not be able to tell anything about definition, resolution, imaging, etc.


i would agree with most of this and add that it's really not a verbal thing.........

it's not really rational

to me when its analog, its full of potential for a magical, compelling thing
that you hear.......and feel
when i hear the other stuff - it can be quite realistic and high definition, but
immediately there is awareness of something more like a photograph than a
multicolored, rich hologram.......

words......

i guess you either are fascinated enough by it to pursue it, or you don't hear
it..............
my only hope is that the younger people check it out themselves
before assuming it won't captivate them......


be really well

- jack
Old 21st August 2005
  #430
Lives for gear
 
bunnerabb's Avatar
I'd like to add that, as a recording and playback medium, nothing can touch analogue...

... however...

... ALL math is digital.

"Digital Math Scoundrels" is like sayin' "Catholic Catechism Classes". I think you mean "Binary Math Scoundrels".




Old 21st August 2005
  #431
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Yes, I may have to change that to "Binary Math Scoundrels," OTOH, most digital computers use binary math and so that part is likely already understood by most who encounter the term "Digital Math Scoundrels."

We must never forget that, at best, math is only an approximation of reality and not reality itself. All math is really nothing more than an abstract concept that exists only in people's heads. You cannot go to a store, walk to a shelf, and pick up the 16-bit number 0001000100010001, take it to the counter, buy it, take it home, put it in the fridge, and later pull it out and eat it.

And I might add: 0001000100010001 does not look to be very musical either, it is certainly not warm and intimate sounding, now is it?

Now would Hex Code be any "warmer" sounding? Nope, don't think so.
Old 21st August 2005
  #432
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
You cannot go to a store, walk to a shelf, and pick up the 16-bit number 0001000100010001, take it to the counter, buy it, take it home, put it in the fridge, and later pull it out and eat it.
So do you really eat tape, Johnny?
Old 22nd August 2005
  #433
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Yeah, I could put mustard on it and eat the freakin' ****.

But I think maybe you missed the point. Deal with it. Deal with the point if you can. But you can't, so you try to divert attention to something else. Math is nothing more than a freakin' abstraction. Go back to school and read what Einstein said and you may increase your understanding of why digital sound quality lags way behind analogue's superior sound quality.

Here's a clue:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality."
---Albert Einstein---



And the number one culprits responsible for the deplorable sound quality of digital are the Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip making companies. They deserve to be sued into oblivion for their fraud and then beaten to within an inch of their stinkin' little lives.

After that, send these Digital Math Scoundrel bastards with tin ears to "Gitmo" for some good old-fashioned "torture" like only the current US Gov't can dish put.

And then we can give the Digital Math Scoundrels a steady diet of nothing but stinkin' little 16-bit words at 44 freakin' K and see how long the bastards can survive on that lame ass math abstraction which has no nutritional value and is guaranteed to take a nice strong analogue signal and turn it into a 90-pound-weaking, girlieman, wimpy piece of **** 0001000100010001 murky math concept...with no balls.
Old 22nd August 2005
  #434
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rush
So let's say that we accept for the moment that digital audio at present is sub-standard (and I agree) how far does digital have to progress before it's good (as good or better than analouge).
That is the billion-dollar question. The bright young new breed of turks who cracks the exsting ADDA problems and replaces them with something superior will have patent rights that will make them rich beyond belief.

Rest assured, however, it won't be the old deadwood lemming Nyquist-followers at the chip making companies who meet the challenge to come up with an exciting new discovery. These soon-to-be-wealthy youngsters will find an entirely new approach to the ADDA process simply because the existing approach sucks and produces nothing but ****ty digtial sound which is cold, brittle, lifeless, and dead.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #435
Lives for gear
 

Analog gear is based on math too.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #436
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

but it sounds good............





- jack
Old 23rd August 2005
  #437
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by juicemaster1500
Analog gear is based on math too.
You are only half right, while it is true that engineers and machinists do use some rudimentary math skills, true analogue works more on the basis of combining the proper physical characteristics and physical behavior of the analogue device they make up, which, when properly combined, gives the balls and the power to Analogue Sound. And for the truly elite group of talented analogue designers and builders, "Sound Quality" is the number one priority. With World Class Analogue, it's all about using "Your Ears" and getting great "Sound Quality."

With the Digital Math Scoundrel freakazoids, it's not about "Sound Quality" as demonstrated by the fact that these sons of bitches are freakin' deaf and have no freakin' ears. But these silly little freaks sure are experts when it comes to all those "digital anomalies." The pricks who came up with 16 wimpy bits and lame ass 44K SRC's should be horse-whipped. And then these little ****heads made it worse by coming out with MPfreakin3's. Not only should they be horse-whipped, they should be forced to drink horse piss and made to eat horsehit. Nah, the Digital Math Scoundrel bastards are already full of horse****. These freaks might actually enjoy another heaping helping of it.

What is needed is that some form of torture or mayhem is visited upon all the old deadwood Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip companies. Firing all of them is a good place to start.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #438
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
The pricks who came up with 16 wimpy bits and lame ass 44K SRC's should be horse-whipped. And then these little ****heads made it worse by coming out with MPfreakin3's.
I actually agree on this.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #439
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by juicemaster1500
I actually agree on this.
Yes, anyone who actually listens and has any freakin' ears agrees with you too.

Pity, the Digital Math Scoundrels have made such a mess of things at the outset and then made them worse. What a terrible legacy these assbites have saddled innocent people with, the Digital Math Scoundrels do deserve to be flogged, don't they?

The only hope for digital is to simply trash the past, throw it all out in the rubbish, and start all over with newer "Next Gen" methods. Throw it all out, the ****ty ADDA chips, the f*cked up formats, and most especially, all the freakin' digital "anomalies."

I feel extremely sorry for the people who wasted all their money on this rubbish, but like most digital rubbish, it was all obsolete on the day it was designed. That much should be fairly obvious to any observant individual. It's all obsolete on the day you buy the ****. Obsolete on the day it was made. Obsolete twenty seconds after it leaves the CAD programme.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #440
Lives for gear
 

Anyway, but without the (sigh) digital AUDIO math scoundrels we wouldn't have samplers, iow we wouln't have had the "golden era" of hip hop from 87/88 to 91/92, we wouldn't have had the trip hop era of the 90s, no drum and bass etc.

We wouldn't have 808s and 303s, we wouln't have any modern dance music as we know it.

No crunk even (lol)

No cheesy but lovely 80s pop, no wonderful DX7 or Wavestation, no nothing but boring 2 guitars, acoustic drums, bass and vocals.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #441
Gear Maniac
 
Mrs. Fairman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
Which technology has the superior sound quality...

A. Analogue

B. Digital


Did someone produce a correctly beautiful music?
To superquality taken up music, without mastring?
Particularly if you purely digital (Mac/PC) is?

I could times to test/hear by a analog 1/2 Tape and evtl times a analog compressor and EQ to later. Then one can very beautifully determine which the difference is.

A file 1 Mimute, no MP3.

Is perhaps interesting.?
Old 23rd August 2005
  #442
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Juice,

Emmmm, I believe there were analogue synths that could be coaxed into delivering some pretty "phat" sounds before the advent of digital. I take it you were also being somewhat humourous about some of the other "items" you mentioned.

Mrs. Fairman,

I think I'm having some difficulty in understanding you this time around, your point may have been lost in the translation. Pity that I don't speak your native tongue and we could communicate in a more confortable fashion. At any rate, if I understand you correctly, it appears you are challenging the Digital Math Soundrels to a duel.

The Digital Math Scoundrels are all losers, so I have perfect confidence that you will be the winner. When you do win, please take their bodies out and dump them in the rubbish where they belong as their dead, cold, digital carcasses are known to draw flies, vermin, and tend to stink the place up. Proper disposal of this Digital Scoundrel trash will keep the place tidy and proper. Alternatively, I suppose you could grind them up and flush them down the toilet where their nasty little remains and "artifacts" will wind up in the sewer to fully mingle with all the other ****.

BTW, have you ever considered changing your name to Mrs. "Fairchild"
That's a legendary name in the analogue world.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #443
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
studer


to me, i think the two worlds are
still so different that the differences
you suggest are very subtle relative
to the enormous leap of the
conversion itself
that's what my ears
tell me

be well

- jack
aka the gearslut poetry. breathing down gertrude stein's back.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #444
Gear Addict
 

Hey there ...I`m a newby.
I produce mostly electronic music. I did the whole development from analog to digital....and now back to the analog stuff agein.

But some realy needull digital gear will remain in my studio.
In the end it will be my computer (NI Reaktor) and some digital synths (Sidstation).
If i can afford i will begin to mixdown to tape aswell.
I have the dream of analog mixed and mastered electronic music for vinyl only.
To preserve the full sound of my analog synthies.
No digital conversion in between. It would be possible because a lot of electronic music is vinyl only.
But certain sounds will always be processed by my computer aswell. Why?
They can`t be produced with analog gear. It is Granular artefacts. Digitaly crushed noise. These are important colours to me aswell. Native Instruments Reaktor is one of the most interesting tools in digital musicproduction.

I think high end modern production is when you use at least 20% digital gear aswell.
The Industrie did a big mess when they tried to replace everything with cheap digital processers. For a short time it seemed as if the microphone and the preamp should have been the only analog gear in the studio. They even tried to replace this through things like "Vocaloid? (can`t remember exactly)

As i said digital gear shoud only be a small part in the field of music production.
When it comes to modern movie or television posttproduction a digital
workflow is the way to go.

A soround music production is very expensive if only produced the analog way.
Here i would say a digital DAW is quiet helpfull too.

In terms of music i say long live vinyl long live Tape long live Stereo.

Old 23rd August 2005
  #445
Registered User
 
Anderson's Avatar
 

My 2 cents (I didn't read all of the thread, so I may be repeating stuffs etc.):

Digital is like an opinion poll. Every cycle of the clock, you create some kind of a still snapshot of reality. It does not represent the full image, just gives you -within it's limits- a good idea of what it was like: just like when polling, 2000 people are interviewed and then you know statistically that the whole population thinks more or less the same within a certain error margin (confidence).

In the begining, digital was like a poll with not enough people in it to give a reliable statistic. But as technology improves, It's like you interview more and more people and refine the questions&answers, you get closer and closer to reality.

IMHO analog is still better than digital because it is basically more efficient at representing reality (continuous info, not snapshots), though the limitations of the analog components are also creating a margin of error, but a different one.

As of now, I like the "errors" of analog better than the digital ones.

But I strongly believe that in some years, with technology improving, we will be able to have digital recording systems outperforming analog recording systems, and this day is coming fast.

But I don't think that mixing digital will outperform mixing analog anytime soon, unless we increase drastically the bit depth, but nowadays computers can simply not stand such maths.

So, yes, as a storing (& editing) medium digital will beat analog soon, but in terms of processing of the audio, analog has still some good years ahead!

Cheers!
Old 23rd August 2005
  #446
Lives for gear
>unless we increase drastically the bit depth, but nowadays computers can simply not stand such maths.

in the lab it is entirely possible to mix with higher specs. did anyone around attend some listening tests?

in graphics software, we see the problem, all these pathetic scissors, pencils and erasers. whole rich dimensions of tools don*t happen because of abundant stone age brains that cannot fathom anything virtual and mathematical...
Old 23rd August 2005
  #447
Gear Maniac
 
Larrchild's Avatar
 

Quote:
listening tests should have revealed if there was a significant improvement with the tape. There wasn't.
I keep reading here about DAW people who reconnect their analog machines after years and have religeous experiences. I doubt it's nostalgia. probably something to all this, eh?
Old 23rd August 2005
  #448
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

all of you are freaking LOSERS for still continuing to argue this. digital won. digital is better. now go back and make some MUSIC, which is neither digital or analog.
Old 23rd August 2005
  #449
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

in the end all sound is analog...... even digital sound.....

we only hear sound when the air vibrates....and that is an analog proces...isnt it ?
Old 23rd August 2005
  #450
Gear Maniac
 
Larrchild's Avatar
 

Quote:
all of you are freaking LOSERS for still continuing to argue this.
Naw..we are't LOSERS, we just have different opinions. It shows how peoples taste varies. And if we all agreed with your conclusion, the recording world would have a smaller palette.

Im sorry you are attacking the people and not the premise. Thats always gonna get reaction. But it's usually all heat and no light.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump