Print

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

[kats]

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.

[Jay Kadis]

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]

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.

[kats]

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?

[Silvertone]

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!

[Jay Kadis]

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]

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".

[Jay Kadis]

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]

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.

[Tomas Danko]

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.

[kats]

deleted, was repeating myself

[seedyunderbelly.com]

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

[kats]

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

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.

[Geoff Emerick de Fake]

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?

[kats]

By replaced, I mean the RADAR system is gone. The Apogee Symphony system plugs directly into the HD core card.