The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality
Old 27th August 2005
  #511
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

That's real nice, but I suspect if you ask him privately if he believes the current crop of silicon chips are the "end all-be-all" or whether or not he feels that the entire ADDA process can be improved, he'll likely say it could be substantially improved. Moreover, if you ask him what he really thinks about the current CD, and, in particular, the MP3 format, if I were in the area, I might be tempted to step back or run for cover. PF is a man with some integrity, so if you tell him that "MP3's sound just wonderful," be prepared for a well-reasoned response of what's wrong with MP3's and quite possibly a rather polite, but indirect, indication that you may have no ears.

As was found by the researchers at Cambridge, it's now an established scientific fact, all the Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip companies have some serious "Genetic Defects," including, without limitation, dysfunctional ears that are "tone deaf" as well as the extremely nasty "Genetic Defect" of telling enormous lies.

For this deadly form of disease, the very best prescription is to throw out all the old deadwood at the chip makers, throw out all the old, obsolete tech, and start the ADDA R&D process all over from scratch. And all those old, obsolete, digital formats have to go to the rubbish heap as well.
Old 27th August 2005
  #512
Lives for gear
 

Yes, MP3s sound awful, even worse than vinyl, you're right about that at least.
Old 27th August 2005
  #513
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Emmmm, you can find many people who feel that well-made Vinyl is far superior in Sound Quality than *any* of the digital competitors such as CD's, DVD-A's, and SACD's.

Given that "ALL" the digital formats sound like ass and must be disposed of, there is no reason to remain wedded to the old, obsolete, inefficient and piss poor sounding ADDA converters forced upon the world by the Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip makers.

Let us never forget that these bastard Digital Math Scoundrels have gotten as far as they have in the market by the copious use of enormous lies and outright fraud.

There's a bit of a lesson in all this use of mass fraud by the Digital Math Scoundrels, one should never fall victim to the "Appeal To An Authority Figure Fallacy." This bit of sleight-of-hand trickery is often employed by the marketing types, so much so, that we often do not notice that it is being used to trick us. So and so Mr. or Mrs. Authority Figure uses this or that product and says, "This product is wonderful," does not make it true. Furthermore, it may not be true at all for you in your particular circumstances.

Thus, any citation to any "Authority Figure" must be taken like the proverbial "grain of salt." In the case of Digital's abominal "Sound Quality," the use of the "Authority Figure Fallacy" has been in widespread use for over 25 years! It's just part and parcel of the entire disease of "Digital Dementia."

The very safest course of action is to properly discount and set aside any opinions or beliefs thrown out there by the marketing "Spin Doctors" saying that some "Authority Figure" says Digitial Sound Quality is just wonderful the way it is. Use only your own ears. If you have good ears, they will tell you that someone is lying or being paid to express the opinion that Digital Sound Quality is just great and can never be improved.

1. Discount the so-called experts' opinions
2. Use only your own ears
3. Set up your test of "Digital vs. Analogue" properly
4. Use good or "World Class" kit

If you have ears, you will come away knowing that Digital Sound Quality is ass and that ...

Analogue Sound Quality is *the* King!
Old 27th August 2005
  #514
Lives for gear
 
elswhrco's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
If you have ears, you will come away knowing that Digital Sound Quality is ass and that ...

Analogue Sound Quality is *the* King!
Not sure what you're getting at here (and I should probably know better than to get in on this), but you can only hear analogue. What is "digital sound quality"?
Old 27th August 2005
  #515
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Good question.

What is Digital Sound Quality?

Emmm, it sounds like "puss" when compared to World Class Analogue.

The major problems with Digital sounding like ass are two-fold:

1) The Digital Math Scoundrels came up with awful digital formats at the outset, and then, made them worse beginning with the introduction of MP3's.

2) The ADDA converters put out by the Digital Math Scoundrels are all full of nasty errors, artifacts, and "anomalies."

When these two primary areas conspire with one another, the result is Digital Sound Quailty that is thin, brittle, sterile, lifeless, and dead cold.
Old 27th August 2005
  #516
Lives for gear
 
absrec's Avatar
 

O MY GOD, BECKY!

People.... everything changes sound! I cut and mix on ProTools. I have cut on 2". They're different. That being said, running discreet outs into a console sounds different than "mixing in the box". Neither is better or worse. One advantage to digital is that you can get more bottom end (believe it or not). One advantage to "tape" bottom end is you get that musical "fuzz" for lack of a better word. I can tell when something was cut on 2". Does it make me want to buy a 2" machine? Not with the market the way it is currently!

I also think the reason why tape people hate digital is because you have to completely change your style of cutting. You (usually) can't just run stuff flat and uncompressed right into it. It takes a little more work, but the advantages far outweigh the hassles, IMO. Even when I changed from ADATs to ProTools, it threw me for a loop. I couldn't understand why my recordings sounded small all of the sudden. You just have to get familiar with your format. Digital and Analog are both great in their own ways.

BTW, CDs sound just fine!
Old 27th August 2005
  #517
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

I have to take exception with your opinion that CD's and their measely 16 stinkin' bits at 44K are just fine. Are you running your PT kit at 16 bits? Nah, didn't think so.

16 bloody bits? Please, be kind enough to "Gimme a freakin' break."

This major flaw in bit-depth is but one example of how many errors and how much fraud has been propagated by the Digital Math Scoundrels.

Analogue Rules!
Old 27th August 2005
  #518
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by absrec
. One advantage to digital is that you can get more bottom end (believe it or not).
BTW, CDs sound just fine!

regarding the bottom end, we must just be on different planets.......or you have never used
a good 2" tape recorder......the bottom end exists in a very different way in analog and digital.....
a good diagnostic is a dance situation with a 12" 45 and a cd......


regarding the cd thing, they are fine relative to the new horror of the ipod and the mp3 -
vinyl still sounds better, but cds are very convenient.......
i'm frightened that the cd is about to disappear........leaving only the downloads......only
the mp3............



be well

- jack
Old 27th August 2005
  #519
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Jack,

Your fears of more horrors brought to us by the Digital Math Scoundrels are well-founded and not without ugly precedents.

The Digital Math Scoundrels are, indeed, deserving of major punishment. After the Class Action Lawyers get done with them, they should be turned over to the US Marines for the kind of torture and punishment mentioned on the previous pages of this thread.

And if the chip companies were not run by jerkwater "bean counters," they'd fire all the Digital Math Scoundrels responsible for all the flaws and start out with a fresh approach using new methods entirely.
Old 27th August 2005
  #520
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

"i have 4000 songs that all sound like **** in my little ear buds, in my car , and in my
idock at home ..........!!!!! "

the apple store in soho here is like a sonic hiroshima, 80 people lined up to
have bad sound......



be well

- jack
Old 27th August 2005
  #521
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B

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. "
This happens to be one expert's expression which aligns nicely with my own experience.

One major flaw of Digital Sound Quality giving that sucky-f*cky crap sound quality is that it turns the sound into "MusicLite."

One could also argue that "Digital Sound Quality," as it currently exists, is for lightweights. Digital has that "amateur patina" all over it, time fora good hard scrub job in a proper tub. And this time, it will be good to throw out the digital baby and the digital bathwater.

It's all obsolete tech anyway which is full of innumerable errors.
Old 27th August 2005
  #522
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
"i have 4000 songs that all sound like **** in my little ear buds, in my car , and in my
idock at home ..........!!!!! "

the apple store in soho here is like a sonic hiroshima, 80 people lined up to
have bad sound......



be well

- jack
The ipod is a POS. I used to own one, and I hated the bloody thing.

Buy a better MP3 player, encode your stuff using LAME, buy a decent pair of portable headphones.

At higher bitrates, MP3, MPC and Ogg are indistinguishable from CD in blind listening tests, and it'll still take up significantly less space.

I really don't see how MP3 is a bad thing. If people care about better sound quality, they will pay for it. Most of the people buying ipods are going to be listening to horrible sounding overcompressed FM radio anyways.

As for myself, I'm enthralled with the fact that I can listen to whatever I want, anywhere, only carrying something that fits in my pocket easily. When it comes to something like that, I'll take what I can get.

Besides, if you've ever lugged cases of vinyl around alot, the portability argument is pretty persuading.
Old 27th August 2005
  #523
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

You are quite right, Apple should do far better with actually beating on the chip companies to come up with superior sounding chips. So far, the chip companies and the Digital Math Scoundrels have failed to deliver anything even remotely close to professional analogue sound quality.

Not even close.

In the "Analogue vs. Digital Sound Quality Race," the clear winner is Analogue.
Old 27th August 2005
  #524
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_nihilist
At higher bitrates, MP3, MPC and Ogg are indistinguishable from CD in blind listening tests, and it'll still take up significantly less space.

I really don't see how MP3 is a bad thing. If people care about better sound quality, they will pay for it. .
i disagree with both of these things........if there's one thing i'm sure of it's that americans
need to be led - when the market is the only leader we always go to the lowest common
denominator......
americans eat what they are fed.......

if mp3's were unable to be copied and they self-destructed after an hour, then they
might serve a good purpose in initiating new listeners.......

instead we have a situation where someone with a home stereo (mono sound system) in 1956 had
a greater likelyhood of having hi-fidelity than someone in 2005, 49 years later, all in the name
of progress......

doesn't make any sense


be well

- jack
Old 27th August 2005
  #525
Lives for gear
 
absrec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
regarding the bottom end, we must just be on different planets.......or you have never used
a good 2" tape recorder......the bottom end exists in a very different way in analog and digital.....
- jack
Maybe that was a bad choice of words for such a heated thread. The word "better" is quite subjective. What I mean is that I find myself taking advantage of the extremely flat frequency response of digital to obtain a great bottom end. Digital doesn't roll off the subs like analog. Although, you have to be conscious of this and employ HP filters from time to time. But, it still gives you options you don't have with analog. Tape has a great tone to it. I'm not discounting that. But I've made some killer sounding recordings on digital. And like it or not, neither medium is going to help you sell more records.
Old 28th August 2005
  #526
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

What's that picture of in your icon, a fake digital emulation or model of some real world analogue device?

Digital is well-known for causing all kinds of phase "anomalies" and doing "time smear" up the ass, it sucks giant donkey dicks. It also butchers the low-end in ways which many people seem to ignore.

Digitally sliced and diced and totally f*cked up beyond recognition.
Old 28th August 2005
  #527
Lives for gear
 
absrec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
What's that picture a picture of in your icon, a fake digital emulation or model of some real world analogue device?

Digital is well-known for causing all kinds of phase "anomalies" and doing "time smear" up the ass, it sucks giant donkey dicks. It also butchers the low end which many people in ways that many people seem to ignore. Digitally sliced and diced and totally f*cked up beyond recognition.
To answer your question, that is a picture of my 1176. I have a modest, yet effective assortment of gear. I don't know what digital systems you've worked on, but I don't seem to have a problem getting sounds on mine.

In other words, it's all about the source. And furthermore, it looks like you've posted a lot of replies on this particular thread. More than everybody else. I don't know about you, but I'm too busy making records to sit around pondering whether analog or digital is better. Go ask some of the top engineers in the industry and I guarantee you the vast majority of them will tell you the same.

Stop trying to push your opinions on everybody. This is a discussion, not a debate. You stated your opinion, and I respect that. Please extend others the same courtesy.
Old 28th August 2005
  #528
Gear Nut
 

Digital all the way, i mean lets face, the end medium is digital, so its best to fight that chaos the whole way. dfegad
Old 28th August 2005
  #529
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by absrec
To answer your question, that is a picture of my 1176. I have a modest, yet effective assortment of gear.
Sounds like you have to use a classic piece of "Analogue" gear. What's the matter? Don't those fake emulations and models of the real deal analogue device do it for you?

I mean no disrespect for anybody attempting to make an honest living, but the problem is now, and always has been, the ****ty digital formats and the brittle, thin, cold-as-ice ADDA silicon **** chips. Codecs that sound totally lame? Please, spare me from attempting to merely claim, rather unconvincingly I may add, that the silicon **** chips sound anywhere near World Class Analogue Sound Quality.

I don't blame the third-party programmers or those forced to work with the lame ass legacy silicon ****, not half as much as I blame the Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip companies for even sending this **** to a fab. What a f*cking abortion digital sound quality has become due to the incompetence and miscalculations of the Digital Math Scoundrels. All of digital is full of God damn errors and freakin "anomalies." This is all SOP for these bloody jerks who have the "Genetic Defect" of having teeny, tiny, compressed, truncated, and shrunken ears that are entirely tone deaf.
Old 28th August 2005
  #530
Lives for gear
 

You've talked about 'genetic defects' about 5000 times in this thread, Johnny B, are you a ****?

Johnny-Be-Anal the Analog sound-****
Old 28th August 2005
  #531
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Nope, merely commenting on the Cambridge researchers findings that all Digital Math Scoundrels have defective ears.

Not even the most advanced stem-cell science has any hope of curing their defects.

Pity, really. Curing the Digital Math Scoundrels of their capacity to tell gigantic lies would be a scientific achievement that is noteworthy.

Now when we call out the US Marines to surround the Digital Math Scoundrels' houses with large speaker arrays and blast MPfreakin3's at these sons of bitches, should it be round-the-clock Britney, round-the-clock Back Street Boys, or would some other sound reduced to MPfreakin3 be more appropriate punishment?
Old 28th August 2005
  #532
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Some may find the destruction of the "20Hz-to-20kHz Myth" a good place to improve digital's silicon **** chip's awful sound quality.

Now departed and greatly missed, Mr. David Blackmer, the inventor of the dbx comps and the founder of Earthworks discussed the wimpy nature of CD's by stating, the "compact-disc standard assumes that there is no useful information beyond 20kHz and therefore includes a brick-wall filter just above 20kHz. Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals." David Blackmer continues by pointing out that there are those of us "who are convinced that there is critically important audio information to at least 40kHz."

Cal-Tech's Prof. Boyk shows in his precision measurements, there are musical frequencies exceeding 103kHz which the current crop of crappy silicon **** chips put out by the Digital Math Scoundrels are too crippled to even capture, let alone, faithfully reproduce.

In addition to having the frequency spectrum artifically band-limted and severely constricted, restricted, and screwed up beyond belief from the outset, the silicon **** chips have all sorts of problems, errors, and "anomalies" on the too often overlooked low-end of the spectrum. The result of all the errors, truncation, aliasing problems, time smear, and "anomalies" in the digital silicon chips is sucky-f*cky Digital Sound Quality brought to you courtesy of those bastard Digital Math Scoundrels.


http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

http://www.drtmastering.com/blackmer.htm
Old 29th August 2005
  #533
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

According to 3-D Audio's Lynn Fuston,

George Massenburg said he thought that "384K is when PCM catches up sonically with DSD." Lynn goes on to say that GM implied that he'd be happy cutting on that.

Did you get that? You **** chip makers. 384K! George Massenburg says 384K is when PCM finally "catches up with" DSD's sound quality.

And while DSD is probably the best available digital format for the time being, there are many here among us who feel that DSD is but a joke.

That is to say, in terms of DSD's "Sound Quality" compared to professional analogue sound quality.

And we should all know by now why that is, don't we?

It's because the prickhead Digital Math Scoundrels at the freakin' chip companies need to have their asses kicked up one side and down the other. Beat the livin' **** out of those Digital Math Scoundrels if you ever encounter one of those lyin' little assbites. If these Digital Math Scoundrel bastards had any "God Damn Ears" they would be embarrassed and ashamed to put all that "Old School Silicon ****" out on the market.
Old 29th August 2005
  #534
Lives for gear
 
DeeDrive's Avatar
 

Johnny B, I swear if you say "Digital Math Scoundrels" one more time......

Did you ever think of the GOOD things digital audio has done??? Fine, the sound quality sucks, you win, it's terrible, I'd rather listen to the sound of dogs ****ting through telephone wire than the sound of a CD...

What about how poor musicians can afford to buy an Mbox off ebay for $300 now? How they can post their music on My Space and have at least SOME people hear it? Isn't that a little more important than how these "Math Scoundrels" have distorted your precious analog waveforms? Analog is still available isn't it?? GO USE IT. But to say that just because someone invented something that sounds better and is easier to use than a $300 cassette port-a-studio they should all go to jail or some crazy BS?? You're a nut job. Just the fact that digital audio has helped other people to write and record music that they never could have makes it a blessing. So go find a Studer and stick your dick in the tape heads if your so in love with analog. This whole thread is stupid.
Old 29th August 2005
  #535
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDrive

What about how poor musicians can afford to buy an Mbox off ebay for $300 now?
What's your point, that the Mbox tech is now obsolete, accordingly, people are throwing these things away? Or, that a guitar player or musician can make a much better investment of lasting or appreciating value by buying a tube amp, genuine brand-name guitar, a good mic, or a good analogue preamp?

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with George Massenburg who now says that the industry will need 384K PCM to even "catch up" with DSD sound quality?
Old 29th August 2005
  #536
Lives for gear
 
DeeDrive's Avatar
 

Here is my sole point:

Digital audio developers are not bad people for creating digital audio, because it has empowered musicians and songwriters, something that expensive analog can not do.
Old 29th August 2005
  #537
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B
Now when we call out the US Marines to surround the Digital Math Scoundrels' houses with large speaker arrays and blast MPfreakin3's at these sons of bitches, should it be round-the-clock Britney, round-the-clock Back Street Boys, or would some other sound reduced to MPfreakin3 be more appropriate punishment?
Dude, I already mentioned Merzbow in this thread.

heh
Old 29th August 2005
  #538
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

DeeDrive,

Emmmm, I disagree. The Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip makers are ghouls who have lied thru their God Damn teeth and have caused more harm to sound quality than any other group of audio haters imaginable.

Sick the Class Action Lawsuit attorneys on this group of evil doers. The Digital Math Scoundrels have done enough harm, committed numerous acts of fraud, and deserve severe punishment. Flog the bastards. Draw and quarter them. Torture them on the rack. Force the Digital Math Scoundrels to eat nothing but MPfreakin3's.

Fire the bastards. **** can the whole lot of them. Flush 'em all down the waste pipe.

They have been wrong all along. Flat wrong. Now, they are also all obsolete. Junk 'em.

Bundle up all that now worthless digital kit and do your best to unload it on ebay, 'cuz it won't be worth a penny quicker than you can blink your bloody eyes.
Old 29th August 2005
  #539
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_nihilist
Dude, I already mentioned Merzbow in this thread.

heh
Yes you did! I looked at the link you provided and it seemed that this fellow likes to experiment with noise, even noise of the random variety I presume.

So are you saying that blasting MPfreakin3's of Merzbow round-the-clock at the houses of the Digital Math Scoundrels would be more severe punishment than blasting MPfreakin3's of Britney and the Back Street Boys? Is this the most severe punishment we can come up with? Would some other MPfreakin3's blaring round-the-clock at these bastards be even more offensive and more likely to make the Digital Math Scoundrels go insane and do harm to themselves?
Old 29th August 2005
  #540
Lives for gear
 
absrec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDrive
Johnny B, I swear if you say "Digital Math Scoundrels" one more time...... Analog is still available isn't it?? GO USE IT. So go find a Studer and stick your dick in the tape heads if your so in love with analog.
Dude, your my hero! Why is Johnny B. so angry? I don't know about ya'll, but I don't think I would want someone this opinionated and closed-minded working on a session that I'm involved in. I thought music was about the song, not the [email protected]&king gear!
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump