The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality
Old 24th August 2005
  #481
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphajerk
thats pathetic.... that just makes you ignorant in basic logic, as that is all math really is. it is the universal language
I couldn't agree more on this. Math is basic logic, simple as that.

To not understand math is to not understand abstract concepts.

To not understand abstract concepts is being stupid.
Old 24th August 2005
  #482
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAU
in my childhood i didnt understand math, maybe some sort of math dislexie
What's dislexie?
Old 24th August 2005
  #483
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

sorry dyslexia
Old 24th August 2005
  #484
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by juicemaster1500
I couldn't agree more on this. Math is basic logic, simple as that.

To not understand math is to not understand abstract concepts.

To not understand abstract concepts is being stupid.
as i said before, i do understand abstract concepts.....

and i think prejudging people is way more stupid.....
Old 24th August 2005
  #485
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Math is not reality, it's only a concept that exists in people's heads. At best, math can only make a weak "approximation" of something in the analogue world. There are many flaws with math in this respect as Albert Einstein aptly pointed out.

"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---


Further, math is one of the "pro tools" used quite frequently by those who commit the most serious and extreme criminal acts involving fraud. For example, World Com, Global Crossing, Enron, and the professional accounting firm of Aurther Anderson all used the "pro tools" of math to defraud the stock market. They all used math to say one thing was true, when in fact, it was all false, all fabricated, all lies, and all wrong. Thousands of people were misled, and they were damaged to the tune of billions of dollars by the deliberate manipulation of math.

The abuse and misuse of math is legendary, hence, one will often encounter truisms such as:

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

In the case of Digital's poor "Sound Quality," not only has math been grossly abused by the Digital Math Scoundrels to create bad sounding products, math has been abused by the Digital Math Scoundrels to commit outright fraud.

Sue the Digital Math Scoundrel bastards at the chip companies into oblivion.
Old 24th August 2005
  #486
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

YEAH!
Old 24th August 2005
  #487
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks
Here's my...take on it...

For years I wrote and produced music at a Neve- Studer studio in Ft Lauderdale FL (New River Studios). As Pro Tools came into my life, I did more and more at home, until finally I did it all at home (unless there was a huge string need or brass thing).

I've used PT for years, and gotten some pretty good sounding tracks out of it.

I recently put up some old [tapes] of things I'd done at New River, ten years ago.

It was just humiliating. The analog stuff just killed everything I've ever done on Pro Tools. Depth, warmth, geez, you name it. It all just sounds HUGE.
Old 24th August 2005
  #488
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Lau,

Please do not let the inappropriate insults of the small-minded people deter you from fully exploring the open and vast horizion of great analogue "Sound Quality." This "Analogue World" is a place where history shows that truly creative artists have produced their masterpieces. Analogue Masterpieces which have stood the "test of time."

Always remember:

Analogue "Sound Quality" Rules.
Old 24th August 2005
  #489
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
Math is not reality
Actually it is, or are you making music out of charity? Cha-ching!
Old 24th August 2005
  #490
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anderson
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!
Are you sure you are a "Bachelor of Science in Business & Degree in Acoustics". When you learn about acoustics, Fourrier, Nyquist and bandlimitation should be known properly I guess? Maybe you slept to much during class heh
Old 24th August 2005
  #491
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
Lau,

Please do not let the inappropriate insults of the small-minded people deter you from fully exploring the open and vast horizion of great analogue "Sound Quality." This "Analogue World" is a place where history shows that truly creative artists have produced their masterpieces. Analogue Masterpieces which have stood the "test of time."

Always remember:

Analogue "Sound Quality" Rules.

i wont let those insults get to me at all.....these people are clearly in denial.
they try to defend this cold and cheap technology in wich the warm analog vibrations are absent...

i don't need math to 'feel' that analog rules....

defending the contemporary digital techniques, wich are horribly bad, is clearly a form of denial, or lack of being sensitive to vibrations....
Old 24th August 2005
  #492
Registered User
 
Anderson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony666
Are you sure you are a "Bachelor of Science in Business & Degree in Acoustics". When you learn about acoustics, Fourrier, Nyquist and bandlimitation should be known properly I guess? Maybe you slept to much during class heh
heh Ooooh! Yes, I could go very deep in that, though the acoustics I learned were more the architectural kind of acoustics. But I of course went through the Maths etc. My fellow electronicians were keener than me on those AD/DA converters etc. So FFT theory, Nyquist Freq., yes I went through all that, thanks for your concern.

I just stopped going into details on forums (especially after the DSD thread on gearslutz) because either someone with no background in that subject will come and tell me I'm 100% wrong and tell me how I should do my job (which can, sometimes, be very annoying) or I will bore people to death.

So I use analogies... and still there is someone to come and tell me: are you reaaally an acoustician? YES I AM. This is so bloody annoying!

Anyway, if you want my technical opinion:

I believe there is still some quantizing problems within the A/D converters. Analog does not have to choose between the two closest possible values like an A/D does (LSB theory). That's my poll analogy. while analog is somewhat made of "infinite"numbers, with ADCs you are stuck between the voltage steps of the ADC system (even if 24 bit represents more or less 6µV per steps which is acceptable, 16bit with +/-153µV is more of a pb to me - too big intervals).

Thus my opinion that as a recording/storage/editing medium, digital is getting very very close to analog, and will soon be better than analog IMHO, since with 32bit fixed you have a 2^31 resolution, i.e. 2'147'483'648 quantizing intervals. that should be around 2,32^-9 V. A this point it is reasonable to admit that the resolution is better than the one of the analog systems, due to the technical limitations of the tapes, recording heads etc.

Cheers!
Old 24th August 2005
  #493
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anderson

I believe there is still some quantizing problems within the A/D converters. Analog does not have to choose between the two closest possible values like an A/D does (LSB theory). That's my poll analogy. while analog is somewhat made of "infinite"numbers, with ADCs you are stuck between the voltage steps of the ADC system (even if 24 bit represents more or less 6µV per steps which is acceptable, 16bit with +/-153µV is more of a pb to me - too big intervals).
Oh "Yes." Digital "Sound Quality" most assuredly suffers "big time" from quantisation errors. Digital is so full of errors that the bloody chip makers are forced to publish long lists of all the "anomalies."

The entire ADDA process and the format issues need to be re-thought and new methods and new systems need to come along to challenge all those past assumptions made by the Digital Math Scoundrels which are all wrong.

In terms of education, rather than asking all the audio engineers and musicians to join in the dogmatic belief systems of the Digital Math Scoundrels which have led to failure and sucky f*cky Digital Sound Quality, let's make it a requirement of the educational process that all the Digital Math Scoundrels must serve a five-year-apprenticeship in a recording studio to learn how to use their bloody freakin' ears before ever being allowed near a CAD programme and sending their ****ty little plans off to the fab to crank out ****ty sounding silicon chips. If these Digital Math Scoundrels had any ears, they would not turn out such ****ty little pieces of thin wafer silicon crap.

Now, in terms of punishment for the Digital Math Scoundrels, I rather like the idea of calling out the Marines to surround the Digital Math Scoundrels' houses with large loud speaker arrays and then blast them 24-hours-a-day non-stop with Britney and the Back Street Boys on MPfreakin'3's.

You can laugh, but the US Gov't used the same kind of tactic on the corrupt dictator, Gen. Noreiga. The blasting of bad sounding music may have driven the bastard insane. He may have been previously driven insane by his lust for power and his unmitigated greed, not unlike the Digital Math Scoundrels.
Old 25th August 2005
  #494
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anderson

I believe there is still some quantizing problems within the A/D converters. Analog does not have to choose between the two closest possible values like an A/D does (LSB theory). That's my poll analogy. while analog is somewhat made of "infinite"numbers, with ADCs you are stuck between the voltage steps of the ADC system (even if 24 bit represents more or less 6µV per steps which is acceptable, 16bit with +/-153µV is more of a pb to me - too big intervals).

A capacitor (analogue component) can charge or discharge between vast intervals. When you have a system's output that goes from let's say "state 1" : +5V to "state 2" : -5V and there's a capacitor in it's output chain (parallel with a resistor probably) the output grows slowly towards the -5V! No steps, nothing.

This is the reason why DA's have a continious output voltage, no steps. You filter square waves.

In every technology you have errors, digital or analogue. 24 bit 44,1 Khz is by theory superior to analogue tape. In practice many still prefer tape because it just sounds 100 times fatter heh
Old 25th August 2005
  #495
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony666

In practice many still prefer tape because it just sounds 100 times fatter
Old 25th August 2005
  #496
Here for the gear
 

digital is good..but tape is better
drums punch and pump so much better without the need of heaps of digital processing.
Old 25th August 2005
  #497
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keep it reel

[T]ape is better drums punch and pump so much better without the need of heaps of digital processing.


If we get the Marines to blast MPfreakin3's round-the-clock at the Digital Math Scoundrels' houses, they may get the message about how ****ty digital really sounds.
Old 25th August 2005
  #498
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

I thought I'd post this which discusses the terrible digital formats.

For those interested, there is an informative background article on the differences in how we perceive music in the November 2004 issue of Electronic Musician titled "Can You Believe Your Ears? Psychoacoustics explores our response to sound," by Mark Ballora.

http://emusician.com/mag/emusic_believe_ears


Is new technology short changing music listeners? Stephen Jarvis on the sonic image of compressed audio formats :

"As recording engineers developed techniques and refined the sound of popular recordings, the public responded to certain blends of the instruments that moved the listeners. (e.g., the Motown sound, the Beatles sound, et al.) This concept of the "commercial mix" has always driven the musical balance and the search for technologies by engineers to extend their control over those elusive elements of the [so-called] magical hit mix.

"The delivery medium and what technology is being used for playback by the listening public has brought us to the age of digital downloads and compressed files using codecs in an effort to fit 10 lbs [of audio] into a 5 lb box.

"In my opinion, listeners have lost something in the exchange for miniaturization and convenience. I have had the opportunity to hear 16 track, 2" tape playback vs. the MP3 compressed files over accurate monitors. The general listening public may not know what they are missing unless they have heard such a comparison for themselves. It's like using Cliff Notes™ instead of reading the novel. You get the basic idea of the composition, but the personal listening experience and potential impact of the music has been reduced. Musiclite. "
Old 25th August 2005
  #499
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
i like great sound very much.
but its very obvious, that the music is much more important than the gear, for me, of course.
especially i get bored to death by most top ten "hits".
and there really happens anything when i listen to a coltrane song recorded
on a simpliest cassette recorder during a live concert.
Old 25th August 2005
  #500
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

It sounds like you enjoy more natural and organic songs which are recorded on analogue.

And when the gentleman above called digital formats "Musiclite," he just as easily could have said "Digital formats are for lightweights with no bloody ears."
Old 25th August 2005
  #501
Lives for gear
 
bunnerabb's Avatar
I think this turnip has been well bled.

One of the best hit generators here, for months, though.
Old 25th August 2005
  #502
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnerabb
I think this turnip has been well bled.
I could not agree more, Digital's "Sound Quality" has experienced out-of-contol "bleeding" for over 25 bloody years. What we see now is that the Digital Math Scoundrels have tried to slap band-aides on the scabs and have let the underlying wound fester until it has become necessary for the "ear doctors" to be called in to perfom the requisite amputations.

On the cheery side of things, with every death a new child is born. Here, we simply wait to see the bad converter chips, the sickly CD and MPfreakin3 formats die a festering death and wait for the young creative minds to come up with better sounding replacements. Although we have been forced to nurse the lingering nature of this unfortunate ADDA disease, perhaps the end will be merciful and the end will be quick.

The current ADDA patient is terminal and the Digital Math Scoundrels are all quacks, guilty of the worst form of malpractice. Alternative medicine and a new breed of holistic doctors are needed to bring a fresh approach to the entire format fiasco and attend to the birth of entirely different methods and new procedures to support the Next Gen of ADDA children.
Old 25th August 2005
  #503
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

amen to that
Old 25th August 2005
  #504
Gear Nut
 

One of these days, I'm going to make the whole world listen to Merzbow.
Old 26th August 2005
  #505
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

You mean this fellow?

http://www.furious.com/perfect/merzbow.html
Old 26th August 2005
  #506
Here for the gear
 

We live in an analog world ....

.... or do we ?

What about Quantum Mechanics ? You know, the branch of physics that says everything is quantized.

There is no such thing as pure analog, in my view.

The first digital recording solutions got a bad press mainly because of Ry Cooder's remarks about his "Bop Till You Drop" album. I think it sounds good, so what's the problem ?

The fact is, D/A and A/D convertors have come a long way since the early days. The badly designed anti-aliasing filters and so on are a relic of the Dark Ages. Only the Fraudigy and its ilk are carrying on the tradition ......

Anyone who woffles on endlessly about analog recording and tube amplifiers is probably a pretentious prat. A Hi-Fi bore, who in all probability knows JACK about music.

I had a Rogers Valve Tuner and it was OK, but had audible artifacts and an annoying "warmness" that messed with the sound. Give me a DAB set any day.

It is "producers" with their "mastering" and the endless recycling of tired musical cliches that is stifling music, not the medium in which it is captured.
Old 26th August 2005
  #507
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Hmmm, there are still all sorts of bad legacy "artifacts" and "anomalies" being pimped by the Digital Math Scoundrels. It's time to ****can all of them and all of their crappy silicon chips and start all over from scratch. In fact, the Digital Math Scoundrels came along and made "Sound Quality" worse by comming up with another ****ty format called "MPFreakin3."

The Digital Math Scoundrels deserve severe punishment.

We could get the U.S. Marines to blast MPfreakin3's round-the-clock at the Digital Math Scoundrels' houses, these bastards may finally get the message about how ****ty digital really sounds.
Old 26th August 2005
  #508
Lives for gear
 
GP_Hawk's Avatar
Thought I would stop by and say Hello

What are those Heads hanging on your wall JohnnyB heh
Old 26th August 2005
  #509
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

The first head? Oh, I just call him "Fred." He was a Digital Math Scoundrel that the Marines bagged at an AES show, I have several other Digital Math Scoundrel trophy heads that were taken by the Marines at other shows around the world. It seems several of those Marines hated bad "Sound Quality," and, all on their own accord, decided to take decisive action. I have to admit that I was forced to send all the heads off to a proper taxidermist in order to shrink the skulls down small enough to match the Digital Math Scoundrels' smallish brains. Now I do have to report that the Digital Math Scoundrels' ears remained the same small size they always were, "truncated," tiny, "compressed," even after the "shrinkage process!" Curious about this "anomaly," I sent the heads off to group of scientists at Cambridge and asked if they could run some tests to determine if there was a genetic defect in all Digital Math Scoundrels accounting for the apparent trait of them all having teeny, tiny, little ears which appeared completely dysfunctional. Their answer was quite prompt, their tests conclusively established that, indeed, there is a "Genetic Defect" in all Digital Math Scoundrels which accounts for their diseased and dysfunctional ears.

Now you know why digital has such ****ty "Sound Quality." The Digital Math Scoundrels have no bloody ears. They are all "tone deaf" due to their genetic makeup, actually, it's a rather disgusting disease according to the experts at Cambridge.

Unsurprisingly, the experts also turned up another Digital Math Scoundrel "Genetic Defect," it seems their capacity to tell gigantic lies is enormous.

No Ears---Big Lies.

Nasty bit of work, these Digital Math Scoundrels.
Old 27th August 2005
  #510
Lives for gear
 

Over at Dan Lavry's forum the designer of various SSL eq's Paul Frindle talks about how he overcame some of the shortcomings of analog designs by going digital (guess he's talking about working on the R3 console).

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/5238/0
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump