The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality
Old 29th August 2005
  #541
Lives for gear
 
DeeDrive's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by absrec
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!
I think it's pretty much agreed that Johnny B is a loon. If he can't see the smallest bit of value in digital audio, he shouldn't be in this business. I agree, music is 99% song and maybe 1% gear. And if that 1% in gear makes the song BETTER because it inspires you in a new way or lets you record guitar tracks at the beach or whatever, than that's worth a ton more to me than having the most hi-fidelity recording.
Old 29th August 2005
  #542
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Ahhhh, calling me names does no good and surely will not help a soul with their quest to quickly dump their obsolete digital kit on ebay before they have to pay someone to haul it off to the dumps.

BTW, do you agree or disagree with George Massenburg's call for 384K before PCM can "catch up" with DSD's sound quality?

That 384K is some food for thought, aye? At that rate, those chips just might be fast enough to capture all those important frequencies that Professor Boyk measured and that David Blackmer said were important, aye? You just might be able to have some good filters and have some room to spare, aye? You'd have to be a really good chip designer with some creative muscle, some hot chops, and some bloody good ears tho', aye?

I guess such chip designer animals *could* exist, at least, in theory, aye? But I dunno, maybe such animals never, ever, existed and maybe they never will.

Funny how long it takes some old stick-in-the-mud digital lemming types to make a clean break with the past, discard crap that just is not working right, and come up with something new. That's the problem with many of these old bastards, they are stuck...stuck deep in the old ****ty digital mistakes of the past...Some of these old digital math scoundrel assholes (who should be made to wear "Tupperware Hats") never do catch on, do they?

New standards. New formats. New ADDA chips. Next Gen. All comming at us, I certainly hope it sounds much better than the current digital kit. Who knows? It might sound "almost" as good as analogue.

I wish the new breed of chip designers all the luck in the world, and I'll keep my fingers crossed 'cuz I don't know if I really trust them to do the right thing to improve digital sound quality.

But if they screw it all up, I'll be back to post. And I'll bitch and I'll moan until digital sound quality gets improved to higher standards.

Oh, and by the way, I really don't have anything against math per se, in fact, I'm actually married to a math scoundrel. She has one of those math degrees from one of those tiny diploma mills that's located in some jerkwater mid-western town located by one of those small lakes. (Those lakes are not vey big, certainly not "great.") But I've forgiven her for the sin of being a math scoundrel. However, she is really mean, and that part is much harder to forgive. After only a few months of marriage, she is already getting to be on the obsolete side tho', I may have to trade her in on three twenty-year-olds. Young bodies and young minds, that's where the future is, and that's where the progress in digital sound quality will come from, if, it ever does come. Youth. "New and improved." Yeah, now that's the ticket.

I sincerely hope all of you are ready for the "Next Gen Future," because new tech, new formats, and new chips are comming at you at an increasingly faster pace.

Cheers. I'm out, or, will be, if people quit posting.

And I really do wish the very best of luck to all of you.
Old 29th August 2005
  #543
Lives for gear
 

I agree about 384K, at least 192K is much much better than the lousy assed 44,1K a lot of people are using. For once I whole heartedly agree.
Old 29th August 2005
  #544
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Gotta push the envelope...sometimes you have to bitch and moan to get **** done...especially with the propeller heads...know what I mean?
Old 29th August 2005
  #545
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

And the damn "bean counters" are even worse than the propeller heads...not only are they cheap ass bastards...they are freakin' luddites too. The only thing worse than a bloody "bean counter" is someone who mascarades as an A&R person or the other one on that list of worthless people, a runway model who can't sing or dance but is sure she can.

"Bean Counters," A&R scamps, and runway models who can't sing are even worse than the old deadwood Digital Math Scoundrels.

Who knew?

At the end of the day:

Ears rule.

And the Good Ears still say "Analogue rules 'Sound Quality.'"


However, the "Next Gen Digital ****" may get it right.

I surely hope so.
Old 29th August 2005
  #546
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

I had **** loads of fun with this thread, my sincere thanks to everyone who posted, participated, read it, laughed, got their brains working, and most importantly, got their ears more finely attuned.

Please, take care of your ears and do your best to protect them.

"Ears" have to be *the* most valuable asset in the music biz, yet, there are those who would discount their incredible value. Of course they are quite wrong to ever do something so incredibly stupid as to discount people's ears.

Those "Ears" rule everthing.
Old 29th August 2005
  #547
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by juicemaster1500
I agree about 384K, at least 192K is much much better than the lousy assed 44,1K a lot of people are using. For once I whole heartedly agree.


walter sear and i had a talk a couple of months ago where he mentioned a number much
greater still than 384k ( i think perhaps 5 times greater ) to approximate the resolution of 2" 16 track - in my own experience of
a/b ing 16 track with 192 - it's still not good.....the sound shrinks and loses depth.....
the 192 might sound good if you didn't have the tape recorder, but once you hear the
tape.........there's no contest...........



be well


- jack
Old 29th August 2005
  #548
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Emmmm, Walter Sear is a great man.

He may have been talking about the speeds of DSD which are really cranking along, altho' at 1 bit.

If not, he could very well be right in some other sense. That to get PCM up there with analogue sound quality it *could* take 5 times more speed. There's only one way to know for sure, that's to try the latest digital **** out, give it a good test drive, and listen to see how she performs.

There are still a lot of problems and challenges to overcome in digital sound quality, that's for sure.

Digital has sure been a mean-ass-bitch so far.

Like many things, it may mean small incremental improvements spread out over a very long time. That situation would really suck.

OTOH, some bright young kids working out of their garage could come up with something truly revolutionary that gives us that "break-through." I love kids in this sense, they don't take crap from some of the old worn out guys and tell the digital deadwood guys to "piss off" while the kids go merrily along challenging all that old, obsolete digital tech that just does not work right...and sounds worse. Yeah, youth, gotta love those bright young minds, who are, quite often, extremely inventive.

If some of these bright young people crack this digital nut wide open, they will very likely be "Billionaires." (Roll tape of Carl Sagen saying "Billions and Billions and Billions.")

But right now, we are clearly in for another round of New Formats, New Tech, and New Chips and it will be thrust upon us in no time. I just hope and pray it sounds better than what exists now.

Someday, digital will get "there." I have no idea when that "someday" will be. Tommorrow, next week, next month, next year, 5 years, 10 years, twenty years from now???

I'm thinking in the 5-to-10 year time frame. It's just a wild ass guess tho'.

In the meantime, we have what we have.

1. ****ty digital, and;

2. Great analogue.

And it's clear that people "try" to do the best they can with whatever gear they have.

Of course, many people really do insist on the very best sound quality...and that means analogue.

Ok, I'm out. I'm done. Nuf' said.

I had fun, hope all of you did too.
Old 29th August 2005
  #549
Gear Nut
 

I just found the greatest plugin ever.

Mr. Alias

Quote:
Mr Alias Uses pure mathematical waveforms for maximum aliasing. When "alias mode" is on, only aliased frequencies will be played, and notes will not make any sense. Sounds bad no matter what; listening is not recommended!
Old 30th August 2005
  #550
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Oh boy, what fun. More ways to make digital noise.

At least that plug (if it's for real) is making even more digital noise on purpose.

Alright. I'm really outta here this time.

It's been loads of fun.

Good luck to everyone.
Old 31st August 2005
  #551
Lives for gear
 

Digital won!!! Johnny B gives up fuuck
Old 31st August 2005
  #552
Lives for gear
 
pulsar modular's Avatar
 

..and in conclusion, Johnny's actual recording equipment:

Old 31st August 2005
  #553
Lives for gear
 
DeeDrive's Avatar
 

i guarantee Johnny B is not gone from this thread. This guy is totally nuts. I've never heard of anybody being so closed minded and one sided. I think he just likes saying things like "Digital Math" to make himself sound intelligent, and saying that even 192khz digital is the worst thing he's ever heard to make people believe he must have the most golden ears of all. To me, he just comes off as an uninformed, uneducated dunce who is trying to disagree with everyone just to call attention to himself.
Old 31st August 2005
  #554
Lives for gear
 
DeeDrive's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pendejo
..and in conclusion, Johnny's actual recording equipment:

Old 31st August 2005
  #555
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDrive
i guarantee Johnny B is not gone from this thread. This guy is totally nuts. I've never heard of anybody being so closed minded and one sided. I think he just likes saying things like "Digital Math" to make himself sound intelligent, and saying that even 192khz digital is the worst thing he's ever heard to make people believe he must have the most golden ears of all. To me, he just comes off as an uninformed, uneducated dunce who is trying to disagree with everyone just to call attention to himself.

i think johnny b is definitely zealous in his wish to punish those that he sees as the
creators of the digital math........

is it close minded to believe in something ? is it one sided to trust your ears ?

192.... doesn't sound as good as a good 2" 16 - track.....it just doesn't , and it doesn't
take any golden ears to hear that - the world at large may disagree, but i don't care,
i trust my ears......to me the difference is worth the hassle........
fortunately , a good share of the most talented artists also feel this way......


i just did two intense days of a pro tools remix and the fatigue is alarming - digital
is so much more exhausting to work with - especially for a 12 hour period
analog is gentler on the ears......


be well


- jack
Old 31st August 2005
  #556
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
I'll use a razor blade on my wrists before I 'll ever use it on tape ever again.
I'm glad my tape editing days are over.
I wa told by a record company VP not long ago "Nobody cares about tape any more"
Old 31st August 2005
  #557
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S
I
I wa told by a record company VP not long ago "Nobody cares about tape any more"

a) that's not someone who, in my experience, would know anything about music or sound
b) he 's wrong : at least here in nyc, tapes rolling all over town, especially in rooms
where there are talented players, playing well, editing their own performances






be well



- jack
Old 31st August 2005
  #558
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
i


192.... doesn't sound as good as a good 2" 16 - track.....it just doesn't , and it doesn't
take any golden ears to hear that - the world at large may disagree, but i don't care,
i trust my ears......to me the difference is worth the hassle........
fortunately, a good share of the most talented artists also feel this way......

i just did two intense days of a pro tools remix and the fatigue is alarming - digital
is so much more exhausting to work with - especially for a 12 hour period
analog is gentler on the ears......


And like the advert says in the upper right hand corner often says---"Tubes Rule!"

I wish there were more things with valves, I wonder if someone could build a decent ADDA device using only valves and no silicon? Probably take a room full of valves like those old pictures show of those very early computers.

Always remember, if it weren't for tubes/valves, there never would have been computers, so computers owe their entire existence to tubes.

Tubes Rule.

Oh, and by the look of the way things have been going, tubes/valves are a favorite way to "try" to warm up that cold-as-ice IC silicon **** digital sound.

Maybe with the Next Gen Chips it will be better than 44, 88, 96, and 192...

384 or Faster? I dunno. What I do know is that mucho technological progress must be made if digital is ever going to sound as good as analogue, and the freakin' old digital formats must be tossed out into the rubbish. That much is obvious even to a casual observer.

Unlike the Digital Math Scoundrels who are wont to say that "everything is just perfect the way it is" (NOT!), the people with ears know that digital has some serious problems and needs some serious tech breakthroughs if it is ever to aspire to be as good as analogue in sound quality or ever have a prayer of winning the "Sound Quality Race."
Old 1st September 2005
  #559
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Maybe the Digital Math Scoundrels need to rethink their failed methodologies and come up with entirely new methods to do the ADDA process in order to improve Digital's sucky Sound Quality.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ronic/adc.html

Square waves, stair steps, jagged little edges, all seem to combine with all the other digital errors and "anomalies" to give that ****ty, thin, brittle, weak, wimpy, and cold sound to digital with that "breaking-glass-chalk-on-the-blackboard" sound quality all around the digital edges.

I'm hoping for some bright young minds to come along with entirely new methods and blow all the old, obsolete, deadwood Digital Math Scoundrels right out of the water.

Comming up with entirely new ADDA inventions that have superior sound quality could very well be one of the fastest ways for a young person to reach "billionaire" status.

But these young creative minds would either have to have "great ears" themselves or work with someone known to have "golden ears."


One of the major components for the young minds to succeed with new inventive methods to do the ADDA process would be for them to have actual real world experience listening and training their ears on World Class Analogue Gear. These young minds having actual experience and the wise guidance provided by trained "golden ears" would seem to be the "sine qua non" of them helping digital sound quality to crawl out of the stinkin' wastepipe.

Is it worth the effort? Yes, because people will always choose great sound quality over ****ty sound quality if they have an reasonable opportunity to have a choice and because billions and billions and billions of dollars are at stake.
Old 1st September 2005
  #560
Lives for gear
 
DeeDrive's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
i think johnny b is definitely zealous in his wish to punish those that he sees as the
creators of the digital math........

is it close minded to believe in something ? is it one sided to trust your ears ?

192.... doesn't sound as good as a good 2" 16 - track.....it just doesn't , and it doesn't
take any golden ears to hear that - the world at large may disagree, but i don't care,
i trust my ears......to me the difference is worth the hassle........
fortunately , a good share of the most talented artists also feel this way......


i just did two intense days of a pro tools remix and the fatigue is alarming - digital
is so much more exhausting to work with - especially for a 12 hour period
analog is gentler on the ears......


be well


- jack
I think you should read more of this thread. It's one thing to prefer Analog over Digital, most people with experience do, but to say digital audio has no value what so ever is a totally different. To call engineers and chip designers "Scoundrels" who all need to be killed or totured is just idiotic, one sided thinking. To Johnny B, it sounds like he is only concerned with sound quality, which is fine. But he should recognize that there are other people who will take the dip in sound quality from hi end analog to digital for the sake of cost, conveinence and editing capabilities. Apparently he has never met a person like this, who doesn't have $50K to throw down on getting a nice analog setup. To me, that is one sided; HIS SIDE, and no one elses. I would love to have an analog setep, but I don't have the time and money for such a thing, so Pro Tools works great for me.

This whole thread is like saying "What's better, a mansion, or a one bedroom apartment?", and when someone says "well....I can't afford a mansion, so I'll take the apartment" he says "you're an idiot!! Burn all the apartments to the ground!! Their not mansions!!" And that is why Johnny B is short sighted, and close minded.
Old 1st September 2005
  #561
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Actually I think the call for Digital to make some advances in the "Sound Quality" Dept. is completely independent of my personality which is just fine for you to attack, since I have no problem with personal attacks whatsoever. However, by attacking me personally, it does nothing to improve digital's poor sound quality.

In addition, cost should not be the issue, silicon **** chips are rather cheap when compared to the total cost of a complete digital rig. I doubt if those ****ty silicon chips add up to even 1 percent of the total system cost!

Thus, there is no good reason for these ****ty little silicon chips to sound as bad as they do. None.

No my good friend, cost of the **** chips should not be the issue!

What IS the issue is how those chips perform? How do they sound when they are stressed and given the acid test in real world situations? Do those chips create additonal problems with the way they go about doing the analogue-to-digital conversions? And then, create even more problems when they "try" to take the zeros and ones and turn them back into analogue?

Anyone in the chip making industry who is honest will admit there are some extremely serious problems with this entire ADDA process. And anyone who is honest will also admit that the existing digital formats are substandard when compared to analogue.

But most importantly, as always, anyone who has any bloody ears and really listens to a high end digital rig vs. a world class analogue kit will also admit that "Analogue Wins the Sound Quality Race."

So who IS to blame for all the screw-ups and problems with digital which negatively impacts the Sound Quality?

It is now, and always has been, the Digital Math Scoundrels at the chip companies. They should all be fired. The killing that was suggested by DeeDrive in the above post would simply be too nice, I do NOT favor killing the Digital Math Scoundrels. Killing their bad tech and their failures and moving forward, yes. As stated earlier, I favor torturing the Digital Math Scoundrels by blasting noise-filled MPfreakin3's at their homes round-the-clock.

I'll assume, for the moment, that ADDA chip cost is a small factor, but let me ask this question regarding costs:

Would you or your friends be willing to pay 5 to 10 percent or slightly more for much better sounding ADDA chips?

If you are like me, the answer would be: "In a New York Second."

Why? Because at the end of the day it all comes down to chasing excellent "Sound Quality."

When we think about it this way, we see that "Sound Quality" really does override and trump secondary and subsidiary issues like "cost."

"Sound Quality" IS the "Number One" issue. Always has been, always will be.

It's all about "Sound Quality."
Old 1st September 2005
  #562
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDrive
I think you should read more of this thread. It's one thing to prefer Analog over Digital, most people with experience do, but to say digital audio has no value what so ever is a totally different. To call engineers and chip designers "Scoundrels" who all need to be killed or totured is just idiotic, one sided thinking. To Johnny B, it sounds like he is only concerned with sound quality, which is fine. But he should recognize that there are other people who will take the dip in sound quality from hi end analog to digital for the sake of cost, conveinence and editing capabilities. Apparently he has never met a person like this, who doesn't have $50K to throw down on getting a nice analog setup. To me, that is one sided; HIS SIDE, and no one elses. I would love to have an analog setep, but I don't have the time and money for such a thing, so Pro Tools works great for me.

This whole thread is like saying "What's better, a mansion, or a one bedroom apartment?", and when someone says "well....I can't afford a mansion, so I'll take the apartment" he says "you're an idiot!! Burn all the apartments to the ground!! Their not mansions!!" And that is why Johnny B is short sighted, and close minded.


dee, your points are well made.......

my point about johnny b was undersatement......i recognize that there is very little dialog
but, there is no comparison between the two mediums and it is nothing short of trajic
to watch an entire industry walk away from something that sounds great, and essentially
lie about it, or delude themselves, from this angle i can hear johnny b's passion -
i don't share his belief about the solution to the problem........
i understand financial limitations..... i worked with da-88's and a mackie for years....
i have met many people who do great work with pro-tools - my contention is for those
people who are, as we speak, working on pro tools in rooms with two studers
because someone was lazy

i do lots of work with mbox people - we do three days of 16 track - they go home and
do overbubs and vocals or whatever and then they come back - i'm very flexible when
it comes to trying to make a small budget get the biggest sound......


be well

- jack
Old 1st September 2005
  #563
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Ok, I'm really going to "try" to stay out of here this time.

I sincerely wish everyone here the very best of luck.
Old 1st September 2005
  #564
Gear Nut
 
MusicSh*tty's Avatar
 

Assuming it even can, by the time digital catches up with what analog already is (and has been), it won't even matter because at that point there will be so little money in it that it'll no longer be cool.

Old 2nd September 2005
  #565
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicSh*tty

Assuming it even can...



Yes, that is a huge assumption. What's that old saying about "assume?"

Is it something about making an ass out of you and me?

Ideed, far too much of digital tech f*cking up the Sound Quality rests on those assbite assumptions.
Old 2nd September 2005
  #566
Lives for gear
 
max cooper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_nihilist
I just found the greatest plugin ever.

Mr. Alias



But this is the point. This is exactly when digital audio is cool! When it does something unique!

Didn't it turn out that the coolest thing about a Moog wasn't that it could sound 'pretty close' to a violin, but that it could go 'werp' and 'blap' and 'blonk' and sound cool doing it? But there were plenty of synth haters back then. This is kind of a unique time, where digital and analog are (somewhat) coexisting. If only digital could be digital and analog could be analog, instead we get digital masquerading as analog.
Old 2nd September 2005
  #567
Lives for gear
 
max cooper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pendejo
..and in conclusion, Johnny's actual recording equipment:


hardly an insult... doesn't Jon Brion endorse these?
Old 2nd September 2005
  #568
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

this can be had new in la for $28,000
if you have credit you can pay over time
it's a great time to use your own ears
and save......
this machine sounds much better than
the other tape recorder pictured




be well


- jack
Attached Thumbnails
Famous Fun Thread: Analog v. Digital--Which is "The King" of great sound quality-picture-4.png  
Old 3rd September 2005
  #569
Lives for gear
 

heres my 2c fwiw....
ive been involved in many areas of the technology industry,
and i dont view technologists as the scoundrels they have been painted here.
in fact ...over the decades ive worked with many talented teks often under extreme budget constraints thanks to accountants and their cost control needs...
ie...."we want a million buck computer solution ...but we only got a thousand buck budget" sort of thing.

in fact many i'm sure strive for the perfection that all us musicians wish to hear.
but there are many complex issues that have to be addressed which i'm sure they face..for example ..
1. basic laws of physics...and technical limits.
2. basic laws of economics.
eg...ok....lets say someone produces a to d chips that sample at a million samples per second to emulate a 2 inch 16 track (whose sound i also like)....
does anyone realise the computer processor power needed to process
a large number of such tracks ? and i doubt a studio could afford such a processor if it came out anyway.. see what i mean ?? the market of buyers couldnt afford it....even huge well funded studios i doubt.
3. even if the technologists could build digital daw nirvana ....
prolly it needs so much financing that they will be suppressed by financing limits of bankers as well as accountants cost controls...and the need for shareholder returns if a public company.
in summary ..technologists sometimes cant always do what they want to...
and are under outside pressures no matter how hard they try.

I frankly think digital daw nirvana is a long long way off...
so ive reconciled myself to one of the other posters points.
i cant afford a mansion ...so i do the best with what i have...
16 bit/44.1....prolly moving to 24 bit daw this year.
There is no other choice for me personally.....because i have limited funds(thanks to govts insane taxation levels)
and digital daw nirvana might not occur for another 30 years.....and in the interim i have this constant insane need like millions of others to write a few songs each month...before they cart me off to the technologists retirement home and i cant write songs anymore two or three decades hence..peace.
Old 3rd September 2005
  #570
Lives for gear
 
Johnny B's Avatar
 

The Bean Counters should just go off and f**k themselves.
And any Digital Math Soundrel who does not have the balls to stand up to a freakin' cost accountant is a God Damn Wimp.

The ecocomic and business cycles, energy costs rising? Blame Bush for that.
And Detroit, Enron, Exxon, BP, and Shell. Republicans/Democrats/Liberals/Conservatives. Piss on 'em all.

But you can bet your life that the Digital Math Scoundrels are responsible for the fine mess that digital sound quality finds itself in. These bastards have had over 25 years, that's long enough, fire them all. Bring in a new team and start all over from square one.

Digital tech needs new ADDA chips, new formats, and new methods all comming from new brains with some freakin' ears.

In the meantime:

Analogue Reins As The King Of Sound Quality.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump