R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital vs. Analog Review  (Read 12016 times)

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Digital vs. Analog Review
« on: November 14, 2010, 08:12:31 pm »

I had to replace an old  RADAR (classic cards) system last week with the new Apogee (Apogee/symphony whatever TF they're called now - they replace the ADX series)  system due to workflow issues.

I always preferred the sound of tape over these RADARS, but I figured I wasn't a big fan of RADAR systems. So I was kind of looking forward to the latest incarnations of the new digital age.

Talk about being underwhelmed. 10 years later and this is where we're at? Give me a break...



Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2010, 09:51:08 am »

...and RADAR's "Classic" cards aren't even their best converters...

Barry

Logged

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2010, 12:26:26 pm »

And just to be clear, I don't think these Apogee's are bad. I am just wondering out loud if we've come to a brick wall as far as 24 bit recording is concerned.


Is this it?
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2010, 05:35:43 pm »

What other converters have you tried? I don't think that Apogee are considered the... apogee... of converters, are they?
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2010, 07:56:29 pm »

I had RADAR classics, pretty much all the apogees, and I still own my UA 2192.   I guess the question begs:

Have the been any technological advances to make digital conversion any better in the last few years?
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

cgc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2010, 08:41:31 am »

kats wrote on Mon, 15 November 2010 11:26

And just to be clear, I don't think these Apogee's are bad. I am just wondering out loud if we've come to a brick wall as far as 24 bit recording is concerned.


Is this it?


The best converters only resolve about 20-21 bits so getting the full 24 is still a goal.  
Logged

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2010, 11:45:27 am »

Why do we need the full 24 bits? I understand the philosophy behind higher sample rates vs. filter implementation, but not really why we would need more bits.

Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

cgc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2010, 11:59:12 am »

kats wrote on Tue, 16 November 2010 10:45

Why do we need the full 24 bits? I understand the philosophy behind higher sample rates vs. filter implementation, but not really why we would need more bits.




Maybe we don't, but your topic is so incredibly vague I was attempting to offer something tangible.  
Logged

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2010, 10:49:39 am »

I think the brickwall is not 24bit; it's that the current technology has hit the point where it is so devoid of audible flaws and artefacts it has become tasteless. Just like the purest water has no taste and no colour, one has to mix it with alcohol to regain some excitement...
The excitement of tape comes from its flaws, saturation, head bumps, flutter, self-erasure, noise-dither...The closest to perfection it became (A827), the less exciting it sounded.
Logged

Podgorny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1491
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2010, 09:36:04 pm »

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49

Just like the purest water has no taste and no colour, one has to mix it with alcohol to regain some excitement...



I'm happy with a pinch of salt and some CO2.
Logged
"Nobody cares what the impedance is; all they care about is when you can walk into the room, set up a mic, turn the knobs, hit record, and make everybody go 'wow.'"

svs95

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2010, 06:07:51 pm »

Quote:

Talk about being underwhelmed. 10 years later and this is where we're at? Give me a break...

Depends what you mean. Compared to what? If what you want is something back from the system that's somehow more subjectively pleasant than what you feed it, I guess you'll need to go back to analog mixing.

My real point is there's no way to know how much of the comparison between an analog desk and a RADAR with the latest converters is a "lack" of [objective] quality in the converters, versus a certain [subjective] euphonic "quality" you happen to like in the analog.

Well, I say there's no way to know, but I think we probably have an opinion about that, don't we?  Cool

If you were to use an analog desk as the front end of a digital system (with a split so you can monitor the analog before/after conversion), you'd have some basis to judge the quality of the converters.

Comparing the present digital system to your memories of an analog system is probably going to favor your memories. Like comparing an actual present woman with your memories of one... Laughing
Logged
Stephen Smith
Soundsmiths Mastering, Inc.
www.soundsmiths.net
___________________________

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2010, 06:15:22 pm »

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49

I think the brickwall is not 24bit; it's that the current technology has hit the point where it is so devoid of audible flaws and artefacts it has become tasteless. Just like the purest water has no taste and no colour, one has to mix it with alcohol to regain some excitement...
The excitement of tape comes from its flaws, saturation, head bumps, flutter, self-erasure, noise-dither...The closest to perfection it became (A827), the less exciting it sounded.


Naahh, I doubt all that.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

DarinK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2010, 08:01:36 pm »

Tony (& others) - Have you tried the Korg 5.6mHz DSD recorder, as discussed in this thread: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/33238/11988/
Lots of raves, including claims (from credible sources like Terry) that it can be indistinguishable from console output.


It's just two-track, but supposedly there is a multi-track version in the works, possibly with editing capabilities.  I haven't tried one because I typically mix out-of-the-box without automation, so I often punch in or edit my mixes. I don't think that is currently possible with DSD.
Logged

svs95

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2010, 10:01:42 am »

What is the data bandwidth of dsd? I assume it's denser than PCM, but can anybody tell me the file size per unit of time for say a stereo 5.6448 MHz dsd recording?
Logged
Stephen Smith
Soundsmiths Mastering, Inc.
www.soundsmiths.net
___________________________

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2010, 10:29:53 am »

Since the bit depth is 1, the resulting bit rate is 5.6Mbit/sec. Now this is streaming. DSD cannot be stored directly, when you store it, it has to be arranged in bytes and packets and some kind of ID must be added. At the moment, there is no standard for storing DSD, it's all proprietary.
Roughly, 1 minute would take 5.6M X60 /8 bytes, about 20MB, twice the size of 44/16. This is not accounting for overheads.
Logged

svs95

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2010, 12:45:49 pm »

Thanks, Geoff! That's not too bad for the highest dsd sample rate!

I'd like to know about build quality on the korg 2000, if anybody has one?

I guess I would prefer to see a number of installations where this has been implemented, but that may have to wait awhile.
Logged
Stephen Smith
Soundsmiths Mastering, Inc.
www.soundsmiths.net
___________________________

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2010, 07:53:55 pm »

kats wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 17:15

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49

I think the brickwall is not 24bit; it's that the current technology has hit the point where it is so devoid of audible flaws and artefacts it has become tasteless. Just like the purest water has no taste and no colour, one has to mix it with alcohol to regain some excitement...
The excitement of tape comes from its flaws, saturation, head bumps, flutter, self-erasure, noise-dither...The closest to perfection it became (A827), the less exciting it sounded.


Naahh, I doubt all that.

Please elaborate. Without an explanation, it just sounds like an expletive.
Logged

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2010, 12:07:57 am »

Good digital sounds more like the signal from the mic preamps. Good analog mimics the behavior of the human ear at high volume levels, smooths out some of the exaggerated transients and midrange peaks that come with close-micing, and sounds more like the sound in the room.

It's not even an apples to oranges comparison. More like apples to bricks. You can't eat a brick or make a house out of apples. Asking what is better, apples or bricks, is a meaningless question. I seem to recall saying this before somewhere.
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2010, 12:27:30 am »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 16:07

Good digital sounds more like the signal from the mic preamps. Good analog mimics the behavior of the human ear at high volume levels, smooths out some of the exaggerated transients and midrange peaks that come with close-micing, and sounds more like the sound in the room.



Fenris, when you say that good analogue mimics the behaviour of the human ear at high volume, is that a fact or an opinion? If it's a fact do you know where I could find out more about it?

Thanks.
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2010, 09:53:45 am »

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 18:53

kats wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 17:15

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49

; it's that the current technology has hit the point where it is so devoid of audible flaws and artefacts it has become tasteless..


Naahh, I doubt all that.

Please elaborate. Without an explanation, it just sounds like an expletive.



I'm sorry, it's just that your basic premise that digital is too perfect therefore making music too boring or less exciting is wrong. Therefore, I doubt the rest of your post. A simple test you can conduct to prove yourself wrong is to a/b the output of your console with the digitally converted returns. If it was too perfect there would be no difference. Unfortunately there is.

However, my post is really a commentary on how slow the progress of digital conversion has been over the last 25 years. Not that it isn't perfect,  but rather why isn't it improving.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2010, 10:08:49 am »

kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:53

Not that it isn't perfect,  but rather why isn't it improving.



Of course if something really were perfect, it could not be improved upon.
Logged

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2010, 11:35:24 am »

kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 08:53

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 18:53

kats wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 17:15

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49

; it's that the current technology has hit the point where it is so devoid of audible flaws and artefacts it has become tasteless..


Naahh, I doubt all that.

Please elaborate. Without an explanation, it just sounds like an expletive.



I'm sorry, it's just that your basic premise that digital is too perfect therefore making music too boring or less exciting is wrong.
I never said it made MUSIC boring. I said it doesn't colour the SOUND in a noticeable way. Just like it's almost customary to have some distortion on electric guitar, because that's the way we've heard it since the 1940's, many SE's want to have tape crunch on their recordings. When they don't have it, they think it's not exciting.
Quote:

 Therefore, I doubt the rest of your post.
I don't understand the transitivity here... You disregard all I express because you don't agree with one sentence you haven't really understood.
Quote:

 A simple test you can conduct to prove yourself wrong is to a/b the output of your console with the digitally converted returns. If it was too perfect there would be no difference. Unfortunately there is.
In fact, I don't hear any difference at High Speed (88 or 96). My comment on near-perfection was based on 24/96 or 24/88, not 16/44. (Someone already mentioned that I must be deaf, so please, say it LOUDER)
Quote:

 However, my post is really a commentary on how slow the progress of digital conversion has been over the last 25 years. Not that it isn't perfect,  but rather why isn't it improving.
And my answer was that it is improving slowly because it's close to the physical limits. Just the law of diminishing returns.
Logged

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2010, 12:40:07 pm »

compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:08

kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:53

Not that it isn't perfect,  but rather why isn't it improving.



Of course if something really were perfect, it could not be improved upon.



But  if something cannot be improved upon, does that make it perfect?


@Geoff, I understand your point better now. I think you may be right in non studio environments, but in the studio I think the differences a more pronounced. Probably the marketeers of this technology are aiming for a larger buying demographic.  
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

svs95

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2010, 02:04:08 am »

kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 08:53


I'm sorry, it's just that your basic premise that digital is too perfect therefore making music too boring or less exciting is wrong.

I think "perfect" is the wrong word (and idea) here. I see how you got there from Geoff's "devoid of flaws." But a better way to put it is "so sterile."

Our entire audio heritage was built on recording to and processing with devices that give us back our input plus some tonal character. Working with a hi-res digital format won't do that. It's like playing in an anechoic chamber, you're not getting anything back that feeds your spirit.

A friend of mine was in the orchestra when Itzak Perlman was guest violinist. At the one rehearsal he had with the orchestra, in a new and horribly designed, dead hall, he played one note, dropped his bow and looked around, saying "The music! Where did it go?"

Having experienced that, you can see how important is the contribution of a good room to musical communication. Likewise, we're discovering (I think) that the long-dreamed-of goal of an ultra-low distortion, noiseless, neutral response in every device in the recording chain is kind of wrong-headed.
Logged
Stephen Smith
Soundsmiths Mastering, Inc.
www.soundsmiths.net
___________________________

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2010, 09:41:21 am »

I find it curious that people are counting on the recorder to add stuff that should be in the signal before it gets there. If what comes out of the recorder sounds sterile, ask if perhaps this isn't the way you miked it and what you can do to fix it.

To use the distortion of the recorder to spice up the sound is like adding salt to each and every dish you eat (including dessert). That's not how it goes if you're serious about food. So why should the magic multitrack suddenly get charged with cooking the stew just right?

If the ingredients alone aren't enough and you want to add electronic colour, do so using effects gear because like herbs and spices they should be optional and dependent of what you're making. If the same condiment works magic on every dish it's time for the cook to find another job because even McD's won't take him on.
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

Greg Reierson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 425
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2010, 11:17:19 am »

bruno putzeys wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 08:41

I find it curious that people are counting on the recorder to add stuff that should be in the signal before it gets there.

snip


Exactly! Or the amp or speakers or wires, etc. Well said!


GR
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2010, 11:30:12 am »

Thank you Bruno!
Logged

Spindrift

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2010, 01:55:15 pm »

svs95 wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 09:45

Thanks, Geoff! That's not too bad for the highest dsd sample rate!

I'd like to know about build quality on the korg 2000, if anybody has one?

I guess I would prefer to see a number of installations where this has been implemented, but that may have to wait awhile.


I just received my Korg MR-2000S but I've only had time to take it out of the box and feel it. The build quality is solid, like a pro piece of gear. Can't wait to plug it in and HEAR it though.
Logged

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2010, 08:33:16 pm »

bruno putzeys wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 08:41

I find it curious that people are counting on the recorder to add stuff that should be in the signal before it gets there.


I am curious where you get this impression? The only people I hear talking about these so called benefits you speak of ( the idea to which I do not subscribe) are usually the apologists for poor digital implementation.

I am certainly not relying on the flaws of an analog storage medium to benefit my recordings. But by the same token, I certainly do not want my storage medium detracting from my recordings. So I will pick the one that does the most justice or the least damage to the music - not necessarily the spec sheet.  
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

svs95

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2010, 06:00:47 pm »

It's simply not possible for everything to already be there in most recordings. Surely in some classical and other acoustic music in a good hall, it can be, requiring only mixing. But for most kinds of music, a good deal of sound sculpting is done by the mix engineer (and some by the mastering engineer).

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.

It would be ideal if every studio could have both analog and digital recording systems, but given today's recording budgets, it's just not feasible for most studios to support that kind of dual system approach (or even to support just the highest quality analog approach).

Which is why I'm interested in advancements in tape emulation effects. What interests me is not the nth degree of perfection of the emulation, but the "xth" degree of enhancement to a digital souce. That is to say, with a given digital source, assuming a producer wants to present the program in a more vintage style, how well does the processor achieve that goal? Something like an ATS-1 or a high-quality tape emulation dsp allows that approach to be taken after a digital recording of the highest-possible quality has been made.

So, yes, signal quality (faithfulness to the performance) should definitely already be there before recording, but it usually isn't the naked, unadorned truth an artist or producer wants to present in an album.
Logged
Stephen Smith
Soundsmiths Mastering, Inc.
www.soundsmiths.net
___________________________

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2010, 01:54:23 am »

svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00

.

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.
.


Your  statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2010, 11:23:31 am »

kats wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 22:54

svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00

.

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.
.


Your  statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical.
How much of the sound of converters is the analog part, though?

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2010, 11:24:29 am »

Having heard a number of up-to-date converters, I can't for the sake of me make the difference between an Apogee, A Digidesign, a Metric halo, a MOTU or a Lavry.
But I can tell the difference between single speed and high speed.
Logged

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2010, 03:11:16 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 10:23

kats wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 22:54

svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00

.

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.
.


Your  statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical.
How much of the sound of converters is the analog part, though?



My guess? All of it.


The point?
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Silvertone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1105
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2010, 08:10:21 am »

In mastering we "listen" to converters all the time,  we pick specific converters for certain tasks... we live by our ears.

I have yet (besides the Korg MR-1000) to hear any digital converters that sound as 3D as the best analog. I even keep references to show clients.  I don't say anything, I just play both sources and ask them to describe what they are hearing... funny how everybody can't believe the depth and detail in the analog and how 2D the digital sounds.  This is playing multiple genres and different types of music.

I don't need to be part of this debate as I hear it everyday.  Digital is great and we are never going back but surly DSD alone lets us HEAR how digital can be improved upon.

Here's to the next wave of digital conversion... cheers!
Logged
Larry DeVivo
Silvertone Mastering, Inc.
PO Box 4582
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
www.silvertonemastering.com
To see some of our work please click on any of the visual trailer montages located at... http://robertetoll.com/  (all music and sound effects were mastered by Silvertone Mastering).

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2010, 11:37:01 am »

kats wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:11

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 10:23

kats wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 22:54

svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00

.

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.
.


Your  statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical.
How much of the sound of converters is the analog part, though?



My guess? All of it.

The point?

A rather important one: that it's not inherently the quantization process that alters the sound.

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2010, 12:44:18 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 10:37

kats wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:11

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 10:23

kats wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 22:54

svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00

.

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.
.


Your  statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical.
How much of the sound of converters is the analog part, though?



My guess? All of it.

The point?

A rather important one: that it's not inherently the quantization process that alters the sound.



Well considering the only way to convert an analog signal to digital is with the use of analog filters, how can you separate the two? You can't say "If it wasn't for the fact that we have to convert analog signals to digital, digital would be perfect".
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2010, 03:31:54 pm »

kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 09:44


Well considering the only way to convert an analog signal to digital is with the use of analog filters, how can you separate the two? You can't say "If it wasn't for the fact that we have to convert analog signals to digital, digital would be perfect".
Oversampling techniques allow very gentle analog anti-aliasing filters, so I doubt the filter has to be the limiting factor.  We know how to make good sounding analog circuits, they just cost a bit more to make and are therefore not part of the average A/D.  Converters like the Prism ADA-8XR sound amazing - and you pay for the quality.

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2010, 05:22:03 pm »

I'm no expert in digital converter design, but from what I understand the band limiting and implementation is a big factor in the sound of conversion.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2010, 06:58:55 am »

Jay Kadis wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 16:37

kats wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:11

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 10:23

kats wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 22:54

svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00

.

I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio.
.


Your  statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical.
How much of the sound of converters is the analog part, though?



My guess? All of it.

The point?

A rather important one: that it's not inherently the quantization process that alters the sound.


We keep ending up to the conclusion that there's nothing broken with that part of the theory. (Otherwise, a lot of much more important things in our world would never work)

It's down to the technical implementation, that's where the flaws are today.

In my opinion, the analog front end is a big culprit here.
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2010, 07:59:36 am »

deleted, was repeating myself
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

seedyunderbelly.com

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2010, 11:24:06 am »

Hi Tony,  I am Curious as why you did not try the updated Radar convertors

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2010, 05:48:36 pm »

You mean the Nyquist?

Well the problem with RADAR is that you cannot track and monitor at the same time if your using the converters for PT. You have to use the ADA system for that. 10k plus extras for HD compatibility - too much, especially for a format I'm not in love with Smile

Anyone I got in here that was willing to use RADAR was willing to use Tape, otherwise it was PT. So now I just do Tape or PT.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #43 on: December 31, 2010, 06:34:09 am »

kats wrote on Sun, 14 November 2010 19:12

I had to replace an old  RADAR (classic cards) system last week with the new Apogee (Apogee/symphony whatever TF they're called now - they replace the ADX series)  system due to workflow issues.

I just had a look at their website. You mean you have replaced the original iZ converters with Apogees?
How do you connect the Symphony to the RADAR?
Have you tested the ADDA process or just listened to previously recorded stuff?
Logged

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Digital vs. Analog Review
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2010, 01:17:11 pm »

By replaced, I mean the RADAR system is gone. The Apogee Symphony system plugs directly into the HD core card.  
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up