the problem with digital CD's
duty-honor-country
"warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--and despite
the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome has me stopping an
album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
as much as I do.
Famed record producer George Martin gave an overview of digital
recording in his book Making Music: "Ordinary [analog] recording
stores the electrical impulses (which have been converted from the
pure aural vibration by the microphone) on magnetic tape as magnetic
variations in the coating. Digital recording, on the other hand,
analyzes the frequencies constantly and stores the information as
binary code on tape. If you can imagine `stop-framing' a slice of
sound, analyzing it in terms of frequencies, converting the
information into numbers to store on tape and doing that 50,000 times
a second, that is what a digital recorder does. And on playback, a
reverse process takes place."
The trade-off, analog enthusiasts say, is the loss of a natural,
organic quality that many audiophiles say they hear only from analog
sources such as LPs and tapes. Rock icon Neil Young has been one of
the most outspoken opponents of digital audio (surprising, since he
has recorded many of his albums on digital equipment).
Young has acknowledged the benefit of hiss-free recording that digital
technology offers, with the caveat that "along with the hiss went
depth of sound and the myriad possibilities of the high end where
everything is like the cosmos, exploding stars, echo. From the 80s on,
no records contain that kind of quality any more and those are the
very things that stimulate the human body into reacting, feeling, and
enjoying music."
Young's allegations played a role in a study at the Berklee College of
Music in Boston, where Dave Moulton studied analog and digital sound
and, according to Young biographer David Downing, "came down in favor
of digital as cheaper and easier to use." At the same time, Moulton
cited Japanese research showing that digital music's reduction of
frequency range "lessens both measurable brain activity and the
listener's conscious awareness of interest, satisfaction, and beauty."
George Martin acknowledges in his book that many musicians and
listeners are "uneasy" with digital audio. "The absolute ceiling of
20kHz in frequency range may have something to do with that, but my
personal aural equipment is not capable of hearing such high
frequencies (very few people are blessed or cursed with a receptivity
beyond 16kHz), so digital presents this one with no problems."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
duty-honor-country
wrote:
and now testimonials by the recording professionals:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/10279/index.html
Analog vs. Digital at the 105th AES
By Jon Iverson
September 28, 1998 - Cats vs. dogs, Wile E. Coyote vs. Roadrunner,
Spy vs. Spy, Analog vs. Digital. It seems that some battles will never
end, and so it is with flux vs. bits in the professional recording
industry. The Audio Engineering Society (AES) conventions dazzle
showgoers with the latest audio recording and processing gear, mostly
digital, and this year's show is no exception. The big buzz heard
'round the hall were higher sampling and quantization rates for future
music formats such as DVD-Audio. But off-site, at the nearby ANA hotel
(great choice of venue---just add LOG) in downtown San Francisco, key
industry heavyweights were holding a meeting to discuss the future of
analog recording technologies.
Organized by the Analog Option Coalition (AOC), the event, billed as a
"Town Hall Meeting on the Future of Analog," took place September 28,
and was attended by about 100 record producers, mastering engineers,
equipment and tape vendors, studio owners, audio educators, and
assorted press. Analog-loving audiophiles have been taking a digital
beating for years; it was interesting to see how the recording
industry is also feeling the pain.
First to speak from a panel of eight was Gerd Cyrener from BASF Pro
Media. He pointed out that 90% of the coated tape sold is used for
analog recording and archiving. As a counterpoint, Bruno Hochstrasser
of Studer, manufacturer of the Mercedes of pro multitrack recorders
and mastering decks, lamented that they sell only 50-60 of their high-
end analog 24-track machines each year---almost all in the US, with
none going to Asia and a few scattered throughout Europe. He stated
that his company will support the format as long as they can sell a
few machines---in fact, he noted that interest is up this last year---
but added that it's becoming more difficult to maintain the analog end
of the business.
Steve Smith from Quantegy (formerly Ampex) reported that demand for
their analog tape products has remained strong, especially the 2"
format, with 1/4" sales down somewhat. Quantegy purchased 3M's tape
technology when 3M left the market, which gave Quantegy new prowess in
binding techniques. As a result, Quantegy introduced a new analog tape
called GP9, which, Smith claims, will archive longer than any tape
they've made so far.
Next up were the testimonials from producers and mastering engineers.
Alan Sides from OceanWay Recording (check the credits of some of your
favorite albums---you'll see OWR listed as the studio) said that "my
analog usage has increased; 80-90% of my 24-track sessions are analog,
and 100% of the mastering is done to 1/2" analog tape." He also
pointed out that DAT copies made for referencing typically fall apart,
both as a faithful music-reproduction medium and as a physical format.
"Analog will be with us for a long time," he concluded. Sides also
talked a little about using Sony's new DSD format, intended for the
Super Audio CD (at this point a rival to DVD-Audio). "I could not say
it is better---it has pluses and minuses---but there is not a
multitrack on the horizon, so it is not an option right now."
Joe Chiccarelli, a producer who has recorded a wide variety of recent
music including Beck, Tori Amos, and Hole, agreed with Sides: "It will
be a long while before digital replaces analog." He said that, when
starting out, he found that only analog recordings could provide the
bottom end that he liked; he primarily uses analog 16- or 24-track
machines for his sessions.
The mastering engineers were next. Bob Ludwig of Gateway Mastering
stated that 60-70% of his projects are all-analog, with DATs provided
as backup. "We do compare the formats, and analog wins hands down the
majority of the time," he said. Ludwig points out that until higher-
resolution digital multitracks are more common, analog will dominate.
He also hinted that he still prefers analog to 96kHz digital, and
added, "We're still very much an analog world; we have six ways to
play back an analog tape in our facility."
Bernie Grundman of Bernie Grundman Mastering agreed with Ludwig, and
pointed out that 60% of his projects are mastered from analog---even
in his Tokyo facility, where it used to be 0%. (Japan is a notoriously
digital country when it comes to studio multitracking and mixing.)
When making comparisons, Grundman said, "Digital always has a thinness
about it, which I call 'skinny sound.' Analog has size, and usually
always wins in my studio." Grundman, noting digital tapes' propensity
to go bad quickly, warned the audience to make analog copies for
archiving. "Analog tapes going back to the '50s still sound great. If
you really want to preserve the sound, use analog."
Next were questions from the audience, and, after the usual
testimonials, a voice erupted from the back of the room. Its owner
exclaimed in no uncertain terms that, unlike the other speakers, he
would not use a microphone in loudly stating that he was opting for
pure analog. The voice belonged to audio equipment designer Tim de
Paravicini, who was ready to defend a new analog tape format: 1" two-
track. De Paravicini stated that, until digital hits around 24-bit/
400kHz, he'll stick to analog, thank you very much. He reported that
he's working with several other manufacturers, and that a 1" standard
will soon emerge that he hopes will be used by quality-driven
engineers around the world. De Paravicini also pointed out that,
because he invented the format, that he could define it exactly as he
liked, including a tape speed of 15ips---half the 30ips speed used for
most high-end analog mixing these days. He claims that if the machines
and tape are set up properly, the slower speed with 1" tape cannot be
beat.
Interestingly, not much was said of recording for DVD-Audio, even
though AOC moderator Bruce Borgerson suggested the topic as a
discussion item; and editing projects on computer was roundly trounced
by everyone present. Vinyl was championed several times, and analog
equalizers uniformly praised. One gradually became aware that this
room concentrated some of the most powerful audiophiles in the
business. Let's hope they win the perpetual analog-vs.-digital battle
without having to resort to undependable ACME dynamite.
duty-honor-country
and even more:
Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
that "From the early 80's up till now and probably for another 10 to
15 years is the darkest time for recorded music ever." In one odd
digression, he asserted that only analog music can be used for therapy
-- digital music isn't therapeutic (excuse me?). In another, he
likened listening to digital to looking at a landscape through a
screen window. The only technical observation he made was that the
sampling rate used for digital audio these days (44.1 or 48 KHz. --
take your choice) is too slow to provide adequate resolution for
musical hearing.
A fundamental rule in scientific measurement is the Range Rule: you
must make your test fit within the range of your hypothesis. And if
you are testing music, as listened to at home, then your test must
involve music listened to at home (or some reasonable approximation).
Where we tripped up was in the AB test. We don't normally listen to
music in an AB situation, switching back and forth between systems. We
usually just sit there like good couch potatoes, with some
recreational refreshments in hand and the level cranked to the JBWMNC*
Threshold, and wallow in the stuff. And after we've wallowed, we feel
satisfied. But some of us, after listening to digital recordings,
apparently don't feel quite so satisfied.
So about two years ago, some Japanese researchers decided to approach
things differently. They didn't use AB testing at first, and they
didn't ask the listeners to report back at first. Instead, they made a
recording (of acoustical musical instruments) that they knew by
physical measurement had frequencies up to 50 KHz. present, and they
then made a copy of that recording that was low-pass filtered to 20
KHz. They played both versions for their test listeners through a
monitor system that they knew by physical measurement could reproduce
frequencies up to 50 KHz., while observing, via electro-encephalograph
machines, their listeners' brain activity.
Bingo! The recordings that were filtered produced much less brain
activity than did the broad-band recordings. So they knew that the
brain noticed a difference. Then they asked the subjects to comment on
the quality of the recorded sounds, and found that the listeners
reported the original broad-band sounds to be interesting, satisfying
and beautiful much more than they reported those qualities for band-
limited sounds.
>From there the researchers worked backwards to resolve these findings
with what we've already known: that in AB tests listeners can't hear
the difference. They found, interestingly, that it takes a while for
the brain activity to change, so after switching from A to B, a change
in brain activity wasn't noticed for 20 seconds or so, and then it
came on gradually -- in other words, the brain appears to become
conditioned to its listening situation and takes a while to perceive a
change. So, AB tests don't work for testing this hypothesis, but long-
term listening trials will reveal it.
So, yup, Neil's got a point and the audiophiles are right, within
limits. Some ultrasonic material nuked by the anti-alias filters used
in analog-to-digital conversion turns out to perhaps be significant in
the "musical satisfaction" sweepstakes. This can now be scientifically
supported. Sumbich!*
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/P1/
Geoff
> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
> "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
> harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--and despite
> the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
> can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome has me stopping an
> album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
> as much as I do.
Well you must have a real crap digital gear then. Usually you can record
your analogue music onto digital gear, and all the 'warmth' from teh
original playback is reproduced.
>
> Famed record producer George Martin gave an overview of digital
> recording in his book Making Music: "Ordinary [analog] recording
> stores the electrical impulses (which have been converted from the
> pure aural vibration by the microphone) on magnetic tape as magnetic
> variations in the coating. Digital recording, on the other hand,
> analyzes the frequencies constantly and stores the information as
> binary code on tape. If you can imagine `stop-framing' a slice of
> sound, analyzing it in terms of frequencies, converting the
> information into numbers to store on tape and doing that 50,000 times
> a second, that is what a digital recorder does. And on playback, a
> reverse process takes place."
Yes, sort of. And .....
>
> The trade-off, analog enthusiasts say, is the loss of a natural,
> organic quality that many audiophiles say they hear only from analog
> sources such as LPs and tapes. Rock icon Neil Young has been one of
> the most outspoken opponents of digital audio (surprising, since he
> has recorded many of his albums on digital equipment).
How depressing.
> George Martin acknowledges in his book that many musicians and
> listeners are "uneasy" with digital audio. "The absolute ceiling of
> 20kHz in frequency range may have something to do with that, but my
> personal aural equipment is not capable of hearing such high
> frequencies (very few people are blessed or cursed with a receptivity
> beyond 16kHz), so digital presents this one with no problems."
Digital audio has no such limitation.
geoff
Geoff
> Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
> of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
> farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
> that
I'm sure he finds his imited understanding , tinnitus, and whatever else,
very depressing.
Hope you derive great satisfaction from commiserateing with Neil, and
sucking the cocks of the analogue tape salesmen.
geoff
Arny Krueger
in message
news:1180263805.6...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital?
The biggest advantage over analog sound over digital is that analog sound
exists in the real world. It's what acoustic and legacy electric instruments
make. It's what we hear.
> There's the "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well
> as "smoother" and "less harsh."
Nonsense, since analog signals can be replicated via digital, and be
indistinguishable when heard.
> Even on the modest
> phonographic equipment I own--and despite the fact that
> major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound
> longer than I can to digital.
Then you must own crap, or have a hysterical fear of digital.
> Digital's "ear fatigue"
> syndrome has me stopping an album midway through--a
> disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music as much as
> I do.
Get some good digital gear, and recordings to listen to.
> Famed record producer George Martin gave an overview of
> digital recording in his book Making Music: "Ordinary
> [analog] recording stores the electrical impulses (which
> have been converted from the pure aural vibration by the
> microphone) on magnetic tape as magnetic variations in
> the coating. Digital recording, on the other hand,
> analyzes the frequencies constantly and stores the
> information as binary code on tape.
He is wrong if he is talking about PCM digital, such as the audio CD.
There's no analysis of frequencies.
> If you can imagine
> `stop-framing' a slice of sound, analyzing it in terms of
> frequencies, converting the information into numbers to
> store on tape and doing that 50,000 times a second, that
> is what a digital recorder does. And on playback, a
> reverse process takes place."
Again, Martin is talking like an ignorant audiophile, because there is no
analysis of frequencies in ordinary digital recording. If he was talking
about MP3, then he would be closer to the truth.
> The trade-off, analog enthusiasts say, is the loss of a
> natural, organic quality that many audiophiles say they
> hear only from analog sources such as LPs and tapes.
If by organic you mean manure, then you would be closer to the truth.
> Rock
> icon Neil Young has been one of the most outspoken
> opponents of digital audio (surprising, since he has
> recorded many of his albums on digital equipment).
He's probably ruined his ears, and only hears details that he imagines.
> Young has acknowledged the benefit of hiss-free recording
> that digital technology offers, with the caveat that
> "along with the hiss went depth of sound and the myriad
> possibilities of the high end where everything is like
> the cosmos, exploding stars, echo.
Yup, he only knows what people tell him about sound. Sad state of affairs,
but not uncommon among older musos.
> From the 80s on, no
> records contain that kind of quality any more and those
> are the very things that stimulate the human body into
> reacting, feeling, and enjoying music."
Well, there were plenty of entirely analog recordings made in the 80s, so
the fault must not be digital.
> Young's allegations played a role in a study at the
> Berklee College of Music in Boston, where Dave Moulton
> studied analog and digital sound and, according to Young
> biographer David Downing, "came down in favor of digital
> as cheaper and easier to use." At the same time, Moulton
> cited Japanese research showing that digital music's
> reduction of frequency range "lessens both measurable
> brain activity and the listener's conscious awareness of
> interest, satisfaction, and beauty."
Most of us listen with our ears, not via an EKG.
> George Martin acknowledges in his book that many
> musicians and listeners are "uneasy" with digital audio.
Old dudes, new technology, angst. A well-known sequence of events.
> "The absolute ceiling of 20kHz in frequency range may
> have something to do with that, but my personal aural
> equipment is not capable of hearing such high frequencies
> (very few people are blessed or cursed with a receptivity
> beyond 16kHz), so digital presents this one with no
> problems."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
Martin finally gets something right!
William Sommerwerck
> "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and
> "less harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--
> and despite the fact that major strides have been made in digital
> mastering--I've discovered in general that I can listen to analog
> sound longer than I can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome
> has me stopping an album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon
> for one who loves music as much as I do.
I mean no offense, but there must be something very wrong with your digital
playback -- or you simply don't like the generally less-inaccurate sound of
digital playback and prefer the euphonic colorations of LPs.
I have very high-quality LP, CD, and SACD playback. Within the limitations
of any particular recording, all are highly listenable.
> Famed record producer George Martin gave an overview of digital
> recording in his book Making Music: "Ordinary [analog] recording
> stores the electrical impulses (which have been converted from the
> pure aural vibration by the microphone) on magnetic tape as magnetic
> variations in the coating. Digital recording, on the other hand,
> analyzes the frequencies constantly and stores the information as
> binary code on tape. If you can imagine `stop-framing' a slice of
> sound, analyzing it in terms of frequencies, converting the
> information into numbers to store on tape and doing that 50,000 times
> a second, that is what a digital recorder does. And on playback, a
> reverse process takes place."
Martin's description of how digital works is almost completely wrong.
Regular PCM or DSD recording takes amplitude samples, not frequency samples.
His explanation comes closer to describing MP3 and similar "lossy" recording
schemes.
> The trade-off, analog enthusiasts say, is the loss of a natural,
> organic quality that many audiophiles say they hear only from analog
> sources such as LPs and tapes. Rock icon Neil Young has been one
> of the most outspoken opponents of digital audio (surprising, since he
> has recorded many of his albums on digital equipment).
To my ears, and with the digital recording equipment available to me, I find
that digital recordings sound more like what I hear at the microphones than
analog recordings. Your impressions may vary.
> Young has acknowledged the benefit of hiss-free recording that digital
> technology offers, with the caveat that "along with the hiss went
> depth of sound and the myriad possibilities of the high end where
> everything is like the cosmos, exploding stars, echo. From the 80s
> on, no records contain that kind of quality any more and those are the
> very things that stimulate the human body into reacting, feeling, and
> enjoying music."
This is not surprising, coming from someone who makes recordings that have
little, if any, relationship to live, unamplified, "acoustic" sound.
I can name all-digital recordings that sound life-like and "realistic".
That's the standard, not euphony.
> Young's allegations played a role in a study at the Berklee College of
> Music in Boston, where Dave Moulton studied analog and digital sound
> and, according to Young biographer David Downing, "came down in favor
> of digital as cheaper and easier to use." At the same time, Moulton
> cited Japanese research showing that digital music's reduction of
> frequency range "lessens both measurable brain activity and the
> listener's conscious awareness of interest, satisfaction, and beauty."
An analog recording might very well be perceived as "more beautiful" than a
digital one (compare, for example, the LP of the Maag performance of
Mendelssohn's "Midsummer Night's Dream" music with the CD), but that says
nothing (pro or con) about the accuracy of the recording.
> George Martin acknowledges in his book that many musicians and
> listeners are "uneasy" with digital audio. "The absolute ceiling of
> 20kHz in frequency range may have something to do with that, but
> my personal aural equipment is not capable of hearing such high
> frequencies (very few people are blessed or cursed with a receptivity
> beyond 16kHz), so digital presents this one with no problems."
Frequency range explains little about subjective differences between analog
and digital.
duty-honor-country
> Well you must have a real crap digital gear then.
WRONG- none of these quotes are my own statements- they are all from
other sources, and the links are supplied with each one
duty-honor-country
> duty-honor-country wrote:
> > Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
> > of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
> > farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
> > that
>
> I'm sure he finds his imited understanding , tinnitus, and whatever else,
> very depressing.
as if you had more time in the recording studio, than Neil Young has
had in 40+ years ?
he obviously is better source on this subject, than you are
duty-honor-country
>
> Old dudes, new technology, angst. A well-known sequence of events.
you're not young yourself- and you're hearing isn't what it used to
be-
duty-honor-country
wrote:
> > So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
> > "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and
> > "less harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--
> > and despite the fact that major strides have been made in digital
> > mastering--I've discovered in general that I can listen to analog
> > sound longer than I can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome
> > has me stopping an album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon
> > for one who loves music as much as I do.
>
> I mean no offense, but there must be something very wrong with your digital
> playback -- or you simply don't like the generally less-inaccurate sound of
> digital playback and prefer the euphonic colorations of LPs.
again, none of these previous quotes are my own- they are all taken
from other sources- so you're wrong there- it's not "my" digital
playback- these people are pillars of the recording industry- artists
and studio engineers- click on the links with each post and see for
yourself
jailhouserock
>
> playback -- or you simply don't like the generally less-inaccurate sound of
> digital playback and prefer the euphonic colorations of LPs.
>
William- the first 3 OP's starting this thread, are not my own- they
are taken from these 3 sites- you have made the mistake of connecting
me to what they said- I see a lot of this, the proponents of digital
sound jump to the conclusion that anyway that disses digital, has a
lousy digital setup. Not true. Those quotes came from these sites
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
http://www.stereophile.com/news/10279/index.html
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/P1/
But now that you mentioned it, I do have a very good Pioneer SACD/DVD-
A player, although it is better sounding than my standard CD player,
it is inferior to my analog sources.
If you are going to spend a few hours of your time each week listening
to music, time that is hard to come by these days, you may as well
listen to the BEST sources and system, and as of now, that is still
analog.
what the one fellow shouted out is true- digital would need 400khz/
24bit rez to really compete with analog
so the bar has been raised- these are studio engineers speaking, not
street bums. We are talking about some very well-monied people, that
can afford any stereo equipment on the planet.
many prefer analog for quality, but digital for convenience
William Sommerwerck
> are taken from these 3 sites- you have made the mistake of connecting
> me to what they said- I see a lot of this, the proponents of digital
> sound jump to the conclusion that anyway that disses digital, has a
> lousy digital setup. Not true. Those quotes came from these sites
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/10279/index.html
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/P1/
But the statement that "someone" suffered from digital ear fatigue appeared
to be the reaction of the poster.
Mark
> Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
> of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
> farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
> that "From the early 80's up till now and probably for another 10 to
> 15 years is the darkest time for recorded music ever." In one odd
> digression, he asserted that only analog music can be used for therapy
> -- digital music isn't therapeutic (excuse me?). In another, he
> likened listening to digital to looking at a landscape through a
> screen window. The only technical observation he made was that the
> sampling rate used for digital audio these days (44.1 or 48 KHz. --
> take your choice) is too slow to provide adequate resolution for
> musical hearing.
>
I've got a 100% ANALOG Dual turntable that has great sounding rumble
and tracking distortion and some nice hum too. With some records it
has some good wow also. It sounds great. I'd be willing to sell it
to you since you obviously have an appreciation for this.
How about $1000?
I'll also throw in a 100% analog cassette deck too. It features true
random hiss sounds, wonderfull high frequency limiting and my favorite
is the warming azimuth rolloff.
Mark
jailhouserock
wrote:
> > William- the first 3 OP's starting this thread, are not my own- they
> > are taken from these 3 sites- you have made the mistake of connecting
> > me to what they said- I see a lot of this, the proponents of digital
> > sound jump to the conclusion that anyway that disses digital, has a
> > lousy digital setup. Not true. Those quotes came from these sites
> >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
> >http://www.stereophile.com/news/10279/index.html
>
> But the statement that "someone" suffered from digitalearfatigueappeared
> to be the reaction of the poster.
wrong again- that quote came directly from the website- check it out,
read the article, and see for yourself
the quote is from the 6th paragraph of this article
perhaps you need to stop being so defensive, and do some PROLONGED
back to back tests of your own- epiphany will strike
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
"So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
"warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--and despite
jailhouserock
even rumble and hum, is better than turning it off because it's too
harsh
amps hum too, at live shows...
gee, the crowd even talks and coughs between songs
so ?
William Sommerwerck
> PROLONGED back to back tests of your own- epiphany will strike
I've had a "good" audio system for 35 years, and have some experience making
live recordings. I disliked phonograph reproduction -- preferring open-reel
tape -- long before digital, in any form or format, showed up. Though good
LP recording and playback can be excellent, such excellence requires
moderately expensive equipment -- rather more than one would spend on CD or
SACD playback.
The only way I could have an epiphany would be for someone to show me that
the sound of a direct-disk LP sounded more like the original mic feed than a
digital recording of same.
By the way, it should be pointed out that 99% of all recordings don't sound
particularly good, either because they bear no relationship to live sound,
or because when they _are_ "representations" of live sound, the producer and
engineer so **** with the sound that you are all-too-aware you're hearing a
recording, not even a vague semblance of the original.
Unless and until record companies start making an honest effort to give us
"natural" sound, the issue of analog versus digital is, to some extent,
meaningless. I can make a "better" recording with an Nakamichi cassette deck
than what one hears on most CDs.
Eeyore
Geoff wrote:
> duty-honor-country wrote:
> > So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
> > "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
> > harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--and despite
> > the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> > discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
> > can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome has me stopping an
> > album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
> > as much as I do.
>
> Well you must have a real crap digital gear then.
My thoughts exactly.
Graham
DeserTBoB
This troll, Charles M. Nudo, Jr, 160 Bear Run Dr., Drums, PA 18222, is
a notorious spammer, troll and general idiot. He knows nothing of
audio and thinks early '60s tube powered "consoles" are "high
fidelity".
Add him and his other four sock puppets to your kill filers.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>Well you must have a real crap digital gear then. <snip>
Charlie Nudo buys his audio gear either at dead peoples' estate sales
(old consoles and the like) or gets his "digital" stuff from Wal-Mart.
Kill file him.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>"duty-honor-country" <dutyhono...@hotmail.com> aka Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA puked:
<snipping all of Noodles' baby-like spew.
>Martin finally gets something right! <snip>
Martin is an idiot...same thought processes as Charlie Nudo, but
Martin at least has an above-room-temperate IQ and some education.
Nudo is a genetic ginzo coal miner from the toxic NE corner of Penna.
Ty Ford
(in article <1180263805.6...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital?
Good digital is better than bad analog. Good analog is better than bad
digital.
Good digital and good analog are like vanilla and chocolate. Which one do you
want today?
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU
DeserTBoB
<dutyhono...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
>of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," <snip>
Yeah, like that hyperactive moron's any source to quote! Remember,
he's the one who said about Charles Manson, "He was good...really,
really good!"
Romeo Rondeau
And his hearing is going because he's old and he's been performing on a
loud stage for years, so I would say he's less qualified than a lot of
people I know.
Romeo Rondeau
And for every analog guy, there's digital one, what's your point?
Romeo Rondeau
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:03:25 -0400, duty-honor-country wrote
> (in article <1180263805.6...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital?
>
>
> Good digital is better than bad analog. Good analog is better than bad
> digital.
>
>
> Good digital and good analog are like vanilla and chocolate. Which one do you
> want today?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
Great point Ty! The truth is that a good engineer will give you a good
recording regardless of the medium.
hank alrich
So in other words you're just trying to blow other people's smoke up our
butts. Thanks a lot. Mind you some of us have decent analog gear and
digital gear, too, and work with either or both nearly every day. Our
opinions may not be any of your business, if you have any business.
--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
mainm...@choiceonemail.com
wrote:
> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
> "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
> the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
> can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome has me stopping an
> album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
> as much as I do.
>
> recording in his book Making Music: "Ordinary [analog] recording
> stores the electrical impulses (which have been converted from the
> pure aural vibration by the microphone) on magnetic tape as magnetic
> variations in the coating. Digital recording, on the other hand,
> analyzes the frequencies constantly and stores the information as
> binary code on tape. If you can imagine `stop-framing' a slice of
> sound, analyzing it in terms of frequencies, converting the
> information into numbers to store on tape and doing that 50,000 times
> a second, that is what a digital recorder does. And on playback, a
> reverse process takes place."
>
> organic quality that many audiophiles say they hear only from analog
> sources such as LPs and tapes. Rock icon Neil Young has been one of
> the most outspoken opponents of digital audio (surprising, since he
> has recorded many of his albums on digital equipment).
>
> technology offers, with the caveat that "along with the hiss went
> depth of sound and the myriad possibilities of the high end where
> everything is like the cosmos, exploding stars, echo. From the 80s on,
> no records contain that kind of quality any more and those are the
> very things that stimulate the human body into reacting, feeling, and
> enjoying music."
>
> Music in Boston, where Dave Moulton studied analog and digital sound
> and, according to Young biographer David Downing, "came down in favor
> of digital as cheaper and easier to use." At the same time, Moulton
> cited Japanese research showing that digital music's reduction of
> frequency range "lessens both measurable brain activity and the
> listener's conscious awareness of interest, satisfaction, and beauty."
>
> listeners are "uneasy" with digital audio. "The absolute ceiling of
> 20kHz in frequency range may have something to do with that, but my
> personal aural equipment is not capable of hearing such high
> frequencies (very few people are blessed or cursed with a receptivity
> beyond 16kHz), so digital presents this one with no problems."
>
The clinical definition of insanity (to paraphrase) is when a person
repeats the same action and expects different results each time. Think
about this when you read *and* reply to posts like this, time and time
again.
-dave M.
hank alrich
I'm starting to think that "DesertBob" and "duty-honor-country" are the
same poster.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>I'm starting to think that "DesertBob" and "duty-honor-country" are the
>same poster. <snip>
Dumb people use "goo goo groopz." Thus, Charlie Nudo is the dumb one.
Dumb people think analog is "superior." Charlie Nudo thinks this.
By the way, ever figure out how to find a poster's IP?
Didn't think so.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>Good digital is better than bad analog. Good analog is better than bad
>digital. <snip>
Many early digital masters reduced from, say, Soundstream to CD-A were
pretty badly done. Many masters done today with clipping as a
"loudness effect" are equally bad. These are examples of "bad
digital" that a well done analog tape master can best any day. All
things being equal and observance of technical parameters being taken
into due consideration, however, digital beats analog tape any day.
Charlie Nudo can't figure that out because his "monitors" are 6X9s in
a pair of shoeboxes, and his "tape machine" is an 8 track...cartridge.
Mogens V.
Neigher is mine, but I can still hear a mouse fart ;)
Better be less young and keep up with technology than continuously
blessing techniques from "the days that used to be" - to quote a known
Niel Young song. Love his music BTW, but tech is tech, it advances, like
it or not. Lotsa tech stuff is imperfect at conception, but it matures.
Analog itself wasn't all that good in early days, you know...
But even today, some audiophiles prefer to dwelve in the past.
But maybe you're just confusing old analog recordings with a touch of
soul with some modern overproduced, overprocessed digital ones?
I bet ya, if your favourite analogs had been made with good digital
gear, they would've sounded just fine. Likewise, the overproduced,
overprocessed albums sounds just the same on analog.
--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.
> It's actually worse in digital, because you're trying to paint a
> picture with a fine point pen with digital.
> Analog paints the picture with a 4" wide brush- which makes for more
> depth and spaciousness.
What you need is a good wind-up 78 player and a nice sharp thorn.
-- from rec.audio.pro
"One thing you can say about ignorance,
it causes a lot of interesting arguments."
-- Bob Heil (from his book "Concert Sound")
David Morgan (MAMS)
Geoff
> On May 27, 7:33 am, "Geoff" <g...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>> duty-honor-country wrote:
>>> calling it "a farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you,"
>>> and grimly noting that
>>
>> I'm sure he finds his imited understanding , tinnitus, and whatever
>> else, very depressing.
>
>
> as if you had more time in the recording studio, than Neil Young has
> had in 40+ years ?
>
> he obviously is better source on this subject, than you are
His hearing is obviously more acute too. I can't have listen to enough
grunge electric guitar at close quarters.
geoff
Geoff
The context was that George Martin was explaining something technical that
he knew, in simple terms to people who had little technical understanding.
Neil's scanrio was the opposite.
geoff
Geoff
>
>
> But now that you mentioned it, I do have a very good Pioneer SACD/DVD-
> A player, although it is better sounding than my standard CD player,
> it is inferior to my analog sources.
So what analogue source media do you listen to for a few hours each week
that exceeds the capabilties of CD, and in what way ?
geoff
Geoff
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
>
> "So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
> "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
> harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--and despite
> the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
> can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome has me stopping an
> album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
> as much as I do."
Is that because the fidelity is too good ? Maybe some treble rolloff and
compression would make it more convenient. And throw in a dash of euphonic
reasonance to make it even sweeter.
geoff
Geoff
> I'm curious.... what is an analogue CD?
I was about to ask that. But you just did.
Maybe it is Beta-modulation. The sideways eccentricity in the pre-groove
being amplitudemodulated by music ?
geoff
jailhouserock
> Ty Ford wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 07:03:25 -0400, duty-honor-country wrote
>
> >> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital?
>
> > Good digital is better than bad analog. Good analog is better than bad
> > digital.
>
> > Good digital and good analog are like vanilla and chocolate. Which one do you
> > want today?
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Ty Ford
>
> Great point Ty! The truth is that a good engineer will give you a good
>
> - Show quoted text -
that's a crock of shit....CD's sound like crap compared to clean vinyl
or tape
jailhouserock
> butts. >
what's this "try" shit ?? been there, done that....
jailhouserock
vinyl LP's and analog tape at 3.75 IPS, exceeds the capability of any
CD ever made
jailhouserock
better than making it too crisp, i.e. digital, where if you slowed the
music down enough, what you would hear is a series of blips and 0-1
binary code, like Morse code...
you call that music ?
Les Cargill
> On May 27, 7:33 am, "Geoff" <g...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>duty-honor-country wrote:
>>
>>>Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
>>>of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
>>>farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
>>>that
>>
>>I'm sure he finds his imited understanding , tinnitus, and whatever else,
>>very depressing.
>
>
>
> as if you had more time in the recording studio, than Neil Young has
> had in 40+ years ?
>
> he obviously is better source on this subject, than you are
>
That means nothing.
I do not have the article in front of me, but Neil Young is
not technically qualified to make any statements on the
subject.
--
Les Cargill
Don Pearce
wrote:
I fear Mr. Young is no longer qualified to tell whether it is day or
night.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Romeo Rondeau
You are an idiot :-) What happens when you slow down analog tape by the
same factor? It ain't music either. Don't tell us how to do our job, ok?
We don't go to your job and tell you how to bag groceries, do we?
hank alrich
> On May 28, 5:19 am, "Geoff" wrote:
> > jailhouserock wrote:
> >
> > > But now that you mentioned it, I do have a very good Pioneer SACD/DVD-
> > > A player, although it is better sounding than my standard CD player,
> > > it is inferior to my analog sources.
> >
> > So what analogue source media do you listen to for a few hours each week
> > that exceeds the capabilties of CD, and in what way ?
> >
> > geoff
>
>
>
> vinyl LP's and analog tape at 3.75 IPS, exceeds the capability of any
> CD ever made
Please explain. Do not post links to third-party opinions. Just explain.
Richard Crowley
> jailhouserock wrote:
>> vinyl LP's and analog tape at 3.75 IPS, exceeds the capability of any
>> CD ever made
>
> Please explain. Do not post links to third-party opinions. Just explain.
Troll-feeders are next on my twit-list.
Geoff
Grateful you ellucidate as to in what way those media exceed CD.
geoff
Geoff
You are joking, aren't you ?
Are you actually the same dude as the OP ?
geoff
Geoff
> I fear Mr. Young is no longer qualified to tell whether it is day or
> night.
>
With Neil it's always been night. Deep dark and miserable. Loves to share
it.
geoff
jailhouserock
> > wrote:
>
> >> "duty-honor-country" <dutyhonorcount...@hotmail.com> aka Charlie
> >> Nudo of Drums, PA puked:
>
> > <snipping all of Noodles' baby-like spew.
>
> >> Martin finally gets something right! <snip>
>
> > Martin is an idiot...same thought processes as Charlie Nudo, but
> > Martin at least has an above-room-temperate IQ and some education.
> > Nudo is a genetic ginzo coal miner from the toxic NE corner of Penna.
>
> The context was that George Martin was explaining something technical that
> he knew, in simple terms to people who had little technical understanding.
> Neil's scanrio was the opposite.
>
> geoff
Neil spent 40 years in studios, recording with a lot better equipment,
and more skilled people, than you'll ever live to see in your
life...let alone work with.
His opinion on these kinds of things, is practically undisputed.
Bob Dylan happens to share that opinion as well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/bob_dylan_digital_sucks/
Digital music is rubbish - Bob Dylan
And don't policemen look young these days?
By Andrew Orlowski → More by this author
Published Wednesday 23rd August 2006 12:05 GMT
Why Businesses need Business Continuity - Free whitepaper
You can't blame people for illegally downloading music for free,
because that's about all it's worth, according to Bob Dylan, in an
interview with Rolling Stone this month.
Dylan also had a blast at modern recording processes for robbing music
of its soul.
"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have
sound all over them," he reckons. "There's no definition of nothing,
no vocal, no nothing, just like...static."
Dylan complained that songs sounded 10 times better in the studio than
the final result. And he might have a point.
While today's algorithms are constantly being improved, we're told,
they have to replace what's already been taken out by a reductive
process of encoding and compression. The result? A net loss.
Digital "remastering" has also been the excuse for some heinous
butchery recently. Universal's Motown CD reissues compress the sound
so tightly it sounds like a hiss. You can't sing along to that.
Send us your worst examples of digital "enhancements" to the usual
address. ®
jailhouserock
wrote:
> So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital? There's the
> "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
> harsh." Even on the modest phonographic equipment I own--and despite
> the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
> can to digital. Digital's "ear fatigue" syndrome has me stopping an
> album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
> as much as I do.
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/bob_dylan_digital_sucks/
audioae...@gmail.com
> Dylan complained that songs sounded 10 times better in the studio than
> the final result. And he might have a point.
>
yes this is a statement of his
being that he likes the sound (digital recording) before the record
companies get their
a&r mastering hands on it.
so digital is good
but the marketing department's understanding of this technology is
bad.
and the marketing people are suing all downloaders
lawyers everywhere
so the moral is if you sell your soul to get a hit record...
don't let them hire lawyers to master it.
DamnYankee
I'll tell you two reasons in a nutshell:
1. Our ears are built to 2nd order (even-order) harmonics (aka
"analog). Digital is 3rd order (odd-order) harmonics, and that is why
you experience hearing fatigue listening to 3rd order harmonics for an
extended period of time.
2. Analog is infinite, Digital is limited by number of bits. People
always talk about frequencies, but what I find hysterical is noone ever
discusses the reality that digital destroys phase angle relationships
(3D depth perception that a sound is comes from say, "over there" - 20
feet away). Digital destroys this 3D depth perception into 1
dimensional. This law of mother nature is why you can't build a
digital chorus.
Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to chop off the bass
frequencies (the lower the frequency, the larger the soundwaves which
are huge bit hogs), the highest frequencies (which makes cymbals sound
brassy). Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers with analog gear???
The bottom line is: NOTHING sounds as good as a reel-to-reel tape deck;
vinyl records come a close second. If anyone ever tells you
differently, then their either lying or they don't know what they're
talking about. However, digital has its mechanical and financial
advantages: it's cheap to build (thus cheap to buy), and it has many
features that in the analog world would be a rack full of expensive
gear. See the trade off? You lose sound quality & listenability but
gain cost savings and add features.
For the record, I use Steinberg Nuendo 3 and tape.
--
DamnYankee
Kalman Rubinson
<DamnYank...@audiobanter.com> wrote:
>Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to chop off the bass
>frequencies (the lower the frequency, the larger the soundwaves which
>are huge bit hogs), the highest frequencies (which makes cymbals sound
>brassy). Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers with analog gear???
Huh? The lower the frequency the less digital bandwidth required, so
there's no reason for digital to limit the low frequencies. OTOH,
analog media have space/saturation issues with bass and SNR issues
with high treble.
Also, what does any of this have to do with analog gear not needing
subwoofers? In fact, the use of subwoofers with digital is a
consequence of the extended bass on digital recordings.
Kal
h...@40th.com
rumble (feedback), or what have -- no noise, &
much less distortion (you warped vinyl weirdos
need to get your senses checked). Nothing but
that pure, digital stereo goodness, something
you can't get with non-digital sources, and that
which fears no generational losses -- so it's
as good today, as it was in the beginning,
and as it will be in the end (playing your copy
of a copy of a copy of your original). If get
tired from "digital", you have other problems.
--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iplay.40th.com iPlay advanced audio player
zircon.40th.com Zircon mobile music player
Six String Stu
news:I5N6i.24383$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
ARGH!!!
Don't do it Stu. (My common sense says to me)
But, but, hel needs to hear it.
(in my most disgusted tone of voice) Heathen! Where's the friggin big damn
font when i need it)
Actually I like my digital multitracker, a lot. But I was rasied up
listening to tube amps that put this jap crap to shame. Call me old fashion,
call me nostalgic. But you will never, eeeeever change my opinions and
trying to do so will only get whiskey bottles thrown at cha.
Romeo Rondeau
What does a tube amp have to do with a digital multitracker?
Six String Stu
recording.
"Romeo Rondeau" <schmuck...@fuggya.com> wrote in message
news:tuO6i.8449$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
Arny Krueger
message
>
> Dylan complained that songs sounded 10 times better in
> the studio than the final result. And he might have a
> point.
It's a very old story - recordings generally don't sound as good as the
music sounded when it was played. Especially to the player. There are a
whole passel of psychological, social, acoustical and electroacoustical
reasons for this. It turns out that the miniscule imperfections of modern
high quality digital recording and playback have nothing to do with it.
William Sommerwerck
> "analog). Digital is 3rd order (odd-order) harmonics, and that is
> why you experience hearing fatigue listening to 3rd order
> harmonics for an extended period of time.
That makes no sense at all. What are talking about?
> 2. Analog is infinite, digital is limited by number of bits. People
> always talk about frequencies, but what I find hysterical is no one ever
> discusses the reality that digital destroys phase angle relationships
> (3D depth perception that a sound is comes from say, "over there" - 20
> feet away). Digital destroys this 3D depth perception into 1
> dimensional. This law of mother nature is why you can't build a
> digital chorus.
Actually, digital phase is much better-behaved than analog. Analog tape
recording, in particular, suffers from non-minimum-phase errors. They're
fixable, but very few recorders have ever done it.
> Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to chop off the bass
> frequencies (the lower the frequency, the larger [sic] the soundwaves
which
> are huge bit hogs), the highest frequencies (which makes cymbals sound
> brassy). Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers with analog gear???
You're so totally wrong it isn't funny. Digital is inherently capable of
responding to DC.
Please note that if a recording -- analog or digital -- lacks low
frequencies, a subwoofer won't do any good.
> The bottom line is: NOTHING sounds as good as a reel-to-reel tape
> deck; vinyl records come a close second. If anyone ever tells you
> differently, then their either lying or they don't know what they're
> talking about.
My basis for (generally) preferring digital to analog is based on having
made recordings of acoustic instruments -- full orchestra in a hall,
usually.
If you want to criticize digital recording, fine. But do it from a factual
basis, please.
Tommy B
You must work for FOX news !
Tom
What does it all mean? Is digital not boss? Do we beat a hasty retreat to
BSR turntables? Do we convert all our CDs to mini-frisbees? Back to razor
blades? Ohhhhh, noooo! This, campers, is where you've got to reach into your
own consciences, and decide for yourselves.
Me? I find it easy to vote for digital. Right now I'm listening to a CD of
Mozart's Mass in C minor and enjoying it greatly. Earlier I was listening to
the Cars Heartbeat City on CD and once again admiring it as a wonderful work
of art. I've got a stack of cassettes that I can't bring myself to cue up,
and a turntable that I've got to replace because the drive belt rotted away
about a year ago. So, obviously, the limitations of digital aren't troubling
me very much and I'm happy as a clam with CDs. Also, I will share with you
some of the differences about digital audio that I do notice and like:
digital audio has smoother and extended low-frequency response; it has a
speed stability (absence of wow and flutter) that I really appreciate, and
there is a transparency of high-level signals due to the linearity (lack of
distortion) that I really enjoy. On an operations basis, I like the ease of
setup and the stability of the digital recording media.
Actually, I find the audible differences between the two sets of media are
pretty small, particularly when compared to the big differences like
microphones, loudspeakers and playback rooms. At the same time, I like the
convenience of digital audio media -- in production, at home and in my car.
There is also an economic benefit derived from digital audio production that
we are just beginning to realize: it is far cheaper to do signal processing
via mathematical algorithms (as is done in multi-effects processors like the
Yamaha SPX-90 family) than to buy hardwired physical units for each
function, which is what is needed in the analog realm. As our digital
workstation systems mature, that benefit promises to become huge.
But wait a minute! Why, then, is Neil so upset? He must be able to hear that
the two systems aren't that far apart, and that the benefits of digital are
pretty significant, even if he prefers analog. Hype like "ice cubes washing
over you" and "darkest time ever" are really passionate, heartfelt
statements, but they aren't supported by scientific evidence or common sense
observation. The problem may lie in being too close to the recording and the
music. I know that I lose my perspective, and minor issues blow up in my
mind. When I'm making recordings, I want so badly for the musical illusion
to be utterly real that any flaws, including imagined ones, drive me wild.
As a result, I generally hate my recordings and music, and can't bear to
listen to them. All I can hear are the flaws. Other people say, "Wow! That's
great, Dave! Where can I get a copy?" Meanwhile, my inner brain is shouting
"Omigod! I can't believe the edit just after the second bridge is so
obvious! And the bass truly sucks! Why can't I sound as good as Steely Dan?
Why, God? Why?" This syndrome is fundamental to recording - we are cursed
with having to listen to our mistakes forever! It often leads to some truly
whacked out, obsessive behavior, and there are many legends from studio lore
about obsessive behavior that don't just border on the lunatic, but
absolutely, definitely cross way, way over into the Audio Twilight Zone.
So, I figure Neil has an inner vision of how the music should really feel,
and somehow he can't get it in digital. He knows there is a difference, and
it makes him crazy, particularly when its his own work on the ol' editing
block. Hence, the diatribe! Meanwhile, his music is still great, and his
fans have no problem with enjoying it at all. They just wallow in it.
So this is what I really think, as a recording engineer: making a great
recording means capturing the ineffable spirit, personae and qualities of
the performers and music - it is a spiritual exercise as much or more than a
technical one. Digital is beginning to be cheaper and easier to use, so use
it if you can, and devote the resources you've saved by using it to
improving the quality of the music. If, on the other hand, digital makes you
crazy, use analog and don't worry about it. The medium is comparatively
unimportant - it's the power and meaning of the music that matters, a power
and meaning that transcends the quality and character of the medium.
What does it all mean? Is digital not boss? Do we beat a hasty retreat to
BSR turntables? Do we convert all our CDs to mini-frisbees? Back to razor
blades? Ohhhhh, noooo! This, campers, is where you've got to reach into your
own consciences, and decide for yourselves.
Me? I find it easy to vote for digital. Right now I'm listening to a CD of
Mozart's Mass in C minor and enjoying it greatly. Earlier I was listening to
the Cars Heartbeat City on CD and once again admiring it as a wonderful work
of art. I've got a stack of cassettes that I can't bring myself to cue up,
and a turntable that I've got to replace because the drive belt rotted away
about a year ago. So, obviously, the limitations of digital aren't troubling
me very much and I'm happy as a clam with CDs. Also, I will share with you
some of the differences about digital audio that I do notice and like:
digital audio has smoother and extended low-frequency response; it has a
speed stability (absence of wow and flutter) that I really appreciate, and
there is a transparency of high-level signals due to the linearity (lack of
distortion) that I really enjoy. On an operations basis, I like the ease of
setup and the stability of the digital recording media.
Actually, I find the audible differences between the two sets of media are
pretty small, particularly when compared to the big differences like
microphones, loudspeakers and playback rooms. At the same time, I like the
convenience of digital audio media -- in production, at home and in my car.
There is also an economic benefit derived from digital audio production that
we are just beginning to realize: it is far cheaper to do signal processing
via mathematical algorithms (as is done in multi-effects processors like the
Yamaha SPX-90 family) than to buy hardwired physical units for each
function, which is what is needed in the analog realm. As our digital
workstation systems mature, that benefit promises to become huge.
But wait a minute! Why, then, is Neil so upset? He must be able to hear that
the two systems aren't that far apart, and that the benefits of digital are
pretty significant, even if he prefers analog. Hype like "ice cubes washing
over you" and "darkest time ever" are really passionate, heartfelt
statements, but they aren't supported by scientific evidence or common sense
observation. The problem may lie in being too close to the recording and the
music. I know that I lose my perspective, and minor issues blow up in my
mind. When I'm making recordings, I want so badly for the musical illusion
to be utterly real that any flaws, including imagined ones, drive me wild.
As a result, I generally hate my recordings and music, and can't bear to
listen to them. All I can hear are the flaws. Other people say, "Wow! That's
great, Dave! Where can I get a copy?" Meanwhile, my inner brain is shouting
"Omigod! I can't believe the edit just after the second bridge is so
obvious! And the bass truly sucks! Why can't I sound as good as Steely Dan?
Why, God? Why?" This syndrome is fundamental to recording - we are cursed
with having to listen to our mistakes forever! It often leads to some truly
whacked out, obsessive behavior, and there are many legends from studio lore
about obsessive behavior that don't just border on the lunatic, but
absolutely, definitely cross way, way over into the Audio Twilight Zone.
So, I figure Neil has an inner vision of how the music should really feel,
and somehow he can't get it in digital. He knows there is a difference, and
it makes him crazy, particularly when its his own work on the ol' editing
block. Hence, the diatribe! Meanwhile, his music is still great, and his
fans have no problem with enjoying it at all. They just wallow in it.
So this is what I really think, as a recording engineer: making a great
recording means capturing the ineffable spirit, personae and qualities of
the performers and music - it is a spiritual exercise as much or more than a
technical one. Digital is beginning to be cheaper and easier to use, so use
it if you can, and devote the resources you've saved by using it to
improving the quality of the music. If, on the other hand, digital makes you
crazy, use analog and don't worry about it. The medium is comparatively
unimportant - it's the power and meaning of the music that matters, a power
and meaning that transcends the quality and character of the medium.
What does it all mean? Is digital not boss? Do we beat a hasty retreat to
BSR turntables? Do we convert all our CDs to mini-frisbees? Back to razor
blades? Ohhhhh, noooo! This, campers, is where you've got to reach into your
own consciences, and decide for yourselves.
Me? I find it easy to vote for digital. Right now I'm listening to a CD of
Mozart's Mass in C minor and enjoying it greatly. Earlier I was listening to
the Cars Heartbeat City on CD and once again admiring it as a wonderful work
of art. I've got a stack of cassettes that I can't bring myself to cue up,
and a turntable that I've got to replace because the drive belt rotted away
about a year ago. So, obviously, the limitations of digital aren't troubling
me very much and I'm happy as a clam with CDs. Also, I will share with you
some of the differences about digital audio that I do notice and like:
digital audio has smoother and extended low-frequency response; it has a
speed stability (absence of wow and flutter) that I really appreciate, and
there is a transparency of high-level signals due to the linearity (lack of
distortion) that I really enjoy. On an operations basis, I like the ease of
setup and the stability of the digital recording media.
Actually, I find the audible differences between the two sets of media are
pretty small, particularly when compared to the big differences like
microphones, loudspeakers and playback rooms. At the same time, I like the
convenience of digital audio media -- in production, at home and in my car.
There is also an economic benefit derived from digital audio production that
we are just beginning to realize: it is far cheaper to do signal processing
via mathematical algorithms (as is done in multi-effects processors like the
Yamaha SPX-90 family) than to buy hardwired physical units for each
function, which is what is needed in the analog realm. As our digital
workstation systems mature, that benefit promises to become huge.
But wait a minute! Why, then, is Neil so upset? He must be able to hear that
the two systems aren't that far apart, and that the benefits of digital are
pretty significant, even if he prefers analog. Hype like "ice cubes washing
over you" and "darkest time ever" are really passionate, heartfelt
statements, but they aren't supported by scientific evidence or common sense
observation. The problem may lie in being too close to the recording and the
music. I know that I lose my perspective, and minor issues blow up in my
mind. When I'm making recordings, I want so badly for the musical illusion
to be utterly real that any flaws, including imagined ones, drive me wild.
As a result, I generally hate my recordings and music, and can't bear to
listen to them. All I can hear are the flaws. Other people say, "Wow! That's
great, Dave! Where can I get a copy?" Meanwhile, my inner brain is shouting
"Omigod! I can't believe the edit just after the second bridge is so
obvious! And the bass truly sucks! Why can't I sound as good as Steely Dan?
Why, God? Why?" This syndrome is fundamental to recording - we are cursed
with having to listen to our mistakes forever! It often leads to some truly
whacked out, obsessive behavior, and there are many legends from studio lore
about obsessive behavior that don't just border on the lunatic, but
absolutely, definitely cross way, way over into the Audio Twilight Zone.
So, I figure Neil has an inner vision of how the music should really feel,
and somehow he can't get it in digital. He knows there is a difference, and
it makes him crazy, particularly when its his own work on the ol' editing
block. Hence, the diatribe! Meanwhile, his music is still great, and his
fans have no problem with enjoying it at all. They just wallow in it.
So this is what I really think, as a recording engineer: making a great
recording means capturing the ineffable spirit, personae and qualities of
the performers and music - it is a spiritual exercise as much or more than a
technical one. Digital is beginning to be cheaper and easier to use, so use
it if you can, and devote the resources you've saved by using it to
improving the quality of the music. If, on the other hand, digital makes you
crazy, use analog and don't worry about it. The medium is comparatively
unimportant - it's the power and meaning of the music that matters, a power
and meaning that transcends the quality and character of the medium.
"duty-honor-country" <dutyhono...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180265028.3...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 27, 7:03 am, duty-honor-country <dutyhonorcount...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> and even more:
>
> Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
> of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
> farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
> that "From the early 80's up till now and probably for another 10 to
> 15 years is the darkest time for recorded music ever." In one odd
> digression, he asserted that only analog music can be used for therapy
> -- digital music isn't therapeutic (excuse me?). In another, he
> likened listening to digital to looking at a landscape through a
> screen window. The only technical observation he made was that the
> sampling rate used for digital audio these days (44.1 or 48 KHz. --
> take your choice) is too slow to provide adequate resolution for
> musical hearing.
>
> A fundamental rule in scientific measurement is the Range Rule: you
> must make your test fit within the range of your hypothesis. And if
> you are testing music, as listened to at home, then your test must
> involve music listened to at home (or some reasonable approximation).
> Where we tripped up was in the AB test. We don't normally listen to
> music in an AB situation, switching back and forth between systems. We
> usually just sit there like good couch potatoes, with some
> recreational refreshments in hand and the level cranked to the JBWMNC*
> Threshold, and wallow in the stuff. And after we've wallowed, we feel
> satisfied. But some of us, after listening to digital recordings,
> apparently don't feel quite so satisfied.
>
> So about two years ago, some Japanese researchers decided to approach
> things differently. They didn't use AB testing at first, and they
> didn't ask the listeners to report back at first. Instead, they made a
> recording (of acoustical musical instruments) that they knew by
> physical measurement had frequencies up to 50 KHz. present, and they
> then made a copy of that recording that was low-pass filtered to 20
> KHz. They played both versions for their test listeners through a
> monitor system that they knew by physical measurement could reproduce
> frequencies up to 50 KHz., while observing, via electro-encephalograph
> machines, their listeners' brain activity.
>
> Bingo! The recordings that were filtered produced much less brain
> activity than did the broad-band recordings. So they knew that the
> brain noticed a difference. Then they asked the subjects to comment on
> the quality of the recorded sounds, and found that the listeners
> reported the original broad-band sounds to be interesting, satisfying
> and beautiful much more than they reported those qualities for band-
> limited sounds.
>
>>From there the researchers worked backwards to resolve these findings
> with what we've already known: that in AB tests listeners can't hear
> the difference. They found, interestingly, that it takes a while for
> the brain activity to change, so after switching from A to B, a change
> in brain activity wasn't noticed for 20 seconds or so, and then it
> came on gradually -- in other words, the brain appears to become
> conditioned to its listening situation and takes a while to perceive a
> change. So, AB tests don't work for testing this hypothesis, but long-
> term listening trials will reveal it.
>
> So, yup, Neil's got a point and the audiophiles are right, within
> limits. Some ultrasonic material nuked by the anti-alias filters used
> in analog-to-digital conversion turns out to perhaps be significant in
> the "musical satisfaction" sweepstakes. This can now be scientifically
> supported. Sumbich!*
>
>
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/P1/
>
Tommy B
Don't know if it's true, or if I have all the facts right,
but it's still pretty funny.
Tom
Neil Young was recording in his studio, which was in a barn.
He wanted to hear what the mix sounded like outdoors, so a speaker was put
on the roof of his house and on the roof of the barn. Neil then took a boat
out on his lake to listen to the mix. When asked if it was sounding ok,
Niel yelled back, "More Barn"
"Geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ft6dnaNcXtwR8cTb...@giganews.com...
> duty-honor-country wrote:
>
>
>> Neil Young came out with a really vitriolic diatribe in the May issue
>> of Guitar Player. "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off!," he said, calling it "a
>> farce", likening it to "ice cubes washing over you," and grimly noting
>> that
>
> I'm sure he finds his imited understanding , tinnitus, and whatever else,
> very depressing.
>
> Hope you derive great satisfaction from commiserateing with Neil, and
> sucking the cocks of the analogue tape salesmen.
>
>
> geoff
>
Arny Krueger
> On May 28, 5:21 am, "Geoff" <g...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>> jailhouserock wrote:
>>
>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
>>> "So what are the benefits of analog sound over digital?
These days, just about everybody only uses analog where they have to - i.e.,
under duress.
>>> There's the "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well
>>> as "smoother" and "less harsh."
Typically such comments come from the members of the great technical
unwashed, some of whom are musicians. Nothing wrong with not being
technical, but not being technical and acting like you are can lead to some
pretty embarassing situations.
>>> Even on the modest
>>> phonographic equipment I own--and despite the fact that
>>> major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
>>> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound
>>> longer than I can to digital.
I can't listen to digital sound directly, and neither can anybody else that
I know. There's always the analog interface between the musicians and the
ADCs, and the analog interface between the DACs and our ears. So, anybody
who says that they know what digital unblemished by analog sounds like, is
speaking in ignorance or from some alternative universe that is far more
technically advanced than ours. In that alternative universe, apparently
they've progressed to the point where listening through a completely digital
system is possible.
>>> Digital's "ear fatigue"
>>> syndrome has me stopping an album midway through--a
>>> disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music as much
>>> as I do."
In fact you've never heard a purely digital sound reproduction system, so
your comments Mr. Rockhead, are wrong and irrelevant.
>> Is that because the fidelity is too good ? Maybe some
>> treble rolloff and compression would make it more
>> convenient. And throw in a dash of euphonic reasonance
>> to make it even sweeter.
Something like that.
> better than making it too crisp, i.e. digital, where if
> you slowed the music down enough, what you would hear is
> a series of blips and 0-1 binary code, like Morse code...
If you slowed an analog recording down to a similar degree, what would it
sound like?
Whatever it would be, it would be irrelevant to the real world. Thus fails
the example you provided, Mr. Rockhead.
> you call that music ?
No, neither way.
Arny Krueger
news:1m5n53914fimmuhrh...@4ax.com
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 00:51:22 +0100, DamnYankee
> <DamnYank...@audiobanter.com> wrote:
>
>> Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to
>> chop off the bass frequencies (the lower the frequency,
>> the larger the soundwaves which are huge bit hogs), the
>> highest frequencies (which makes cymbals sound brassy).
>> Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers with analog
>> gear???
> Huh? The lower the frequency the less digital bandwidth
> required, so there's no reason for digital to limit the
> low frequencies. OTOH, analog media have
> space/saturation issues with bass and SNR issues with
> high treble.
Kal, please don't forget to mention the head bumps, acoustic feedback, and
tonearm resonance issues.
Fact of the matter - few of us heard accurate response below 40 Hz until
digital became generally available.
> Also, what does any of this have to do with analog gear
> not needing subwoofers?
Fact of the matter - good subwoofers make the problems mentioned above even
more apparent.
> In fact, the use of subwoofers
> with digital is a consequence of the extended bass on
> digital recordings.
Agreed.
William Sommerwerck
> that I know. There's always the analog interface between the musicians
> and the ADCs, and the analog interface between the DACs and our ears.
> So, anybody who says that they know what digital unblemished by analog
> sounds like, is speaking in ignorance or from some alternative universe
> that is far more technically advanced than ours. In that alternative
universe,
> apparently they've progressed to the point where listening through a
> completely digital system is possible.
I hope this is meant as a joke. If not, it's an excellent example of the
"straw man" argument Mr. Krueger so loves to shoot down.
Within the context of an analog front end and analog rear end -- the only
way we _can_ record and listen to music -- it is possible to meaningfully
discuss the relative merits of analog & digital recording.
drichard
to illustrate the superiority of a particular audio technology is not
going to convince anyone. In particular, Dylan probably has days where
he has a hard time remembering the names of some of the songs he's
written. While they have made a lot of good music (most of it long
ago) they are not engineers or anything close, and I get the
impression they are some of the least technical artists around. Yes,
they write good songs, but someone else records them, makes them sound
good, and sells them.
> address. ®- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arny Krueger
message news:XNidndPC2KT1r8Hb...@comcast.com
>> I can't listen to digital sound directly, and neither
>> can anybody else that I know. There's always the analog
>> interface between the musicians and the ADCs, and the
>> analog interface between the DACs and our ears. So,
>> anybody who says that they know what digital unblemished
>> by analog sounds like, is speaking in ignorance or from
>> some alternative universe that is far more technically
>> advanced than ours. In that alternative universe,
>> apparently they've progressed to the point where
>> listening through a completely digital system is
>> possible.
> I hope this is meant as a joke.
Find one incorrect statement in it, if you can.
> If not, it's an excellent
> example of the "straw man" argument Mr. Krueger so loves
> to shoot down.
Then try to do so.
> Within the context of an analog front end and analog rear
> end -- the only way we _can_ record and listen to music
> -- it is possible to meaningfully discuss the relative
> merits of analog & digital recording.
Then you agree with the point I was trying to make.
Thank you!
Deputy Dumbya Dawg
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:esGdncQ5Lc9NgcHb...@comcast.com...
> "jailhouserock" <backthet...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message
>
>>
>> Dylan complained that songs sounded 10 times better in
>> the studio than the final result. And he might have a
>> point.
>
> It's a very old story - recordings generally don't sound as
> good as the music sounded when it was played. Especially to
> the player.
For this very reason in my studio we have a rule. Anyone in
the band can comment on a part but the person who played it.
The band less the player has the say over what makes it and
what gets redone or cut all together over the player of the
part.
peace
dawg
Scott Dorsey
conversion artifacts. Analogue recording is no good either. You got
noise and linearity issues. Only live acoustic music is any good at
all. Don't settle for cheap recorded imitations.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
hank alrich
> i.e. digital, where if you slowed the
> music down enough, what you would hear is a series of blips and 0-1
> binary code, like Morse code...
Perhaps you should try some of this stuff before you start expounding.
hank alrich
> I'll tell you two reasons in a nutshell:
Most of what you've written below obviously came from a nutshell.
> 1. Our ears are built to 2nd order (even-order) harmonics (aka
> "analog). Digital is 3rd order (odd-order) harmonics, and that is why
> you experience hearing fatigue listening to 3rd order harmonics for an
> extended period of time.
????????
> 2. Analog is infinite, Digital is limited by number of bits. People
> always talk about frequencies, but what I find hysterical is noone ever
> discusses the reality that digital destroys phase angle relationships
> (3D depth perception that a sound is comes from say, "over there" - 20
> feet away). Digital destroys this 3D depth perception into 1
> dimensional. This law of mother nature is why you can't build a
> digital chorus.
Analog is not infinite. This was settled long ago.
> Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to chop off the bass
> frequencies (the lower the frequency, the larger the soundwaves which
> are huge bit hogs), the highest frequencies (which makes cymbals sound
> brassy). Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers with analog gear???
Bit limitations have nothing at all to do with bandwidth. If you weren't
born yesterday you'd kinow that folks use subwoofers with analog kit for
a long time.
> The bottom line is: NOTHING sounds as good as a reel-to-reel tape deck;
> vinyl records come a close second. If anyone ever tells you
> differently, then their either lying or they don't know what they're
> talking about.
I have the Studers. I have the turntable. I have the digital kit. My
ears must work much differently than do yours, but I see that in your
world much stuff works differently than it does in any other world.
> However, digital has its mechanical and financial
> advantages: it's cheap to build (thus cheap to buy), and it has many
> features that in the analog world would be a rack full of expensive
> gear. See the trade off? You lose sound quality & listenability but
> gain cost savings and add features.
Take a look at top end digital, not "prosumer" stuff and note the prices
for Lavry Gold, Weiss, and so forth.
> For the record, I use Steinberg Nuendo 3 and tape.
Really? You can get Nuendo to run on a tape machine? Nifty.
hank alrich
hank alrich
> <h...@40th.commentary> wrote...
If you buy crap you can expect it to sound like shit. Folks seems to
lose sight of the possibility that there are differences between various
levels of digital kit.
hank alrich
> Six String Stu wrote:
> > ARGH!!!
> > Don't do it Stu. (My common sense says to me)
> > But, but, hel needs to hear it.
> > (in my most disgusted tone of voice) Heathen! Where's the friggin big damn
> > font when i need it)
> >
> >
> > Actually I like my digital multitracker, a lot. But I was rasied up
> > listening to tube amps that put this jap crap to shame. Call me old fashion,
> > call me nostalgic. But you will never, eeeeever change my opinions and
> > trying to do so will only get whiskey bottles thrown at cha.
> >
> >
>
> What does a tube amp have to do with a digital multitracker?
Expensive guitar amp versus cheap digital recorder. What's not to love?
lowg...@ao1.com
> Dylan complained that songs sounded 10 times better in
> the studio than the final result. And he might have a
> point.
This comment was made just before release of his latest album ("Modern
Times").
Unlike the prerelease review copies, the release is hyper-compressed into a
modern rectangle waveform. Maybe slamming this practice is what was on his
mind...
Steven Sullivan
> On May 27, 7:30 am, "Geoff" >
> > Well you must have a real crap digital gear then.
> WRONG- none of these quotes are my own statements- they are all from
> other sources, and the links are supplied with each one
George Martin's book dates from 1983, the dawn of the CD era, and you are a known troll.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Steven Sullivan
> > 1. Our ears are built to 2nd order (even-order) harmonics (aka
> > "analog). Digital is 3rd order (odd-order) harmonics, and that is
> > why you experience hearing fatigue listening to 3rd order
> > harmonics for an extended period of time.
> That makes no sense at all. What are talking about?
Look, the damnyankee/dutyhonor guy is a best a troll, at worst a mentally
ill troll. He's posted all this crap before. He's been thoroughly
rebutted on it before too.
Romeo Rondeau
>> For the record, I use Steinberg Nuendo 3 and tape.
>
> Really? You can get Nuendo to run on a tape machine? Nifty.
I though that was coming out in version 4? :-)
Romeo Rondeau
I like when people say they can get that "analog" sound from their new
tube preamp :-) Funny, all I can get from them is that "tube" sound...
Six String Stu
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1hyvd07.ovfyrwltvvm2N%walk...@nv.net...
Well I wouldn't call it a cheap digital recorder. I bought this Fostex MR-8
about six months after it was released. I had waited for the reviews to
filter in.
On disability insurance of less then $700.00 a month (back then) It was a
hefty purchase. Priced around $300.00 I think.
I had to get past the learning curve of running a multitracker as well.
But yes, it wasn't near as high as a good Marshall stack with all the
doodads would've cost me.
On a side note, I am in the process of buying a Carvin S400D-2 and a
Berhinger mixer. This will be for small preformances in honky tonks and
small gigs out in the open where there might not be any power source.
I'd much rather have one of the good PA systems and Pro Audio equipment but
till I can bring the income to higher then the out flow of finances it'll
have to do.
I contacted Carvin and reminded them of my contacting them last year
regarding my plans to replace some equipment which was stolen, and got the
cold shoulder from them. Seems like this time, with this size of the
purchase list I have, they are more attentive to the customers needs and
loyalty.
A big issue with me especially after experiancing such crappy customer
support from a second company after the Carvin incident.
I own a Seagul electric/accoustic that needed a new input jack. This is one
of those jack slash strap button thingys. Not only did I get a brush off
rude email from Godin (they make Seaguls) but had to find a parts supplier
and do the repair myself.
Not easy for a vision impaired low tech redneck:(
I used to sing Seagul's praises, now I tell folks to stay away from them
because they do not show a value for thier customers other then how deep the
pockets might be.
A personal opinion, based upon personal experiance, you other musicians take
it for what it's worth and be forewarned.
Geoff
> Digital recording is no good. You got quantization error, you got
> conversion artifacts. Analogue recording is no good either. You got
> noise and linearity issues. Only live acoustic music is any good at
> all.
An even some of those are crap !
geoff
Romeo Rondeau
Sometimes the sound guy sucks, the PA sucks or the musicians are drunk :-)
mainm...@choiceonemail.com
> jailhouserock wrote:
> > On May 28, 5:21 am, "Geoff" <g...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
> >> jailhouserock wrote:
>
> >>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540
> >>> "warmer" and "more open" arguments, as well as "smoother" and "less
> >>> the fact that major strides have been made in digital mastering--I've
> >>> discovered in general that I can listen to analog sound longer than I
> >>> album midway through--a disturbing phenomenon for one who loves music
> >>> as much as I do."
> >> compression would make it more convenient. And throw in a dash of euphonic
> >> reasonance to make it even sweeter.
>
>
> > better than making it too crisp, i.e. digital, where if you slowed the
> > music down enough, what you would hear is a series of blips and 0-1
> > binary code, like Morse code...
>
>
> same factor? It ain't music either. Don't tell us how to do our job, ok?
> We don't go to your job and tell you how to bag groceries, do we?- Hide quoted text -
Holy shit, that's great! I gotta remember this one. Kudos, man, I mean
it!
But I gotta wonder- will it ever get through this guy's impenatreble
armor of stubborn ignorance? Or maybe we're all wrong, and he's
actually tested all of his theories, and just wants to stir the pot
before publishing a huge paper which reveals (through repeatable
experiments) why all his feelings are inherently correct.
-dave M.
Romeo Rondeau
>>>> compression would make it more convenient. And throw in a dash of euphonic
>>>> reasonance to make it even sweeter.
>>>> geoff
>>> better than making it too crisp, i.e. digital, where if you slowed the
>>> music down enough, what you would hear is a series of blips and 0-1
>>> binary code, like Morse code...
>>> you call that music ?
>> You are an idiot :-) What happens when you slow down analog tape by the
>> same factor? It ain't music either. Don't tell us how to do our job, ok?
>> We don't go to your job and tell you how to bag groceries, do we?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Holy shit, that's great! I gotta remember this one. Kudos, man, I mean
> it!
>
> But I gotta wonder- will it ever get through this guy's impenatreble
> armor of stubborn ignorance? Or maybe we're all wrong, and he's
> actually tested all of his theories, and just wants to stir the pot
> before publishing a huge paper which reveals (through repeatable
> experiments) why all his feelings are inherently correct.
>
> -dave M.
I think he just wants to stir up shit :-)
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>> 1. Our ears are built to 2nd order (even-order) harmonics (aka
>> "analog). Digital is 3rd order (odd-order) harmonics, and that is
>> why you experience hearing fatigue listening to 3rd order
>> harmonics for an extended period of time.
>
> That makes no sense at all. What are talking about?
>
>
>> 2. Analog is infinite, digital is limited by number of bits. People
>> always talk about frequencies, but what I find hysterical is no one ever
>> discusses the reality that digital destroys phase angle relationships
>> (3D depth perception that a sound is comes from say, "over there" - 20
>> feet away). Digital destroys this 3D depth perception into 1
>> dimensional. This law of mother nature is why you can't build a
>> digital chorus.
>
> Actually, digital phase is much better-behaved than analog. Analog tape
> recording, in particular, suffers from non-minimum-phase errors. They're
> fixable, but very few recorders have ever done it.
>
>
>> Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to chop off the bass
>> frequencies (the lower the frequency, the larger [sic] the soundwaves
> which
>> are huge bit hogs), the highest frequencies (which makes cymbals sound
>> brassy). Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers with analog gear???
>
> You're so totally wrong it isn't funny. Digital is inherently capable of
> responding to DC.
Not only is it capable of it, it's the EASY case.
--
Aaron
Arny Krueger
>> 2. Analog is infinite, digital is limited by number of
>> bits.
Analog is limited by distortion and noise, which trouble all practical
implementations involving it.
>> People always talk about frequencies, but what I
>> find hysterical is no one ever discusses the reality
>> that digital destroys phase angle relationships
Absolutely and totally false. Three samples are sufficient to define the
amplitude and phase of an analog signal.
>> (3D
>> depth perception that a sound is comes from say, "over
>> there" - 20 feet away). Digital destroys this 3D depth
>> perception into 1 dimensional.
3D depth perception is highly dependent on identical reproduction of all
channels of a multichannel signal, particularly a stereo signal. One of the
less obvious problems with analog is channel matching. The LP format is
particularly horrendous. But analog tape is seriously troubled as well. In
contrast, it is trivial to match digital channels.
>> This law of mother nature is why you can't build a digital chorus.
Doing a chorus accurately in analog is far more problematical.
> Actually, digital phase is much better-behaved than
> analog. Analog tape recording, in particular, suffers
> from non-minimum-phase errors. They're fixable, but very
> few recorders have ever done it.
Agreed. Reading between the lines in some news items, it appears that there
was at one point some development of hybrid analog/digital recorders. For
example, a hybrid tape recorder might still use analog tape for
compatibility with existing media, but implement equalization, nonlinear
compensation and dynamics processing in the digital domain.
>> Another fact: due to bit limitations, digital has to
>> chop off the bass frequencies (the lower the frequency,
>> the larger [sic] the soundwaves which are huge bit
>> hogs), the highest frequencies (which makes cymbals
>> sound brassy). Ever wonder why you don't need subwoofers
>> with analog gear???
>
> You're so totally wrong it isn't funny. Digital is
> inherently capable of responding to DC.
Counter-intuitive to some, but absolutely true. The LF bandpass limit of a
real-world digital recording is not DC, but the inverse of its length in
seconds. Usually, that's practically the same as DC, but not quite.
Deputy Dumbya Dawg
analog CD's!
;>)
peace
dawg
William Sommerwerck
least, not if you're going to keep the "so-and-so wrote" header.
The number of angle brackets indicates that more than one person is talking
(to anyone paying attention), but I don't want my comments -- which you
largely agree with -- being mixed with comments of someone who is so wrong
and you don't agree with.
William Sommerwerck
> I only use analog CD's!
CDs _could_ have been analog, using an FM system like that used for LVs.
Scott Dorsey
>Because of all the problems with Digital CD's I only use
>analog CD's!
From Credit Suisse?
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Romeo Rondeau" <schmuck...@fuggya.com> wrote in message news:ozi6i.4559$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> duty-honor-country wrote:
> > On May 27, 7:33 am, "Geoff" <g...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
> > as if you had more time in the recording studio, than Neil Young has
> > had in 40+ years ?
> And his hearing is going because he's old and he's been performing on a
> loud stage for years, so I would say he's less qualified than a lot of
> people I know.
I've been hearing that story for twenty years... and as loud as the foo plays,
I'd probably take it to be true and stand in wonder as to how he produced
so much stuff since going stage-deaf.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Don Pearce" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message...
> I fear Mr. Young is no longer qualified to tell whether it is day or
> night.
I've been hearing that since the 60's as well.....
David Morgan (MAMS)
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message news:1hyrna4.11hfmiz1fzaq45N%walk...@nv.net...
> duty-honor-country <dutyhono...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 7:30 am, "Geoff" >
> > > Well you must have a real crap digital gear then.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG- none of these quotes are my own statements- they are all from
> > other sources, and the links are supplied with each one
>
> butts. Thanks a lot. Mind you some of us have decent analog gear and
> digital gear, too, and work with either or both nearly every day. Our
> opinions may not be any of your business, if you have any business.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
Hoooooot......... hoooooooot...........
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Romeo Rondeau" <schmuck...@fuggya.com> wrote in message...
> We don't go to your job and tell you how to bag groceries, do we?
The humor after a few days of being away is just great today.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message...
> jailhouserock wrote:
> > vinyl LP's and analog tape at 3.75 IPS, exceeds the capability of any
> > CD ever made
> Please explain. Do not post links to third-party opinions. Just explain.
I see you're still waiting for an answer......
;-)
David Morgan (MAMS)
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message news:1hyvccd.138ppwuptbwnN%walk...@nv.net...
Not just incorrect, but pretty darned stupid. I mean, heck, they're saying
that space isn't even infinite any more... that it's curved, so maye the
ultra-lows and the 'infinite' highs are just bending around somewhere
and it really *is*........ nah, nevermind.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message...
> If you buy crap you can expect it to sound like shit. Folks seems to
> lose sight of the possibility that there are differences between various
> levels of digital kit.
I thought it was all in how you feed it and how you hear it... (?)
Chris Hornbeck
<fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>> And his hearing is going because he's old and he's been performing on a
>> loud stage for years, so I would say he's less qualified than a lot of
>> people I know.
>
>I've been hearing that story for twenty years... and as loud as the foo plays,
>I'd probably take it to be true and stand in wonder as to how he produced
>so much stuff since going stage-deaf.
My (second) favorite Neil Young story is about his soundtrack
for _Dead Man_. The story goes (and I know from nothing about
any possible truth herein involved) that Young watched the
film through once, then recorded the soundtrack in "real time"
while watching a second viewing.
Maybe what I like about the story is that so much of what we
want from recorded music is that it not seem to be recorded music.
Kind of a tall order, and the OP is attacking the wrong issues,
but still...
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck