Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[charles maynes]

I think it has been touched on here in this thread, but the thing I am really intrigued by is how certain analog recordings- mainly orchestral and non-rock recordings just totally leap out of your speakers and shout "I'M BAD"!

A great example I came across of this type of recording is the Polydor release (429 333-2) of Weill & Brecht's "Seven Deadly SIns & The Berlin Requiem. Unfortuately, there are no details to the recording in the liner notes but it does mention that the digital mastering was done by Dennis M. Drake of Polygram.


So anyway, the reason I bring this up is that a lot of people seem to think that analog is really kind of "low-fi" and that the "sound" of analog can be imparted via dsp- I think that the illusion of analog might be possible, but there seem to be an awful lot of variables that are still variable- IE the quality of the mag stock, which will certainly change through time, and even the contribution of processes such as Dolby SR, Which I personally think is a very nice treatment.

In the 192k thread I think GM mentioned that he was really more in the mode of discovery when dealing with the high sample rate options that have become available- as opposed to simply building an artificial barrier and saying that nothing can be better.... It is sort of like having a P-51 Mustang, enjoying it a lot, but then bad mouthing An F-18 Honet because it goes faster-


Thank Goodness there have been gentleman like Rupert Neve and Bill Putnam (Sr) who kind of were the banner wavers for High Quality audio gear way back when (and I most definitely place George M. there too!, though not quite so "back then")


Onward to better sound-

charles maynes

[Loco]

charles maynes wrote on Tue, 18 May 2004 22:54

I think it has been touched on here in this thread, but the thing I am really intrigued by is how certain analog recordings- mainly orchestral and non-rock recordings just totally leap out of your speakers and shout "I'M BAD"!

It's not the arrow. It's the indian.

[ted nightshade]

Bill- I edited Dave's name out of the signature of that post- a cut and paste oversight! My words, not his. Sorry Dave!

The 901's weren't studio monitors- they were a blissful big as life playback system. The work was mixed and tracked on monitors of an obscure and small-time handmake, but they translate pretty well. My nutso friend who customized the four 10,000 watt amps for a playback pleasure type system actually had 901's installed in Paramount studios when he engineered there back in the 70's, and the mixes did not translate at all. It was a big expensive mistake. Not recommended for studio monitors, but a great approach that can sound more like instruments in a room than the usual front-facing speakers.

I can't tell you too much of the technical stuff on the Sony 4 track- it's 0 VU is higher than intended, it's bias is standard, and yes, it has about 65 dB of dynamic range. It's definitely noisier than the RADAR! I only demo'ed the RADAR S-Nyquist for a week, mostly worked at 44.1, and I did not put the two systems head to head, a great regret of mine- but I did record a lot of the same sources in the same room and got very, very different results, and much preferred the Sony in all cases, as sounding more like life. Vocals was the killer- I couldn't get the vocals to sound human on that RADAR, but no problem to tape. If I had nice compressors and EQ and all that it might be a different story. If I was a different Indian it might be a different story! But that RADAR has loomed large for me for a long time, mostly because it was such a joy to work with, workflow wise. Analog tape is definitely a big big hassle in comparison. I would way rather work with a RADAR, if only it sounded close to as good to me, on my usual sources in my usual spaces...

So take it with a grain of salt, as well you should. FWIW, that tape machine was selected as exceptional out of 5 selected back in the day from many more of the same kind. I may just be a sweetheart of a machine- I don't know, I've only used one other like it, and it was rebuilt after being shot with a shotgun during a drug-related murder back in the day in LA... <shudder> it was pretty sweet to, but had some issues with the bias getting stable.

Still, I'm hoping to find some digital that makes me forget about the whole tedious analog tape business... and I'll be glad when I do!

[Ethan Winer]

Ted,

> I'm talking about the sound of the vocalist live in the flesh through nothing but the air. That's what I'm trying to capture. <

Then like me, you're looking for a recording medium that most closely reproduces what you recorded. Which takes us back to my original statement that in all ways you care to assess it, digital recorders beats analog every time. If you have a digital system that doesn't sound exactly what you sent it, then it's broken. Or it should be replaced with a newer and better recorder that lives up to digital's potential, which is total transparency.

--Ethan

[ted nightshade]

Hi Ethan- still trying to make this distinction:

Not what the mic picked up, but the sound that occurred in the room. To the extent that such a thing is possible.

I have to disagree strongly that all digital systems that aren't broken represent the source better than all analog systems. The reverse isn't true either, by any means. Some digital systems represent the source better than others, and some analog systems represent the source better than others. Some digital systems represent the source better than some analog systems, and some analog systems represent the source better than some digital systems. That much ought to be beyond dispute.

To best represent real acoustic sounds, you need the finest from either category, or at least very well implemented examples, which are exceptional to the categories as a whole.

[Duardo]

Quote:

In what way does it sound different / worse than the direct mike feed from the console? Maybe it's simply broken or faulty?

I don't know how to describe the difference, but I've done several listening tests of different converters, and while those of us who were involved didn't necessarily agree on which converter sounded "better", we all agreed that the biggest difference was not between the different converters, but between any of the converters and the analog signal coming into the console.  The differences between the converters were surprisingly subtle, but it was fairly obvious when we were listening to the analog singal as opposed to the ones that had gone through a round of conversion.

-Duardo

[David Bock]

"Everything important in audio that needs to be measured can be measured using currently available tools. These measurements can resolve to a level much finer/lower than anyone's ear can hear. There are no magical properties that we can hear, but which science has not yet identified. If you believe otherwise, I'd love to see some evidence.
--Ethan"
Wow. I'm glad that when the xray machine was invented, doctors didn't have your attitude and think they had it all figured out yet. Thankfully, humans have pursued further and discovered that they hadn't even yet imagined what it turned out that they needed to know. Remind me not to hire you for my R&D dep't.
True we have tools that can resolve things beyond what we can easily discern, I use some of those tools every day (one of them is even in a computer!). And I can measure and hear many of the changes I might make in a product.
But not all audible changes can be measured!
Unless of course you are from the Hirsch school of sound where all amplifiers sound the same, just the specs change.
For me, different amps can sound different yet have similar specs & even similar detailed measurements. Yet they sound different and no one can provide measurements to provide documentation for why the two amps might clearly sound different.......I'm surprised you've never experienced that.
regards,
David Bock

[Johnny B]

That's funny about the amps. One of my best friends is a double E, and he always tells me that an amp is one of the most simple  devices anyone can ever build. He likes to say to me, "You can't hear any differences, here I'll prove it to you with this O-scope and some meters." But I reply, "You may be a really smart SOB, but you are tone deaf and you cannot "hear" with your damn "eyes."

I don't think there is much debate that amps sound very different from one another for a whole host of reasons that are beyond the scope of the thread.

But are double E's with large egos part of the bottleneck?

Far wiser people with better minds than me will have to answer that one.

[Nika Aldrich]

dbock wrote on Wed, 19 May 2004 21:51

But not all audible changes can be measured!

Such as?

[Han S.]

Ethan Winer wrote on Wed, 19 May 2004 15:25

Ted, > I'm talking about the sound of the vocalist live in the flesh through nothing but the air. That's what I'm trying to capture. < Then like me, you're looking for a recording medium that most closely reproduces what you recorded. Which takes us back to my original statement that in all ways you care to assess it, digital recorders beats analog every time. If you have a digital system that doesn't sound exactly what you sent it, then it's broken. Or it should be replaced with a newer and better recorder that lives up to digital's potential, which is total transparency. --Ethan

Ethan, I don't have that experience. When I record a band or whatever and record it with my DDA-AMR board to a 2" machine and to a DAW like Nuendo or an MX2424, in my opinion the 2" machine sound more true to the source. So I'm afraid I'm with Ted.

If the Nuendo or whatever DAW sounded so exactly like the source, then what's the use of DSD?

Cheers, Han Swagerman.

[hargerst]

Nika Aldrich wrote on Wed, 19 May 2004 16:56

dbock wrote on Wed, 19 May 2004 21:51 But not all audible changes can be measured! Such as?

I remember back when transistor amplifiers started appearing on the market.  Many of us heard differences between tube amps and transistor amps that measured "exactly the same".  Turned out we had to learn how to measure things differently, and we came up with TIM, slew rates, problems with massive amounts of negative feedback, and the actual individual harmonics that were distorting (instead of THD).  

Seems our ears were right.

Makes me wonder if changing them fast rising squares to a whole bunch of itty bitty ramping sine waves might be messing with the slew rate a bit.  

Ya reckon?

[Brent Handy]

Read:

Coding for High Resolution Audio Systems by J. Stuart
Audio Analog to Digital Convertors by Mike Story

Order from AES.

Sorta quoting:

Analog domain: signals are continuous in voltage, infinate resolution and are continuous in time.  Digital domain: needs representation, samples, that have finite resolution (fixed number of bits) and are discrete in time. Samples are spaced evenly in time.

[Curve Dominant]

Quote:

posted by Harvey Gerst: Makes me wonder if changing them fast rising squares to a whole bunch of itty bitty ramping sine waves might be messing with the slew rate a bit. Ya reckon?

Harvey,

I'm stumped. Please enlighten.

How does A-D conversion affect slew?

[hargerst]

Eric Vincent wrote on Wed, 19 May 2004 21:58

Quote: posted by Harvey Gerst: Makes me wonder if changing them fast rising squares to a whole bunch of itty bitty ramping sine waves might be messing with the slew rate a bit. Ya reckon? Harvey, I'm stumped. Please enlighten. How does A-D conversion affect slew?

I think we're all agreed that a 7.4kHz square wave (kinda looks like the side of a building) comes out as a sine wave (kinda looks like a ski slope). One of the main things that's changed is the rise time, isn't it?

Call it slew rate, call it skew rate, call it rise time, but it ain't goin up as fast as it was.  I don't know what to call it, but when something comes out different from when it went in (and it's down low enough to hear), what would you call it?

Granted, I'm an old fart and I don't understand a lot of this digital stuff, but it seems logical to me that there is a difference between something that goes up like this: | and something that goes up like this: / - my only question is: at 7.4kHz, is it audible to some people?

[Zoesch]

hargerst wrote on Thu, 20 May 2004 11:49

I remember back when transistor amplifiers started appearing on the market.  Many of us heard differences between tube amps and transistor amps that measured "exactly the same".  Turned out we had to learn how to measure things differently, and we came up with TIM, slew rates, problems with massive amounts of negative feedback, and the actual individual harmonics that were distorting (instead of THD).   Seems our ears were right. Makes me wonder if changing them fast rising squares to a whole bunch of itty bitty ramping sine waves might be messing with the slew rate a bit.   Ya reckon?

Not really but you're bound by the THF, topology, slew rate, frequency response and phase response of the reconstruction filter.

Discussing the performance of your DAC without discussing these (And other aspects like the anti-imaging filter, clocking, etc.) filter is pretty useless.