OK, I have to throw in my 2 cents...
Personally I think the whole disussion about "what is better" is a bit far fetched... I think a well maintained Studer A-80 or A-800 goes in circles around all pro tools/logic systems I have tried. So in that case, ana
Logged
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2005, 12:04:41 PM »
I just finished tracking a band to tape over the last few days that got dumped to PT. The project went to two inch first and then takes were dumped into digital via AD8000's as the keeper takes were recorded to save on tape costs. This time as in all other times bands want to do this, the difference was very noticeable and the relaxation, the sense fullness upon listening to PT just wasn't quite the same. There have been advances in converters - this I know. Arguably, these are very good converters. You may read opinions that people prefer these to Digi 192's. There is no doubt in my mind that for most things tape will be far and away a better sounding medium.
Best, joshua
Logged
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2005, 01:06:29 PM »
bushwick wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 09:04 | I just finished tracking a band to tape over the last few days that got dumped to PT. The project went to two inch first and then takes were dumped into digital via AD8000's as the keeper takes were recorded to save on tape costs. This time as in all other times bands want to do this, the difference was very noticeable and the relaxation, the sense fullness upon listening to PT just wasn't quite the same. There have been advances in converters - this I know. Arguably, these are very good converters. You may read opinions that people prefer these to Digi 192's. There is no doubt in my mind that for most things tape will be far and away a better sounding medium.
Best, joshua
|
Why not just stay on analog 2" then? What are you gaining going to PT that makes up for the loss you hear leaving the analog format?
Logged
R.N.
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2005, 01:47:29 PM »
awesome.
analog vs. digital.
tube vs. solid state.
unexplored territory!
so fresh, so exciting - let's break some new groud.
i can't wait to see what is posted next! whoo hoo!
Logged
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2005, 02:36:41 PM »
John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 12:47 | awesome.
analog vs. digital.
tube vs. solid state.
unexplored territory!
so fresh, so exciting - let's break some new groud.
i can't wait to see what is posted next! whoo hoo!
|
Those topics have been beaten to death, we need something fresh, like a Mac vs. Wintel discussion...
Logged
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2005, 03:16:00 PM »
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 19:36 |
John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 12:47 | awesome.
analog vs. digital.
tube vs. solid state.
unexplored territory!
so fresh, so exciting - let's break some new groud.
i can't wait to see what is posted next! whoo hoo!
|
Those topics have been beaten to death, we need something fresh, like a Mac vs. Wintel discussion...
|
i prefer the more analog feel of wintel...I can't explain why it just is more "there"....
Logged
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2005, 03:47:24 PM »
How about some technical reasons?
Digital specializes in inharmonic distortion. Think 'ring modulator' or something- overtones that aren't harmonically, but mathematically related to the desired sound. Any time you have truncation, you get a little more inharmonic distortion.
Digital processing is good at slightly moving the apparent locations of high-frequency spatial cues. If you work on sample values (which is almost invariably what is done) instead of working on the relationship between samples, the tendency is to modulate what the sample 'is'. But the sample is meaningless unless it's in context with surrounding samples and indicating what the underlying waveform is doing. If you are altering samples as if they are the wave form, you're very likely to shift the timing of information in the underlying waveform the samples are supposed to imply. The result is more inharmonic distortion, in the manner of 'jitter'.
If people were working with infinitely high-res infinite-bandwidth data this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't.
Over to analog.
Analog can react in unexpected ways. You can produce exaggerated 'groove', for instance, by taking the extreme low frequencies and making them a bit slower to respond, or a bit weaker than the midbass. You can produce 'lushness' by having a boost such as a tape head bump which boosts up to a certain point and then gently saturates and doesn't boost beyond that point. You can produce 'air' by having subtle high frequency sounds amplified, but controlling the louder high frequency sounds with tape saturation, gradually reaching a point of total saturation as the frequency rises and combines with the bias tone, so the very highest frequencies are quite compressed.
I can't help but think it's fortuitous that the problems with digital linearity are invariably horrible-sounding, but maybe half the problems with analog linearity are great-sounding. You might not always want to apply them but when you combine the absence of most inharmonic distortions (you can still get switching distortion on AB transistor circuits, etc) with the presence of music-helping distortions, it's not hard to see why many people prefer analog.
Nostalgia factor has diddly-squat to do with it in my opinion, and I'm a DSP guy.
Logged
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2005, 06:44:53 PM »
Listen to Nat Cole's "Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire".
Logged
|