Amen. BTW, the quote is really:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson, 1775

Here is something to think about

Have you ever heard an internet test posted by some company or engineer that had clips of analog vs digital recording

Then waves of people come in and say the analog sounds so much better. Right?

and then I say......?

What medium did you just listen to make that determination?

Think about it?

We have been listening to cd's for more than 20 years. Thats digital. Is digital or analog a better representation of what is real? I dont think you could find a scientist anywhere in the world that would tell you tape rolling along wheels is going to represent what is real better than numbers.

What has happened is analog has been used for so long that it has become what sound is suppose to sound like. What people expect. Thats its only advantage. It is not better representation of what is real. It is a better representation of what is expected. For now...but certainly not forever.

again, i feel like no one is actually listening to the two things at once - in a word,
its about depth - with the tape locked up bringing in groups of channels from
source a and b - the depth goes away .....air and space
what you are saying about perception is probably a big component - memories were
formed around that sound......

can you imagine
radiohead having those
vistas if that wasn't
tape? no.
it is a flovor that
tastes good

be well

- jack

Actually French Polynesia is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Maybe that's the exotic location where all the Digital Math Scoundrels vacation and spend all the loot they conned out of people.

They are all laughing their asses off because the Digital Math Scoundrels all know that:

"Everything digital was obsolete on the day it was designed."

The Digital Math Scoundrels also know that:

"There's a sucker born every minute!"

We could also send in the Marines, Navy Seals, Delta Force, and the Bounty Hunters to go and hunt down the bastard Digital Math Scoundrel Terrorists and bring them in for justice.

i think the iron particle scoundrels need to be drawn and quartered.

i'm starting to think that johnny b works for digidesign.................




- jack

Did and a b test once, recorded drums, bass, gtrs and vx on a Studer 2inch while simultaneously to Protools HD. Brought it back to my own studio, listened to each track, kik, snare, bass, vx, ect. Noticed Kik was more appealing in the digital realm more punchy less mushy. Snare had a better attack( Digital). Room mics and overheads sonically better analogue, had smoother attack, more appealing. Bass very similar, preferred digital. Gtrs,vx preferred analogue. The singer had a sharp voice, so I think the analogue softened him. I would guess a rounder vocal would have worked just fine in the digital world. Conclusion was material that needed attack worked better digital, while instruments that lean toward a smoother slope better analogue. I am not suggesting to work in both environments to accomplish this, I am just merely giving an observation.

www.bluethumbproductions.com

Although, on records they cut the low end out in mastering so the needle would not bounce up and down on the record. Your Phonograph player puts it back in. Every phonograph player is different.

www.bluethumbproductions.com

this is true - the 12" 45 is the best for low frequency reproduction as it has
the most real estate - standard lps when not too long in program length
can also sound pretty great - both reproduce low frequencies in a way that
is not audible from cds in my opinion

the a/b tests are interesting - sometimes it only takes a couple of analog tracks for the
whole picture to just turn into music again, i guess i just want to hear the material
without thinking, without hearing its flatness
i don't care what its recorded on...... fool me !!!

the other day i heard someone's record that was tracked into pro tools from
an amek 9098 - it sounded thin, lifeless, like demos..........very expensive demos


be well

- jack

This is a damnable lie! Why if I had worked for them they would have been on 24/196 about 5 years before they finally got there...Digi dragged its damn feet making that tech available. Maybe they won't be so freakin' slow adopting the Next Gen Chips comming down the pike. 5 years of delays, and it's still not right.

I've been accused of many things over the years like working for Digi, Emagic, Euphonix, Clear Channel, CBS, BBC, Roland, Neve, Microsoft, IBM, and even Apple. None of it's true and never was true.

In regard to sucky Digital Sound Quality and ****ty converters, everyone wants to focus solely on the high end (there is no question that the converters have serious problems up there and are too weak to capture and reproduce the highs properly) but the more troublesome and overlooked area where the converters really suck is the low end!

Why? It's all because the Digital Math Scoundrels have done it all wrong from the very start. ****can all that old shopworn tech, we need a fresh start, and a new beginning, and some real "ear people" at the bloody chip makers. These chip maker engineer bastards all have **** for ears.

Let's give the thumbs-down death sentence to all that old obsolete digital tech.

And let's punish all the Digital Math Scoundrels for all the pain and suffering they have caused with their freakin wimpy CDs and MPfreakin3's.

And for those defending the Digital Math Scoundrels and all the current digital tech which was obsolete on the day it was designed, I'll be laughing at them as they change their tune over the next five years as they begin to see their cash investment in digital tech shrink to nothingness and vanish in the haze.

Why will that happen? It will happen as more people become aware of all the Digital Sound Quality failures and as they realize that Analogue Sound Quality is still

"THE" King.

ah ha! johnny works for digidesign.... how could i miss that this whole thread!?!

hey, now

i wasn't really thinking that johnny, but just trying to see what might
get a slightly different post out of you.......why don't you talk a bit about
an analog project you're working on, or a groovy vinyl experience -
you know something that doesn't involve the scoundrel or capital
punishment - just for a post or two -
i agree with you about the low end - thank god that in a big town like nyc,
people are working with tape all over, right now, i just heard about
a place in brooklyn that has two studer 16 tracks locked up.........

if people want their records to sound bad, johnny, that's their right.....
they can put a booklet in the cd explaining how the math prooves
that there really are low frequencies, even if you can't hear or feel them,
and that piercing headachy thing on top is supposed to be there.........

if somebody wants to to something thin and shallow, let em


thanks,

jack

Alphajerk,

Nope. Wrong again.

And I do not work for any of "The King of Sound Quality" analogue companies either.

The maidsroom,

Lots of people are trashing their digital rigs and migrating back to analogue...for some very good reasons, in particular, Analogue's Superior Sound Quality.
Sounds as if the NYC fellas are on the right track with 2 16-track Studers...when they get it all dialed-in, maybe they can go drink a ricky (or something stronger) to celebrate.

I wish digital sounded as good as analogue, but the facts say it still fails in that "Sound Quality Race."

I could list old records I love that had emotional impact (all pre-digital tech, BTW) but that list would be so long as to be overbearing.

However, the plain fact that there is such a long list of great analogue records proves one thing:

Analogue Still Rules!

Period. End of story.

jack, you are freaking INSANE man... analog has the head bump yes... but its low end is NO WHERE NEAR as extended as digital. and the "headbump" is an easy remedy to play upon.


i am beginning to think it is johnny the NO TALENT SCOUNDREL who whines and whines about what he cannot do for himself.... and i laugh like MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

p.s. analog tape sucks and the one eyed jack spits in its headstack...

Headbump, smeadbump.

You play a mix done on analog for the average person, vs. the digital mix, and I'll bet for those who hear a diff, they pick the analog.

I work in digital, and am not entertaining any thoughts of going back to tape ("Tape...where you are always somewhere you don't want to be...").

That said, to me digital is like videotape, analog is like film... and I like the look of "The Godfather" more than that of the local news.



TH

Alphajerk may take all the personal pot shots at me and call me all the names he pleases but it does not change the facts one bit:

Analogue sounds much better than Digital.


And what that means is that too many people have been taken in by the Digital Math Scoundrels fraud and want to defend their investment in crappy digital tech that is obsolete. In fact, *all* digital tech is obsolete before it's even built.

Sorry, those are also facts.

But if people want to delude themselves and believe that the digital tech they bought last year, or even today, will somehow hold its value or increase in value, then these same people had better watch out for the sharks that are selling stock in that new Bridge Company. Now if some Digital Math Scoundrels tells the weak minded people that it's going to be a very hot IPO, they would probably foolishly give the Digital Math Scoundrels all their life savings for stock in that bridge.

About the only thing that bridge stock will be good for is papering your walls and wiping your ass. The same can be said for the digital tech as it currently exists.

Whatever digital tech is out there will all be worthless in a short time, of that, we can all be assured.

I might add, that quite a few people think digital tech all worthless now.

I thought this thread is about sound quality, not quality of investment. I've heard some really kick ass sounding digital and some kick ass sounding analog. If someone needs to rely on one or the other to make a good record, then they're not good.

Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com

not necessarily...

asnd no, analog is NOT better. its different, but not better.

I just wanted to throw my two cents into this thread.

Unless you have an analog machine next to your digital rig to compare, listen and review, you just don't know.

Digital sounds good. It sounds great. But when ever I compare analog tracks vs. digitally recorded tracks -- I'm always amazed at how much better analog sounds.

Additionally, it's just not about frequency response -- all I know is tape sounds more a live and 3d and digital doesnot. Digital sounds smaller.

But as some one said, great records can be done on both. I just prefer analog.

i am insane, in that you are correct, but moving along to sound, well
i simply think you are wrong or we disagree - the only place that digital is more extended
is in the owner's manual......

i'm not talking about the "headbump" - tape outperforms digital at 30ips too
upright bass is but a fraction of itself in the digital world
i use a new reliable a827 with 16 track and 8 track heads - never 24 track

i really don't think there is language to describe what i hear. the space and depth
thing is just night and day - something magical has been traded away for convenience - oceantracks film analogy is accurate.

neither the soft bulletin nor yoshimi would be sonically possible without tape
or any radiohead record or ............................

you should hear the as of yet unreleased rufus wainwright track "the maker makes"
something i did in late november 04 - piano and vocal to the 2" 8 track - the vocal suspended over the mixing board
like a cloud - a sound so huge and immediate that it would be impossible in digital or
still decades away...........

i must also say, thank
god for pro tools hd so i can make slaves for things that need playing with, so that
the master is left until needed, or so i can go beyond 16 tracks with overdubbs
on the 8 track and then into the taiwanese box..........

back to my insanity - i live in a little room in the back of my studio - i have traded
my life for this sound...............


be well

- jack

yoshimi was PT...


and i like digital video [esp HD] better than film. film doesnt "track" right and its too blurry [saturation can be taken care of with digital]... images are much more "crisp" just as digital sound is much more "crisp" and "clear" than analog is.

although on that film analogy i read a thing by fletcher in tapOP regarding it... and depth of field... i guess he doenst work with film or video or lens, because depth of field is solely determined by aperature and has NOTHING to do with the medium involved. it was cute and amusing at the same time.

Jack keep spreading the good word on analog.

I agree with you, my brother.

Alphajerk, if you lack the capacity to understand what the last 3 or 4 posters have said, I'll abbreviate it for you:

Digital Sound Quality sucks big time in comparison to great Analogue.

This experience of people choosing Analogue Sound Quality over sucky digital sound quality is universal, it's been repeated over and over in studios thru-out the world. Analogue always comes out the winner in that Sound Quality Race.

alpha,

you must like some movies - i refuse to believe that you don't................
have you seen dr. strangelove ? - that's beautiful, well-shot film...it's also
kind of funny - not that the next film of that stature couldn't be dv.................

i guess i prefer the rounded edges to the crispness

fridman has a 35mm tape recorder !

be well

- jack

yeah, that 35mm sounds like ASS... notice he doesnt use it anymore... last time i think was mercury revs album 'see you on the other side' which was impeccable in its songs/sequencing but not on its sonics.

i read an interview of him discussing how they chopped up drozd' drums and totalyl changed everything inside PT, beats, etc.... he even said drozd doesnt ever haveto play drums again for any lips albums.