R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: Johnny B on December 10, 2005, 03:43:22 am

Title: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 10, 2005, 03:43:22 am
Yeah, I know...it may seem like a dumb question on the surface...

Perhaps it's like asking "Why do guitar players love their tube amps?" This is still true despite the fact that guitar players have for years been hearing certain design engineers tell the guitar players that they are crazy and that solid state amps are just as good or superior to tube amps. I dunno if any of you have ever tried to take a tube amp away from a guitar player but that is something I would never attempt because I like living and I also do not want to end up in a hospital with broken body parts.  

In the same way that guitar players must have tube amps, many musicians and engineers prefer the sound of analogue even though digital is suppossedly cleaner, more accurate, easier to edit, and possibly cheaper to get into...yamma...yamma...yamma...

Now I do need to make a disclaimer that I truly do NOT believe any of the hype that those who market digital products spew forth...I'm just trying to summarise some their claims...

I know what my ears like to hear and it's not Dijee-Tools...but I could be in the minority these days...

Given who the host of this forum is (hopefully we will show him the respect he deserves) I'd like to hear why others feel that Analogue is still the King of Great Sound Quality.




 
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 10, 2005, 09:07:23 am
I think you get the sounds you hear and like in your formative years ingrained in your mind and that defines 'good' for you. I'm a guitar player and you wouldn't be able to pry my old Marshalls and Fenders out of my cold, dead hands but solid state and digital have places. They aren't 'bad' or 'worse' they are just different than what most people have formed in their minds as ideal. I use them and record with them. They do things the amps can't do. They can do things the amp can do pretty well also.

The other side of it is literally all in their head. People's mind and beliefs have powerful impact over how they percieve what they are hearing. I've done blind tests with people asking them to pick out what amp they like better. It was a PODxt with settings unchanged but when they thought it was a Bogner it was killer. When they thought it was a Crate it sucked, and when they thought it was Line 6 they thought it really sucked. No one is immune to this. As engineers we are capable of being more discerning because we are trained to find isolate and correct subtle aspects of audio production but what we hear is still very influenced by what we believe.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Vertigo on December 10, 2005, 10:06:47 am
I've been playing guitar for 20 years now, and I've played through just about every amp under the sun. Digital amp modeling is absolute crap, and solid state amps just do NOT play or sound like tube amps. That's not to say that there aren't some pretty nice sounding solid state amps out there or that solid state can't sound good in certain situations. But they can't match the responsiveness to playing dynamics that a good tube amp can.

That said, I came across a technology a couple of years ago that absolutely blew my mind. And it's tube-less...

Check out Pritchard Amps:

http://www.pritchardamps.com

This guy is a genius - he's created his own analog technology (XGPA) that's actually BETTER than tube. I haven't seen a guitarist yet that wasn't absolutely blown away by the way these things sound and play - even die-hard vintage tube and boutique amp fanatics.

-Lance
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 10, 2005, 10:11:04 am
How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Digital?

It's subjective. I prefer analog almost every time a client send both types in for mastering, but it's purely subjective...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ged Leitch on December 10, 2005, 10:24:04 am
very subjective!!!
All i know is, as a guitar player i dont care if i'm playing through a marshall stack or a POD or even IK's Amplitube, if I like the sound I use it.
  Sure I've played through some crappy solid state amps but I've also played through valve amps that I didnt care much for the sound too.
  So, i'd say theres no definitive right or wrong here,
just what sounds good to you
be it digi or annie (10 out of 10 for the cliche Laughing )
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Klokkern on December 10, 2005, 11:02:49 am
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, analouge beats digital. But what about an old Tascam 24 track / 1" tape that has been neglected for a couple of months compared to a top notch soundscape system?? (I strongly claim that the Soundscape system with good converters is the best DAW I have ever heard) In the last case, analouge would be seriously pissed on....

Producer John Cornfield (of Supergrass/muse fame) has got both 24 track 2" analogue and a Soundscape DAW in the studio he usually works, and on Sydecs homepage (the makers of Soundscape DAW´s) he´s been telling about how 95% of the clients who want to use analouge ends up thinking the Soundscape DAW sounds better in blind tests.... So this is both a very subjectiv and also very much a psycho-acoustic phenomena.

Bottom line: What sounds better, analouge ar digital?? None, really. Top notch equipment will in most cases sound better than cheap / neglected equipment (at least today, this might not have been so with the first mitshubisi digital 32 tracks....), no matter if it is digital or analog.

regards
larsK
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: danickstr on December 10, 2005, 11:13:46 am
good post from scandinavia.  I agree. Cool
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 10, 2005, 11:47:45 am
Klokkern wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 16:02

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
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick 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
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus 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?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC 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!
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood 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...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster 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".... Wink
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: chrisj 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.
Title: Proof is in the pudding ...
Post by: vernier on December 10, 2005, 06:44:53 pm
Listen to Nat Cole's "Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire".
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 10, 2005, 07:30:28 pm

Mr. Nicklaus, the reason for the transfer to digital is cost. The client cannot afford to do his whole record on tape so we used one reel of GP9, recorded, dumped, one pass to erase tape and then on to the next tune.



Cool.

j
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 10, 2005, 07:38:09 pm
Personally, I blame the design engineers at the chip houses for all the problems people find with digital. From my perspective, the A-to-D and D-to-A chips are still too slow, too weak, and far too wimpy.

In fact, the closer you look at the entire digital process the more errors and anomalies you find. They can't even get the math right...and then you have latency, truncation, dither, time smear, phasing and all sorts of nasty artifacts in the digital process.

And let's not forget for one minute that these same digital chip design engineers made the wild claim that "44.1kHz is all you'll ever need." They also said that "The 16-bit CD format is all you'll ever need."

And then, after they damn well knew that the 16-bit CD format was sorely lacking and wholly defective, they went right ahead and got behind MPfreakin3's...And then, to add insult to injury, they made even more false claims to hype MPfreakin3's...

Talk about big lies....

Bush needed to look no further than what these chip designers have done to sound quality...Had Bush investigated the liars inside the digital chip houses he would have found out all the weapons of mass destruction ended up in digital sound.

And many of these weapons of mass destruction are called "digital chip design engineers."





 
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 10, 2005, 08:12:58 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 19:38

Personally, I blame the design engineers at the chip houses for all the problems people find with digital. From my perspective, the A-to-D and D-to-A chips are still too slow, too weak, and far too wimpy.

In fact, the closer you look at the entire digital process the more errors and anomalies you find. They can't even get the math right...and then you have latency, truncation, dither, time smear, phasing and all sorts of nasty artifacts in the digital process.

And let's not forget for one minute that these same digital chip design engineers made the wild claim that "4XkHz is all you'll ever need." They also said that "The 16-bit CD format is all you'll ever need."

And then, after they damn well knew that the 16-bit CD format was sorely lacking and wholly defective, they went right ahead and got behind MPfreakin3's...And then, to add insult to injury, they made even more false claims to hype MPfreakin3's...

Talk about big lies....

Bush needed to look no further than what these chip designers have done to sound quality...Had Bush investigated the liars inside the digital chip houses he would have found out all the weapons of mass destruction ended up in digital sound.

And many of these weapons of mass destruction are called "digital chip design engineers."
 


I think we are all well aware of your feelings about digital audio from your many posts on Dan Lavry's forum. You do remember the debacle(s) you created on that forum that led to someone posting a poll in which 85% of readers said that you should be prohibited from further posting. Are you trying to be the PSW version of 'whack-a-mole' by popping up periodically in different places so that people can take swipes at you? At least the thorbing helmet person is an amusing troll.

Why not do something novel and offer some kind of evidence to support your otherwise random conjecture? Can you name some of the musicians with whom you have liaised that prefer analog, and can you enlighten us as to what they said? Perhaps you'd like to substantiate your perspective by relating some of your personal experience with shooting out different analog and digital decks or DAWs. I for one would take you a lot more seriously if you could post something like "hey guys, I recorded a band yesterday on 2 inch and we ran a ProTewls too, then we locked up up and A/B'd them and the musicians all said abc, which leads me to think xyz. To what do you guys attribute the subjective comments of these musicians?" See, now that would be at least a START at making a worthwhile inquiry, notwithstanding the fact that the analog/digital thing is a dead horse.

Oh yea, before I go - I prefer analog.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 10, 2005, 08:55:24 pm
bushwick wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 16:30


Mr. Nicklaus, the reason for the transfer to digital is cost. The client cannot afford to do his whole record on tape so we used one reel of GP9, recorded, dumped, one pass to erase tape and then on to the next tune.



Cool.

j


Understood.

How much time does that take between each song?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 10, 2005, 09:00:55 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 01:12


Oh yea, before I go - I prefer analog.


Yeah, almost everybody feels the same way you do about preferring the sound of analogue.

To my small mind, that suggests that the digital chip design engineers have a lot more work to do...

In the meantime, people can always go to a well-equipped analogue studio for the real deal...And, they can do so for reasonable prices...If you do not believe me,  just ask our host.

Title: Re: Proof is in the pudding ...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 10, 2005, 09:01:07 pm
vernier wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 15:44

Listen to Nat Cole's "Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire".


I believe that's called "The Christmas Song"
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 10, 2005, 09:10:34 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 20:00

John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 01:12


Oh yea, before I go - I prefer analog.


Yeah, almost everybody feels the same way you do about preferring the sound of analogue.

You have some proof of this statement?

Quote:

To my small mind,

We agree on something!

Quote:

that suggests that the digital chip design engineers have a lot more work to do...

A baseless assumption without some proof to your statement above.

I too prefer analog most every time. But the question is not whether or not the digital chips work correctly but even more basic - do I prefer analog because I logged far more time working with/listening to it or because it's better?

Why is it the most critical recordists in the world - those in classical recording - choose digital virtually 100% of them time?

And why did I allow myself to get sucked into another pointless JohnnyB thread?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 10, 2005, 09:28:08 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 21:00

John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 01:12


Oh yea, before I go - I prefer analog.


Yeah, almost everybody feels the same way you do about preferring the sound of analogue.



I'm not sure why you bolded my statement - but kudos on sidestepping every other pointed barb I tossed at you.

Johnny B wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 21:00


To my small mind, that suggests that the digital chip design engineers have a lot more work to do...



The formats are different. They are not the same thing. They are different. Do you know the actual attributes of tape? Do you know why people like it?

As far as whether or not digital audio hardware and software developers have more work to do - no one said they don't....least of all the hardware and software developers I've met. So what exactly does your comment add to the debate? Nothing is perfect, and just about anything in the world that has relevance to humankind that is worth pursuing is being pursued. Cancer isn't cured, there's world hunger, climate change, and some convertors suck. The world knows. Some of the world cares, some of the world contributes. What's the point of saying 'chip designers have more work to do'? What do you think, the engineers at Meridian are going to show up at work on Monday and sit on their hands to spite Jonny B?

Johnny B wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 21:00


In the meantime, people can always go to a well-equipped analogue studio for the real deal...And, they can do so for reasonable prices...If you do not believe me,  just ask our host.



Whoa, no kiddin, analog is affordable and good? Dude, you gotta be kiddin me. Naw, I need a confirmation on this.

Seriously, do you like work in the Quantegy factory or something?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 10, 2005, 10:22:13 pm



What a way to start a new forum. An annie/digi discussion with a multi-approach scientist. It's like christening the Titantic with an iceberg.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: chrisj on December 10, 2005, 11:10:31 pm
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 21:10


Why is it the most critical recordists in the world - those in classical recording - choose digital virtually 100% of them time?


Because when they're audiophiles they're much less likely to be processing the heck out of the signal and more likely to leave it alone?

Because when they are processing the heck out of the signal they need to do insanely heavy editing to cover for the weaknesses of current-day orchestras?

Because dynamic range is always their nemesis and they really use and need the exaggerated dynamic performance of digital, especially 24 bit?

Makes perfect sense to me...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 11, 2005, 12:22:01 am
gas v electric?

steam v nuclear?

of course we have to have a dva stoush

i think it's unarguable that digital is the more precise medium, which allows more level to noise and better definition

interestingly, the first thing to leave the analog domain was the vocal, and the last, the drums, which are hanging on still

clearly, it's not why digital sux, but what does tape add

chris has pointed out a few things, but, imo, it's compression that the tapeheads seek

if you're not running in the red, tube amps and solidstate aren't that much different, but push it to 11, and you'll hear the difference

it's the distortion that, somehow, perhaps due to the order of dominant harmonics, can sound anything from sweet to monstrous according to the source

so when i record, i saturate the analog end to taste, but leave the digital levels well away from the peaks

i have an electric stove top, but also use a gasring for my wok (and a microwave to heat up the coffee)

and i think steam trains are the pinnacle of modern technology
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 11, 2005, 01:09:17 am
In time, I believe classical people will come back to analog.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 11, 2005, 02:15:21 am
I was just going to say something along those same lines.

I dunno what will go back to anything, analog is important only to the ears of the people who have heard it.. crunch..


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 11, 2005, 02:46:40 am
I had always talked about how analog seems to have a 3 dimensional quality that digital seems to be lacking.  It has been explained to me that this might be a result of "pre-ringing" in the filters of the AD converters.  I'm not a very technical guy, so I don't really have much to comment on in that way, other than what I know I hear.  

I can make great recordings on both, but anything that requires an explosive dynamic, whether it be rock, or some hard boppin' jazz, I am always happier with the sound I hear back when going to 2" than using a DAW.  I haven't A/B'd with RADAR though,  so I can't tell you about that digital format.  I am assuming that even the Nyquist converters have the pre-ringing issue?  I do agree with what somebody else said though, I would rather record through a great digital rig than a mediocre analog deck.  

On another note, I like to use the limitations of analog to get a drum sound I like.  For instance, I like getting tape compression  on kick and snare.  It's a specific sound that a box just can't give me.  I also like the non-linear response of tape, like the low end head bump I get at 15ips.  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 11, 2005, 04:25:48 am
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 02:00



Yeah, almost everybody feels the same way you do about preferring the sound of analogue.




I'll bet you 3 Sanken Mics that this isn't nearly as much as you assume.


They claim 100khz....


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on December 11, 2005, 10:20:56 am
My question is how many musicians can tell the difference between the audio quality and different priorities, production techniques, musical arrangements, performances, numbers of microphones, instruments and room setups?

VERY VERY few in my experience and I get fooled myself regularly.

If you take tape out of the equation and record live to a cutting lathe, most people prefer the sound of that to using tape. Most people also prefer the sound of a live mix to tape over using a multitrack.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 12:46:48 pm
When a drummer is sitting on top of their drums with headphones cranked in their ears for an hour and then they come in to listen to playback, no matter what format is used they have no perspective on the control room monitors.

The same with other players using headphones.  The players understanding formats with blown ears is curious.

There was a time that the trick of recording was to get your multi track to play back exactly what you put into it and to capture the sound you spent hours tweaking before rolling tape.  Not to have a new sound emerge on playback.  To some, it is still the case.

It's interesting to read people's take on recording - analog or digital.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 11, 2005, 01:41:53 pm
I think the Analogue vs. Digital debate will rage on until the digital propeller heads at the chip makers get it right...if they ever do...

Of course throwing a lot more horsepower at the CPU and DSP, increasing the bit-depth and bumping up the speeds of the ADDA chips may make the "fake shake" emulations, models, and  so-called "warmers" come closer to analogue...but so far there is no scientific proof that digital will ever sound and behave just as good as analogue.

OTOH, it could be one of those never-ending debates or analogue may find that its continuous support will be strengthened when groups of people simply toss out the old obsolete digital gear. This state of affairs may not be unlike the way many guitar players dumped all their solid state amps and returned to valve amps because they love the way those analogue amps sound and behave.




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ashermusic on December 11, 2005, 01:54:33 pm
[quote title=bblackwood wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 02:10][Why is it the most critical recordists in the world - those in classical recording - choose digital virtually 100% of them time?

quote]

I have a theory on this, Brad and please you and the others forgive me if I am stating the obvious.

As you say. classical recordists (and jazz musicians frequently) prefer digital generally and in fact were the first to embrace CDs, even bacck in the early days when they were not oversampled. Classical recordists are looking for only one thing from the recording process: transparency. Digital is accurate to a degree analog simply cannot be becaaue every pot on a board, every circuit, etc. the vagueries of tape machines, the tape itself, all these things add inconsistency. After all a Moog sounds so fat because it is three oscillators not perfectly in tune. The DX7 when it emerged was far more accurate but thinner sounding because it was more in tune. This is why we double track voals.

Those who work in pop/rock music can find those inconcistencies as adding a vibe, a warmth, etc. that is aesthetically desriable. A classical recordist wants the mics to record an orchestra playing Beethoven i.e. to just "get it right", not add anything aesthetically. It's great music so if it well conducted, well played, and cleanly recorded it requires no additional help in their minds. The recording process should be as transparent as possible. In the pop/rock world we frequently want the recording to get in the way and add things that we consider aesthetically desirable. We are not looking for transparency so we may prefer analog.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 11, 2005, 02:35:27 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 13:41

I think the Analogue vs. Digital debate will rage on until the digital propeller heads at the chip makers get it right...if they ever do...

Of course throwing a lot more horsepower at the CPU and DSP, increasing the bit-depth and bumping up the speeds of the ADDA chips may make the "fake shake" emulations, models, and  so-called "warmers" come closer to analogue...but so far there is no scientific proof that digital will ever sound and behave just as good as analogue.

OTOH, it could be one of those never-ending debates or analogue may find that its continuous support will be strengthened when groups of people simply toss out the old obsolete digital gear. This state of affairs may not be unlike the way many guitar players dumped all their solid state amps and returned to valve amps because they love the way those analogue amps sound and behave.



ah, now I see your point. Thank you for clarifying and substantiating with empirical evidence, and for not just repeating the same tired, half-baked 'analog roolz, digital droolz' opinions.  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 11, 2005, 02:49:49 pm
bushwick wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 19:30


Mr. Nicklaus, the reason for the transfer to digital is cost. The client cannot afford to do his whole record on tape so we used one reel of GP9, recorded, dumped, one pass to erase tape and then on to the next tune.

This is a common argument, but I believe the "cost savings" from going to digital storage is a figment.

Unless the session is going to be conducted primarily for free in a non-professional environment (home), then the studio and data costs of making these transfers will equal or exceed the cost of the tape that would have been used otherwise.

Add to that the additional time that will be spent on the session because it is now digital -- endless edit decisions and waiting for the computer to get its shit together, mostly -- and you begin to see that nothing is gained by this move.

I understand that some engineers prefer working on computers because it gives them more control over the session. I understand that, and while I have criticisms of that line of thinking, I think that is a rational excuse to "dump" analog recordings to digital. It's still a bad idea, but I think that reasoning is understandable. The cost issue is not. It's a red herring.

I also understand that some records (elaborate collage-and-tweak-festivals) are easier to make on computers. I don't think every record should be turned into an elaborate collage-and-tweak-festival. It is often cheaper to make a record on tape than any other way.

I know, because I make hundreds of records a year for the smallest budgets imaginable. I do them all on tape. I don't think I'm special. I think engineers look for excuses to move onto digital systems for their own comfort or sense of control, and they use "the cost of tape" as cover. I wish they wouldn't.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: minister on December 11, 2005, 02:58:32 pm
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 10 December 2005 20:10


Why is it the most critical recordists in the world - those in classical recording - choose digital virtually 100% of them time?
not true for orchestral fim score recording.  in fact, it is primarily analogue.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 11, 2005, 03:04:10 pm
Argument accepted, but it is only the tip of Ronnie's iceberg, tape costs.

Digital doesn't require much upkeep. To do good analog, you need what you probably already have, alot more time, and around $20k for the mechanical side, to start.

There are other reasons.. oh my god.. I hate this argument.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: minister on December 11, 2005, 03:08:26 pm
electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 13:49


Add to that the additional time that will be spent on the session because it is now digital -- endless edit decisions and waiting for the computer to get its shit together, mostly -- and you begin to see that nothing is gained by this move.
this is also a red herring.  my system is solid, efficient and powerful.  but, yes it does require maintenance.  endless editing is a production choice.  this argument holds no water.

(i say this with all respect, mr albini.  i totally dig what you do and am impressed with your knoweldge, dedication, passion and talent.)

NOW...i DO like the SOUND of analogue.  in fact last night a friend  of mine had a party in the stduio that was first built by BRuce Swedien in the 50's (or 60's?)  and still has his FULLY FUNCTIONAL chamber in the basement.  now, this guy i a REAL PRO.  and he played me some mixes from 2" tape and his Neotek board and they sounded FABULOUS!!  the imaging was incredible the space the dimensions.  on TANNOYS, no less.  and then he played some PT mixes.  well, they were good , but lacked the depth.  CAVEAT -- these were MIX SYSTEM mixes.  PT, i know can sound better.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ryan Leigh Patterson on December 11, 2005, 03:09:34 pm
I can only speak of my experiences, but everytime I track to tape, the sessions are more focused and desicions are made earlier.  Instead of having to fish through 10 takes of every song, decisions are made on the spot... this  saves time and seems to inspire the band to "get it right" earlier.  With the almost endless space of digital recordings bands seem to plough through take after take....


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 11, 2005, 03:45:03 pm
I agree that the cost argument is of the "lame" variety...

Some folks, like Phil Ramone, complain about the lack of a standardised catalogue and retrieval system in the digital realm...it can take some people hours and hours of wasted time searching for that one vocal take (out of the millions done, and often in-artfully Autotuned to death)  at a later stage of the process...and the more people you get into the process...the harder it becomes to know who did what, where, and when...digital can be a total nightmare and an expensive endeavor in terms valuable time wasted.

Perhaps a wizard using excel or a spreadsheet can compare the true costs of digital vs. analogue. If done in a thorough and appropriate manner it should put this lame "cost argument" to rest.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Slipperman on December 11, 2005, 03:57:00 pm
I wasn't aware that MOST had any preference at all from a sonics perspective initially.


At our shop... we try to concentrate on making records that exceed our clients expectations in any and every respect we can muster.

Most seem very willing to accomodate whatever mediums or methodologies we suggest based on the understanding that... in the end... if it doesn't stand up and dance... WE ALL LOSE.

They also COME TO US for the WAY we make records sound, and presumably this is at least modestly interconnected with the methodologies that we have traditionally used to produce that legacy of misery.

HOHOHO.

Anyhoo.

I find that engineers and musicians USUALLY seem to make better records when they are not hating life during the process.

There are exceptions.

WHAT we suggest... is a case by case scenario, that can occur during any giving juncture of the pre-production planning, tracking and mixing processes, and is hopefully driven by a sage assessment of the aforementioned.


In the long game... it's "whatever it takes" around here.

Best regards,

SM.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 04:03:01 pm
Ryan Leigh Patterson wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 12:09

I can only speak of my experiences, but everytime I track to tape, the sessions are more focused and desicions are made earlier.  Instead of having to fish through 10 takes of every song, decisions are made on the spot... this  saves time and seems to inspire the band to "get it right" earlier.  With the almost endless space of digital recordings bands seem to plough through take after take....





Many engineers from the 3 track days said the same thing about going to 16 and 24 tracks (and beyond).

Don't forget big budget projects on analog could have 50 takes on each song and many, many edits between those takes.

It's not like DAW's have invented a new way to work.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: minister on December 11, 2005, 04:06:12 pm
yeah...and digital would have saved me when the engineer, cigareette in mouth, leaning over board said, "Ooops!  too much beer last night.  i just erased the drum track on that punch."  so we had to schedule another session to bring the drummer BACK.  at the "AE"'s expense, but still.... Embarassed  Evil or Very Mad  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 11, 2005, 04:10:32 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 15:45

I agree that the cost argument is of the "lame" variety...



Yes, it is a very lame argument.

Here's a take on why it's a lame argument.

My next project is on a tight budget, and the artist likes to record lots of material and keeps all takes.

For media I 'could' record on 2", but running at 30ips means that I get 15-16 minutes of recording time for about $200, give or take.

Or I can record to a 250GB firewire drive for another 50 bucks or so, give or take.

By my back-of-the-napkin calculation I can record 24 tracks of 24 bit audio for literally days on end without stopping the DAW (not that I recommend it, of course). Please check my math - there's a lot of zeros in a gigabyte so my mileage may vary.

The tracks will be live off the floor, and we rarely do a significant amount of editing.

Hmm, decisions decisions.

So, Jonny B, what are the economics of your latest record?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 04:11:31 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 12:45


Some folks, like Phil Ramone, complain about the lack of a standardised catalogue and retrieval system in the digital realm...it can take some people hours and hours of wasted time searching for that one vocal take (out of the millions done, and often in-artfully Autotuned to death)  at a later stage of the process...and the more people you get into the process...the harder it becomes to know who did what, where, and when...digital can be a total nightmare and an expensive endeavor in terms valuable time wasted.




I have put together a couple of big catalog re issues. Pro Tools or not, it's not easy to find all the slave(s) and master analog reels either.  Or you may find the slave but not the master.

Also there was a time when some were mixing to the X80 2 track or the sony 33 series 2 track. try to find one of those that work.

Hopefully all reissues are just the original mixes and maybe some out takes.  But if multi track masters need to be found, it isn't always that easy no matter what the format and it will now only get worse.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 11, 2005, 04:19:56 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:10


My next project is on a tight budget, and the artist likes to record lots of material and keeps all takes.

Your artist's method is inappropriate for a small budget. That's not the fault of the tape. Recording a jillion takes, keeping all of them, and combing through them later is much, much more expensive than recording only the good takes in the first place, no matter what they're recorded on. The medium is a tiny portion of the cost of a session like that.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 04:28:17 pm
electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 13:19

John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:10


My next project is on a tight budget, and the artist likes to record lots of material and keeps all takes.

Your artist's method is inappropriate for a small budget. That's not the fault of the tape. Recording a jillion takes, keeping all of them, and combing through them later is much, much more expensive than recording only the good takes in the first place, no matter what they're recorded on. The medium is a tiny portion of the cost of a session like that.



I was thinking the same thing.  To record hours of material only to need to go back and sort through it all is not efficient on a small budget.  But some artists are more into the process than the results.  Those are the painful ones to work with, I have found.



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 11, 2005, 04:33:35 pm
electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:19

John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:10


My next project is on a tight budget, and the artist likes to record lots of material and keeps all takes.

Your artist's method is inappropriate for a small budget. That's not the fault of the tape. Recording a jillion takes, keeping all of them, and combing through them later is much, much more expensive than recording only the good takes in the first place, no matter what they're recorded on. The medium is a tiny portion of the cost of a session like that.



Notwithstanding my great respect for you and your opinion I don't accept that we as engineers are in a position to dictate artistic process, firstly.

Secondly, I keep tape rolling as much as possible in case a 'bit of mucking around' turns into something good. And as you know there's nothing worse than missing the top of a good take. Well, there  are worse things...perhaps I overstated the case. Cuing and re-cuing a machine is time-consuming too.

Combing through takes is something the artist does on his own from DAT at home at his leisure - not on studio time.

So, with respect, I disagree.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: minister on December 11, 2005, 04:41:12 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 15:33

Notwithstanding my great respect for you and your opinion I don't accept that we as engineers are in a position to dictate artistic process, firstly.
john, notwithstanding my respect for you, i was with you until this point.  it is our job to educate people sometimes as to the best way to record.  of course it is a balance.  how much do we let them "do what they want"? it is, afterall, their dime.  well, i think it is INCUMBENT upon us to politley buttle the job through our shop in a way that makes sense.  most of my "secure" clients totally appreciate my guiding them a bit on better ways to do things.  we are hired becasue we are, supposedly, experts.  and we can save them money and us grief.  i sure want my mechanic to tell me the score rather than saying, or sure, do whatever you want.

but of course there is area where we do agree here.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 04:57:19 pm
The "argument" here, if I understand it correctly, is only if using tape eats up too much money on a small budget.

Not how anybody chooses to work.

It started with someone saying they recorded on one reel and then transferred each take to pro tools because the tape would be too expensive to use for all the songs.



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 11, 2005, 05:04:38 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:33


Notwithstanding my great respect for you and your opinion I don't accept that we as engineers are in a position to dictate artistic process, firstly.


Like saying, "let's do this digitally so you can record a bunch of takes we won't use?"

Quote:

Secondly, I keep tape rolling as much as possible in case a 'bit of mucking around' turns into something good. And as you know there's nothing worse than missing the top of a good take. Well, there  are worse things...perhaps I overstated the case. Cuing and re-cuing a machine is time-consuming too.

I solve this problem by recording when the band are playing, so I don't miss the top of a good take. We probably agree that a bit of mucking around is usually just mucking around. I don't want to conduct sessions as a slave to the possibility of a bit of mucking around.

I'm infintely more concerned with the playing. That's usually what goes on the record, the playing. Tuning, talking, mucking around, not so much. After recording, we decide if we want to keep what's been recorded. Then we can re-use the tape immediately.

Quote:

Combing through takes is something the artist does on his own from DAT at home at his leisure - not on studio time.

Well then, this is in the category of "doing the bulk of the work at home for free." It does suggest that this could be done with tape, given that you can record over the reels of outtakes. I understand if you don't want to do it, but it is certainly possible.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 11, 2005, 05:14:22 pm
rnicklaus wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:57

The "argument" here, if I understand it correctly, is only if using tape eats up too much money on a small budget.

Not how anybody chooses to work.

It started with someone saying they recorded on one reel and then transferred each take to pro tools because the tape would be too expensive to use for all the songs.

The budget is the budget. How we spend it is our responsibility. If you spend it on studio time for un-needed outtakes and editorial decisions, then you won't have enough to cover tape for all of them. If you conduct the session efficiently with basic recording, then you'll have more time for execution of brilliant ideas and polishing the end result, not to mention all the tape you'll ever need. Tape cost is a red herring.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 05:16:38 pm
electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 14:14

rnicklaus wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:57

The "argument" here, if I understand it correctly, is only if using tape eats up too much money on a small budget.

Not how anybody chooses to work.

It started with someone saying they recorded on one reel and then transferred each take to pro tools because the tape would be too expensive to use for all the songs.

The budget is the budget. How we spend it is our responsibility. If you spend it on studio time for un-needed outtakes and editorial decisions, then you won't have enough to cover tape for all of them. If you conduct the session efficiently with basic recording, then you'll have more time for execution of brilliant ideas and polishing the end result, not to mention all the tape you'll ever need. Tape cost is a red herring.


Agreed.  If the original poster feels analog is that much better for his project, then that has to be figured in to the budget and how time is spent.

Would doing a take, stopping the session and then transferring that song to PT and then getting everyone back into recording mode again eat up more time than a tape budget?  It could.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 11, 2005, 05:34:27 pm
So to clarify, 20 of the best minds/ears got together in a room a while back to determine if in fact there was or was not bass loss on a transfer to Protools and could not reach consensus. Even with files to compare some chose to keep silent and just few got it right and in all honesty at least a few of those were fortunate guesses most likely. But now a few of you claim the golden ears and declare digital's blatant sonic inferiority? Something is not adding up here. Confused

Honestly, I have the utmost respect for you guys, what you can do and the work you have produced but I really think a step back from the inner circle is in order to honestly look at these arguments from the perspective of someone outside the loop and without a reputation to maintain or live up to.  Are any of you prepared to stand up and say that record X you did sounds bad bacause of the platform? If so why did you use it? Maybe there were compelling reasons. So be it. What are they? Are you really wanting to blame production choices such as keeping alternate takes or not on the platforms ability to do so? I just don't see this as a one or the other argument so what is driving it?

I just still can't get my arms around how so many people can embrace a technology that they find so inferior. Big props to Steve  A. for sticking to his guns on this point.

If digital is so inferior why is it so invasive to the craft? I really don't know the answers to these questions and I really wish I could get a satisfactory answer to even one of them. Albini has demonstrated the business model works so I don't see that angle as a show stopper. Anyone? Please enlighten me. I would love to understand what is driving this digital craze if no one using it can stand it.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 05:45:43 pm
I can only speak for myself, but I have NO problems with DAWs.

Again, this was about someone saying they prefer 2" - and YES they should be able to prefer what they work with - but felt for budget reasons had to transfer song by song to PT.

Look, if I were convinced that a project was being compromised by going to a certain format, I would be like Albini and stay on the format I trust and works for me.  I wouldn't say something sucks but I have to use it. I would figure out how to use what I felt didn't suck.

That's the point.  Of course this is very general.

If one is fine with a DAW this is moot.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 11, 2005, 05:55:43 pm
Denny W. wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 17:34

So to clarify, 20 of the best minds/ears got together in a room a while back to determine if in fact there was or was not bass loss on a transfer to Protools and could not reach consensus. Even with files to compare some chose to keep silent and just few got it right and in all honesty at least a few of those were fortunate guesses most likely. But now a few of you claim the golden ears and declare digital's blatant sonic inferiority? Something is not adding up here. Confused

Have to admit I don't know where you got your assertion thet "But now a few of you claim the golden ears and declare digital's blatant sonic inferiority" from. The question is pretty straightforward: Why do musicians prefer analog tape? That doesn't imply anything other than a preference.

I don't want to speculate why people prefer one thing or another, but it is clear that some do, and I can see why somebody might ask.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 11, 2005, 06:44:18 pm
electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 17:55

Denny W. wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 17:34

So to clarify, 20 of the best minds/ears got together in a room a while back to determine if in fact there was or was not bass loss on a transfer to Protools and could not reach consensus. Even with files to compare some chose to keep silent and just few got it right and in all honesty at least a few of those were fortunate guesses most likely. But now a few of you claim the golden ears and declare digital's blatant sonic inferiority? Something is not adding up here. Confused

Have to admit I don't know where you got your assertion thet "But now a few of you claim the golden ears and declare digital's blatant sonic inferiority" from. The question is pretty straightforward: Why do musicians prefer analog tape? That doesn't imply anything other than a preference.

I don't want to speculate why people prefer one thing or another, but it is clear that some do, and I can see why somebody might ask.


This discussion has gone a little past the original question though don't you think? In terms of the "golden ears" comment I stand corrected to some extent in so far as most of those statements are attributable to JonnyB. My apologies.

But the question of why musicians prefer analog (if they in fact do) but so many are still recording on protools remains. Do they really? If so why? The financial aspect seems to be surmountable in many cases as you have pointed out. Is it really about the sound or is it because they keep reading about engineer types talking about how great analog is? Nothing wrong with that either way but why isn't analog more popular if thats the case? It should be booming, not disappearing. I seem to recall reading in a guitar publication many years ago about SRV insisting on analog for I believe the "In Step" album until his engineer had him do a blind test and he picked the digital device. A 3m or Sony device if memory serves. I wish I could find the article to confirm it. I will never forget it because I was floored.

Analog is cool and should have a place but seems to be disappearing. I guess I just want to understand how this is happening when most will claim an affinity for analog at least. If the financial argument doesn't hold water, and most believe analog at least has merit for some applications, whats happening thats forcing analog into the background? World class rooms may still have it but that seems like its a very very small percentage of the recording that gets done when one considers the small market rooms, project studios etc.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 11, 2005, 06:56:21 pm
Quote:

Analog is cool and should have a place but seems to be disappearing.

Don't worry, it isn't disappearing.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 06:58:19 pm
If you were to speak to some of the "big" tracking rooms out there, you may find that their analog machines are not being used very much anymore.

However, these forums tend to attract some staunch analog users so it may seem a bit skewed on the surface.

There is no doubt that there are little, if any, analog multi track machines being manufactured anymore.  There are plenty of used machines however.  And the deals are killer.

Tape?  We'll see.  Will there be enough of a market to support 2"?  Time will tell.

Pretty soon maybe we'll see "Back To Analog" like the old Back To Mono buttons.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 11, 2005, 07:23:18 pm
Why are so many people working on ProTools?  Easy.  Because now they can track somewhere and then take it home and work on their computer.  People would rather have accessibility than quality it seems, and who can blame them?  It started with ADATs, and it moved to DAWs, which are even more ubiquitous than ADATs were.  The club of who can make a decent sounding record just got less exclusive.  However, I believe that there is a level of quality that still is as exclusive as it ever was, whether or not you record in analog or digital, and that has to do with the people involved, not the gear.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 11, 2005, 07:30:13 pm
electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 17:04

John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:33


Secondly, I keep tape rolling as much as possible in case a 'bit of mucking around' turns into something good. And as you know there's nothing worse than missing the top of a good take. Well, there  are worse things...perhaps I overstated the case. Cuing and re-cuing a machine is time-consuming too.

I solve this problem by recording when the band are playing, so I don't miss the top of a good take. We probably agree that a bit of mucking around is usually just mucking around. I don't want to conduct sessions as a slave to the possibility of a bit of mucking around.


Yeah, well - recording when the band is playing is a great idea. How about when the blind-side you? That's happened to me. I guess I'm the only guy who has ever missed the top of a tune because a player didn't count it in but just came in blasting away on an unaccompanied intro (Murphy's law says that this is always the chosen take). And I must be the only guy who has mixed a take that sprang out of a 'loose' jam session into a 'tight' take. (admittedly that doesn't happen every day)

Don't get me wrong. I don't record tuning, discussions, or lunch.

I guess I should say that the project I am speaking of is modern jazz - heavy improvisation with a definitely 'free' aspect to it. The pieces are long(ish), the playing intense. The takes can be substantially different. It is totally beyond the pale to stop the presses over and over again to have the leader evaluate each take at the session because I want to save tape. Better to take it all, and leave the evaluation til later. That's the process. It makes sense.

electrical wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 17:04

John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:33

Combing through takes is something the artist does on his own from DAT at home at his leisure - not on studio time.

Well then, this is in the category of "doing the bulk of the work at home for free." It does suggest that this could be done with tape, given that you can record over the reels of outtakes. I understand if you don't want to do it, but it is certainly possible.



If the artist wants to sit in his house with his porta dat til the cows come home that suits me. If the artist wants to rent an analog deck, have it carted home, have me set it up and teach him how to operate it, that doesn't suit me.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 07:48:11 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:23

Why are so many people working on ProTools?  Easy.  Because now they can track somewhere and then take it home and work on their computer.  People would rather have accessibility than quality it seems, and who can blame them?  It started with ADATs, and it moved to DAWs, which are even more ubiquitous than ADATs were.  The club of who can make a decent sounding record just got less exclusive.  However, I believe that there is a level of quality that still is as exclusive as it ever was, whether or not you record in analog or digital, and that has to do with the people involved, not the gear.


If the project is tracked at your studio, as an example, and then keyboards and vocals at a home studio, will the quality be "worse" than some of the crappy cheap overdub studios people used to use?

No.  Many people even had Otari MX80 machines at home for overdubs,

Same scenario, new gear.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 11, 2005, 08:03:06 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 19:23

Why are so many people working on ProTools?  Easy.  Because now they can track somewhere and then take it home and work on their computer.  People would rather have accessibility than quality it seems, and who can blame them?


I just don't see this as an either/or situation. Just because its not done in your room doesn't neccesarily make it lesser quality. In fact with an artist with a little tech savvy it may mean better performances with the stress of hourly rates and hangers on observing removed. Capturing a performance is the point after all. Maybe A list artists don't feel the clock ticking but that is the exception, not the rule
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 11, 2005, 08:11:28 pm
Les Paul had a home studio that cranked out some pretty good music.

The Band made classic records at home.

The list is long.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: cerberus on December 11, 2005, 08:21:13 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 19:23

Why are so many people working on ProTools?  Easy.  Because now they can track somewhere and then take it home and work on their computer.  People would rather have accessibility than quality it seems, and who can blame them?


That is not an arguement, because the I think the question is: whether they care to use tape at all or not to record to, and why?  not whether there are analog to digital transfers at all or not and do they degrade the sound quality?

I think Steve Albini believes tape sounds better, it is cheaper, and it is most reliable, so that is 3 reasons.  And so he only uses tape.

I don't agree with any of those reasons, so I use only digital now, I would like an A80 or better an A800 for my living room however. I just love the pneumatics, never in my life has a 1/8 second mechanical process turned me on so !   I've also got a "thing" for Dolby.. the siren warble, the tweaking, the results. Never in my life have I felt so -comfortable- then at those moments of feeling "secure" locked and loaded.. and anticipating the wonder of what will follow. The drama was intense.. Some memories of tape that I will always treasure.

But I think anyone could feel only one of Steve's reasons very strongly and use tape and digital together and not be "wrong" or deserve to be called a hypocrite.


Someone said on another thread here:

"Everytime the hiss comes in on 'Heart Shaped Box' I get chills"

Yeah I know what you are talking about. Noise is a very powerful psychoacoustic tool. After 50 years of analog evolution, the noise finally sounded good and could be employed instead of everyone wishing to get rid of it.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 11, 2005, 08:35:38 pm
steve a wrote:

"Your artist's method is inappropriate for a small budget."

a bit rich to decide what's appropriate for someone else

surely we can accept that there are as many working methods as there are artists

time does not always equal money, i don't have money but i've got plenty of time

i think forcing an artist to squeeze into a box, even if it may be heartshaped, is inappropriate, but i wouldn't say it, 'coz every producer has a right to decide what's appropriate for the session, hell, you can even pull out a gun if you want to

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 11, 2005, 11:56:34 pm
Quote:

I don't agree with any of those reasons, so I use only digital now, I would like an A80 or better an A800 for my living room however.

"Trust your feelings, Luke"




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: cerberus on December 12, 2005, 03:30:39 am
I just found this on another thread here:

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 22:22

button wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 18:22


Recording digital and using analogue desks and processing to mix is a happy compromise ... a musical moment preserved for the consumer, >thanks< to digital mastering and delivery mediums.


Well said.



hrmmmm......
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Linear on December 12, 2005, 04:04:04 am
cerberus wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 12:21



I don't agree with any of those reasons, so I use only digital now, I would like an A80 or better an A800 for my living room however. I just love the pneumatics, never in my life has a 1/8 second mechanical process turned me on so !   I've also got a "thing" for Dolby.. the siren warble, the tweaking, the results. Never in my life have I felt so -comfortable- then at those moments of feeling "secure" locked and loaded.. and anticipating the wonder of what will follow. The drama was intense.. Some memories of tape that I will always treasure.

jeff dinces


yawn.

I'm tired of hearing so-called 'engineers' wax lyrical the same line:

"Yeah, I love tape but (insert excuse here) so now I only use digital"

In my opinion it's just plain laziness. You like tape and want to use it? Then just do it, but stop professing to the world that you wished you used tape. I liken this scenario to those stupid strap-on electrical weight loss belts - kind of like people who want to lose weight but don't want to do any exercise.

Sure, some people like the benefits of digital and many engineers prefer it. Good. Each to their own. But I think many engineers have given up on analog recording because they're too damn lazy to put in the extra effort required to record on this format, clutching on to cred by telling everyone how they love the 'distortion' and 'noise' of analog. i spend a lot of time reducing all the garbage artifacts that people these days (for some reason) long for with reflective sighs and collective agreement.

I also think that bands themselves don't really care, so long as the finished product meets (or exceeds) their expectations. Thus everytime I hear a rock album recorded on Protools, I think that some lazy engineer or producer convinced them that it was how they should record, rather than the band specifically requesting it.

Personally, I prefer tape but mainly because of the way it affects workflow through the limits imposed on the process itself - it sounds better too but that's not the main reason. As Steve has said countless times as well, the format isn't 'owned' by anybody and doesn't rely on proprietry or patented technology and is hence universal and perpetual.

I really hope that this forum doesn't descend into some kind of retarded and endless debate on analog and digital formats. It's all been covered before, and I just think that it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

Chris
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: cerberus on December 12, 2005, 05:46:37 am
Quote:

I just think that it's time to agree to disagree
...

ok

...
Quote:

and move on.


we do disagree, and i am sorry..."move forward" is more my goal. i hope you don't mind my having the last word. i need to learn how to talk to analog and protools users better since i chose neither and therefore do not assume either of the  predominant perspectives here. thanks for understanding.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Linear on December 12, 2005, 07:25:06 am
cerberus wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 21:46


we do disagree, and i am sorry..."move forward" is more my goal. i hope you don't mind my having the last word. i need to learn how to talk to analog and protools users better since i chose neither and therefore do not assume either of the  predominant perspectives here. thanks for understanding.


Hi,

My apologies, even though it sounded like it was directed specifically at you, it wasn't intended that way.

After trying to wade through the volumes of pointless discussion about that pointless non-event in chicago, I'm just hoping this forum will make slightly more interesting reading.

And I hear the 'i-love-tape-but-find-protools-easier' rhetoric alot, so it kind-of annoys me. But i'll take my own advice, move on and get over it.

Cheers

Chris

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ron Steele on December 12, 2005, 11:13:50 am
I'll answer the original question first.

"How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?"

No offense, but this is a leading question and personal assumption.

I have never had any, and I mean any musician say, " I prefer the sound of analog over digital".

Your either getting good sounds they are vibing on, or your not. It has nothing to do with any given format, because if it did, I would have never put my mtr90 in the closet and I would still have a 10 foot monster in the room to accommodate the musicians that felt this way.

And a place like this forum wouldn't even exist to ask this question because for many many years, there was a small fraction of pro analog studios, compared to the many many hybrid daw rooms that have brought us to this discussion, and I take it that a huge majority of these hybrid daw studios only exist because digital technology made it economically feasible for MUSICIANS to get in the studio game.

Now if you asked, "why do bands and musicians prefer Steve Albini"?

Is the answer, because Steve has a Studer 24trk?

No, because Steve is Steve, and they are going to him for what he offers, and if Steve all of sudden went digital, this would not change any musicians mind about their reasons for choosing Steve to record them.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 12, 2005, 11:32:49 am
OK, first of all, I wasn't making an argument, as Cerberus put it.  I was simply stating why I believe that digital is so ubiquitous.  And as far as RNicklaus' assertion that people had Otaris at home ... there were never anywhere near the amount of Otaris at home that there are DAWs.  Besides, if you are going to own a 24 trk, you have to own a console, etc.  The 2" format is simply less accessible than digital, particular DAW, is.  You can't argue the fact that one big reason for digital's popularity is that more people than ever before can work on stuff on their laptop now.   It's just a fact.  And even some people who might prefer the sound of tape, would rather be able to take their time and get a performance, or whatever as somebody put it.

And to answer I think it was Denny, when I talk about exclusivity, I'm simply talking about people who know how to make good sounding records, no matter what room or format.  My point was that digital has made it possible for people who were making crappy recordings to have less crappy sounding recordings, but that doesn't mean that people who don't know how to make amazing sounding records can suddenly do that.  There are a lot of intangibles that are matters of talent, instinct, taste and experience that make the difference in truly great recordings.  

Personally, I prefer my Studer to digital.  I'll do either, though, and I frequently do both at the same time.  And has been said over and over, who cares about the medium if the songs and performance are shit?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bobkatz on December 12, 2005, 12:35:35 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 02:46

I had always talked about how analog seems to have a 3 dimensional quality that digital seems to be lacking.





And (good) tubes (sometimes) seem to have a slightly greater depth than the best discrete solid state.

I believe it's a matter of coloration. A tiny bit of 3rd harmonic almost always adds depth. Is that good? Is that "correct"?

Hey, I love depth....  But does this "prove" whether one is more "accurate" than the other? Maybe someday someone will do a treatise that PROVES UNEQUIVOCABLY which is more accurate. But that won't stop us from using what we need to use to get the sound that works! In the end we use our ears, we plug it in, we listen, and we decide what works best for us!

I can make the case that "you can't have too much analog or too much digital" on a project. Or to rephrase that, I believe that a every good recording of any kind of music needs a "balance" of "transparency" and "coloration" approach. Too much "transparency" can sterilize or make a boring recording. But too much "coloration" or "saturation" can make a muddy recording... Use your ears!

It's the judgments, experience and talents of the producer/engineer/musicians that count in the end. Let's get away from the question of this thread (which is basically unanswerable) and move into discussions that we can answer and get some meat out of. I want to hear what has worked for Steve--- and what has created musical-sounding results that we like to hear.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 12, 2005, 01:07:36 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 11:32

OK, first of all, I wasn't making an argument, as Cerberus put it.  I was simply stating why I believe that digital is so ubiquitous.  And as far as RNicklaus' assertion that people had Otaris at home ... there were never anywhere near the amount of Otaris at home that there are DAWs.  Besides, if you are going to own a 24 trk, you have to own a console, etc.  The 2" format is simply less accessible than digital, particular DAW, is.  You can't argue the fact that one big reason for digital's popularity is that more people than ever before can work on stuff on their laptop now.   It's just a fact.  And even some people who might prefer the sound of tape, would rather be able to take their time and get a performance, or whatever as somebody put it.

And to answer I think it was Denny, when I talk about exclusivity, I'm simply talking about people who know how to make good sounding records, no matter what room or format.  My point was that digital has made it possible for people who were making crappy recordings to have less crappy sounding recordings, but that doesn't mean that people who don't know how to make amazing sounding records can suddenly do that.  There are a lot of intangibles that are matters of talent, instinct, taste and experience that make the difference in truly great recordings.  

Personally, I prefer my Studer to digital.  I'll do either, though, and I frequently do both at the same time.  And has been said over and over, who cares about the medium if the songs and performance are shit?


Thats fair enough J.J. Yes, there needs to be a certain amount of experience and skill to take a track home and record overdubs to basics cut in the big room and still sound right and be usable. No question about that. That said, guys typically are just doing vocals or guitars or whatever their thing is and not trying to do everything. An experienced player will have likely recorded before and know how to get their instrument sounding good. I know I love doing overdubs at home as it makes for a higher comfort level and better tracks. On the other and I would never turn down a big room to cut drums or piano in though. My experience recording them is limited, my mic closet is not suited to it and my room way to small and impractical acoustics wise to get what I want to hear.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 12, 2005, 01:19:33 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 08:32


 And has been said over and over, who cares about the medium if the songs and performance are shit?


And also if the engineer is mediocre or worse, the format isn't the big issue.

I'm sure many of you have worked on 2" tapes, even from great studios, where the engineer got sounds that an ADAT could have captured just fine.  You get the point.

All things aren't always equal.

You don't hire Albini or Manning for the gear they use.  You hire them for their body of work.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 12, 2005, 07:41:02 pm
I am just catching back up with this thread, sorry for the belated replies... To the question of how long does it take to record, dump, erase and move to the next track, the dumping and erasing took a half hour extra. Each have to happen in real time and the erasing is important, especially if you are printing to a machine aligned for +9.

I am not totally sold on Steve's argument that savings on tape costs are a red herring, 'after everything is taken into consideration.' In this case, this was the clients idea because it is a privately funded record and he can't drop $1500, dollars on tape.

He hired some of the best musicians in the city to play, preproduction was in order and only a few loose ends had to be dealt with during tracking. To that end, commital was made whiled everyone was in the process, a unique feature of analog. As well, they tracked without a click with the idea that the record is going to stay unmolested.

Originally, the artists was going to cut basics here and vocals and do all overdubs at a cheaper studio before mix time. He has recorded quite a bit in the past and he wanted to have the sound that tape imparted to the tunes.

I would have been all too happy had the project stayed analog, but that would have cost him about two days of tracking just in tape costs. So in his case, definitely not feasable. Taking the route he took, the band had time to work on a tune for a bit and take a break, a method that everyone in the band was happy with. As far as I can see, had he spent the money on the tape and the band crammed twelve tunes in a day, the basics might have been a bit more comprimised or certainly, the tracks at the end of the day stood a greater chance of that and even then, he would still have been down about $750.

As for my situation, I am often dealing with people that want to use my space for tracking basics and then go home or go somwhere cheaper to do overdubs. Just about all of the time, they are going somwhere that doesn't have tape.

Perhaps this brings to light some pertinent info of these situations.

Best,
josh


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: danickstr on December 12, 2005, 08:42:06 pm
I think we all agree that the track will end up on digital, right?  So it's more a matter of when, from what I gather here.  If some folks want to mix to analog and do all the overdubs, changes, etc. on tape, then more power to them.  It sounds like a song that will not have the standard work schedule (of late) applied to it.  That being where it develops as it goes along and in a couple different places.  If the producer and artist have theri shit together that clearly from the get go, then it would work.  Or if you have a lockout for a month to track stuff and let it simmer, then it would be more realistic.  It will have the classic sound of tape, and hopefully a great board.  Then send it to mastering and it will get put on a CD.  Or get as much analog feel as you can while converting it, and mix it in a DAW, and if it is done right, there won't be a dramatic difference when heard on the standard speakers of the modern home or auto.

So I guess I am saying if it's done right, good engineering, converters, not heavy on plugs, etc., digital won't take away the analog vibe to a distinctly dramatic degree, unless the listening environment is top notch.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 12, 2005, 08:51:36 pm
Josh,

Are you finding that re recording over the tape at +9 isn't enough?  You also need an erase pass?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 12, 2005, 11:05:31 pm
Hi Nicklaus...

I am finding that yes, a hot signal going to tape will show up if the next tune being recorded after a dump has a quiet part in the section. Its enough of a worry to not mess with deciding wheter or not to clean the tape prior to recording. My machine is well serviced. The erase current is checked regularly against a 1k tone.

Best,
j
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 12, 2005, 11:56:26 pm
bushwick wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 20:05

Hi Nicklaus...

I am finding that yes, a hot signal going to tape will show up if the next tune being recorded after a dump has a quiet part in the section. Its enough of a worry to not mess with deciding wheter or not to clean the tape prior to recording. My machine is well serviced. The erase current is checked regularly against a 1k tone.

Best,
j


Right.  An old friend used to say by using tape over and over again, karma got built up to the point that a hit was was going to show up.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Gone on December 13, 2005, 03:17:45 am
Well, sorry I showed up late for this party. I do have one story to share which speaks to some assertions / ideas expressed here:

Last week I subbed for another teacher, and the class topic was to track simultaneously to 2" and Pro Tools (same chain, same performance), and compare the playback. Now, these students, being average college-age, are most accustomed to digital recording - from school, to their home rigs, to small studios they frequent as engineers or musicians, to much of the music they listen to. In playback, the vast majority of the class preferred the sound of analog tape to Pro Tools in this comparison (vocal and acoustic guitar).

Their comments reflected some of the things I have always preferred about analog - the 'warmth', 'thickness', the three-dimensionality that other posters have suggested. These are not people who are 'used to' working with analog tape. For what it's worth, I also regularly get to see their first reactions to hearing vintage tube mics side-by-side with newer cheaper condensors, with similar results. Sometimes the comparisons are blind, sometimes not.

It is my feeling that some / many musicians who ask for Pro Tools 'by name' are victims of a large marketing presence more than anything else. It is remarkable how even the most talented among them feel the need to 'do some editing' just because they can.

What always puzzles me about these discussions is the assertion that digital is more accurate. I'm not saying that's true or false, but I do feel it's irrelevant. Is a U47 or Tele 251 accurate? Is an 1176 accurate? Since when is art about accuracy? How many artists and instruments are perfect when recorded 'accurately', and can't use any 'sweetening'?

I'd also like to add to the price discussion, which I agree is often a false economy. If it hasn't been said, it's obvious to me that any studio 'keeping up' with a true Pro Tools rig is spending more money over time that a studio that buys a brand new 2" deck and maintains it. I mean, they make fun of people still using 888s, don't they?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 13, 2005, 03:39:41 am
nick wrote:

"not saying that's true or false, but I do feel it's irrelevant."

sorry, i think, it's hardly irrelevant

what you're saying is that it's not necessarily desirable, which is a good point, but that's not the same thing

as been said, sometimes you want transparency, sometimes you don't
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 13, 2005, 04:00:38 am
rnicklaus wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 20:51

Josh,

Are you finding that re recording over the tape at +9 isn't enough?  You also need an erase pass?

If the machine's erase is set-up properly, you shouldn't need an erase pass, unless you are pounding the tape, which I don't recommend either. If you're hearing bleed from a previous take, fix your machine.

I had to do this at another studio recently, and it really pissed me off. It is a gross imposition for me to have to interrupt the session to fix a machine for the studio, but it's becoming more common as studios have taken to treating tape machines like relics or novelties. Fuck that. There's work to do. That's what studios are for: To provide the working stock for the session. The operative word being "working."

Note to everybody: Don't "deal with it." Fix your goddamn machines.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 13, 2005, 04:53:14 am
All I know is, there isn't one digitally recorded album that I've liked yet. Not a single one.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Linear on December 13, 2005, 08:01:05 am
I really think it depends on the machine.

Don't forget that these high output tapes weren't around when most of these machines were designed, and whimpy bias and erase currents will struggle with anything thicker (in fluxivity terms) than 456.

I hate to name names, but Otari's and Tascam's are often put in this group.

Chris

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 13, 2005, 08:19:57 am
Nick Eipers wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 03:17

Well, sorry I showed up late for this party. I do have one story to share which speaks to some assertions / ideas expressed here:

Last week I subbed for another teacher, and the class topic was to track simultaneously to 2" and Pro Tools (same chain, same performance), and compare the playback. Now, these students, being average college-age, are most accustomed to digital recording - from school, to their home rigs, to small studios they frequent as engineers or musicians, to much of the music they listen to. In playback, the vast majority of the class preferred the sound of analog tape to Pro Tools in this comparison (vocal and acoustic guitar).

Their comments reflected some of the things I have always preferred about analog - the 'warmth', 'thickness', the three-dimensionality that other posters have suggested. These are not people who are 'used to' working with analog tape. For what it's worth, I also regularly get to see their first reactions to hearing vintage tube mics side-by-side with newer cheaper condensors, with similar results. Sometimes the comparisons are blind, sometimes not.

It is my feeling that some / many musicians who ask for Pro Tools 'by name' are victims of a large marketing presence more than anything else. It is remarkable how even the most talented among them feel the need to 'do some editing' just because they can.

What always puzzles me about these discussions is the assertion that digital is more accurate. I'm not saying that's true or false, but I do feel it's irrelevant. Is a U47 or Tele 251 accurate? Is an 1176 accurate? Since when is art about accuracy? How many artists and instruments are perfect when recorded 'accurately', and can't use any 'sweetening'?

I'd also like to add to the price discussion, which I agree is often a false economy. If it hasn't been said, it's obvious to me that any studio 'keeping up' with a true Pro Tools rig is spending more money over time that a studio that buys a brand new 2" deck and maintains it. I mean, they make fun of people still using 888s, don't they?



A nice story but meaningless unless the the comparison was done blind. They may not have grown up listening to analog but they are certainly well aware of the perception of analog vs digital in the industry and are far from immune to that powerful influence. As an instructer even your intrinsic view on the matter will influence there perception.  

Furthermore using the same source to both may demonstrate the differences but it doesn't demonstrate the total capabilities. You wouldn't necessarily use the same preamp, EQ or micing techniuess for both. Those would be optimised for the platform you are working on.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 13, 2005, 08:24:54 am
If recording a performance accurately was desirable, then we wouldn't have things like compression or Otto Toon.  LOL. I mean, most records would be unlistenable!
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: acorec on December 13, 2005, 09:28:19 am
The biggest thing I see with Analog vs. Digital is the fact that most recording engineers today started with a technology that was fully matured for some 20 years. Analog recording engineering happened in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Most engineers were not in the game as users until analog had been done. Digital is still on the drawing boards, so to speak, and is not at the level that a 1980 MCI JH recorder was to the analog world.

Most seasoned engineers just like the familiarity of analog vs. digital. I have heard excellent productions on both formats often enough to not be on either side of the fence. Digital still has a way to go in the development dept, but in a few years to a decade, the engineers-to-be will make the old analog equipment a collector's hobby. We are truly in the sunset of analog recording despite the arguments of a few. Digital recording technology is in a huge developmental phase and as the past shows us, the problems will be solved one way or another.  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: mr scratchy esq on December 13, 2005, 09:36:58 am
One aspect of the Analog/Digital debate that always frustrates me is the way analog supporters will often concede "transparency" and "accuracy" to digital but still (and rightfully so) claim that analog has superior "presence" and more 3-Dimensional qualities. If analog has more of 3-dimensional quality and more "presence" than digital then why isn't it also more "transparent and accurate?" In spite of the potential coloration or noise of analog playback (vinyl or tape) analog supporters (like myself) feel that it still comes closer to reproducing the experience of a "live musical event" and therefore is the more transparent and accurate medium. IMO digital apologists have turned the meanings of the words "thin & clean" into "transparent" and "flat & unmusical" into "accurate." Discuss.

Bill
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 13, 2005, 10:14:35 am
acorec wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 14:28

 Digital recording technology is in a huge developmental phase and as the past shows us, the problems will be solved one way or another.  


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Take a look at Dan Lavry's white paper on sampling. The current trend is to sell as much Hard-drive space and DSP horsepower and the best way to do that is to utilise a higher sample rate even though the fidelity may be worse.

I'm not saying that marketing forces didn't exist during the development of analogue equipment but their power and influence have increased dramatically over the past twenty years and profit margins are the order of the day, not audio fidelity.

I think one of the main considerations with both formats is the actual useage of them. Steve Albini made the point that digital leads the users into recording a lot of redundant takes and therefore pushing costs up. This is human intervention and not the fault of the DAW. If you were to run the two formats side by side on a session and use the tape machine to govern your mode of operation then, undoubtedly, the digital media would be cheaper.

I do believe, however, that digital leads users into doing stuff just because they can.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 13, 2005, 10:50:14 am
vernier wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 10:53

All I know is, there isn't one digitally recorded album that I've liked yet. Not a single one.


ditto.

it's shocking really.

maybe live to two-track digital would cut it.

I've noticed that even deutsche grammafon recordings are shrill, judging from a great pollini-chopin performance that just came out..
I want to listen to it but I can't get myself to do it.
so maybe they are using other stuff along with the digital that is also harsh... before the digital recorder?

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 13, 2005, 11:07:25 am
Quote:

I'm not saying that marketing forces didn't exist during the development of analogue equipment but their power and influence have increased dramatically over the past twenty years and profit margins are the order of the day, not audio fidelity.



People have always tried to sell new and improved machines, and as usual there is a high point in quality and then a decline as you surpass the point of 'diminishing returns'.

..true, but did they really need to start syncing up 24track machines, using 80 inputs, smothering effects everywhere?

did it improve music or did it help sell new fashionable gear, even in the analog days?

was dolby really a necessity? how about super-automated-IC-mixers? how many classic albums were done on those mixers?

A lot of the music business, and business in general is based on how much money you can spend (the implementation of capital)

it's obvious that a record done with 72 tracks on a large mixer is going to sound vastly different than one done with an 8 track or 16 track.

DIFFERENT not better.

a mixer that has 80 inputs CANNOT perform as well as a 16 input mixer.. because of size, complexity and a whole bunch of other design considerations.

Since the professional way of doing things is (was?) to follow the then-current trends, sound-wise, everybody HAD to record with at least 24 track.

more tracks= more distortion, more noise, less performance....BUT expensive and lush sounding arrangements.


Maybe the accounting dept. of rec companies also had a hand in the 'sound of success' because of write-offs and recoups etc. but I have no clue about these things..really.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 13, 2005, 11:52:30 am
Quote:

And (good) tubes (sometimes) seem to have a slightly greater depth than the best discrete solid state.

I believe it's a matter of coloration. A tiny bit of 3rd harmonic almost always adds depth. Is that good? Is that "correct"?



My experience is that it's not the distortion, but the simplicity of tube designs and the linearity of tubes vs. transistors.

tubes also have the possibility to work with higher input voltages and are not current-dependent as transistors are.
the exception are fets, which are more distorted than a dedicated audio tube.

there are some tubes in particular that are particularly clean and do not really need corrective circuitry for audio purposes.

Transistors ALWAYS need corrective circuitry.

Transistors do excel in high-current earth-shaking systems.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: acorec on December 13, 2005, 12:14:43 pm
kraster wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 10:14

acorec wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 14:28

 Digital recording technology is in a huge developmental phase and as the past shows us, the problems will be solved one way or another.  


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Take a look at Dan Lavry's white paper on sampling. The current trend is to sell as much Hard-drive space and DSP horsepower and the best way to do that is to utilise a higher sample rate even though the fidelity may be worse.

I'm not saying that marketing forces didn't exist during the development of analogue equipment but their power and influence have increased dramatically over the past twenty years and profit margins are the order of the day, not audio fidelity.

I think one of the main considerations with both formats is the actual useage of them. Steve Albini made the point that digital leads the users into recording a lot of redundant takes and therefore pushing costs up. This is human intervention and not the fault of the DAW. If you were to run the two formats side by side on a session and use the tape machine to govern your mode of operation then, undoubtedly, the digital media would be cheaper.

I do believe, however, that digital leads users into doing stuff just because they can.


I would say think about your point of view. Analog was used for many years until the invention of simul-sync and multitracking. I think the whole industry overused that concept beyond abuse. 4 tracks, 8, 16, 32, 64, 72, etc.

I think they did it in analog because they could.

Same basic concept. This digital abuse will end someday when everyone is done with playing with their toys. And, the problems will be either fixed or re-defined or will not matter. The digital world is already less about pristine sound quality and more about distribution to the fans. MP3s and CDs both sound dodgy at best, but I can download my fav songs right now and play them on any computor/iPod etc. There are just no more great playback devices sold anywhere that I have seen. The only people who care at all about quality of sound are auydiophiles and recording/mastering engineers. The public is delighted in the fact that almost anyone can be a pop star with unlimited editing in the digital realm, That is why Pro-Tools and DAWS are outselling hot dogs. The digital recordings sound fine when bundled with the incredible flexibility of digital file manipulation. Analog just can't even come close to digital when put in today's music context. Hard to swallow, but it cannot be ignored. I love my 2" analog machine and will always use it because to me it stomps digital in sound quality, but it ends there. Digital can take the recorded tracks and do anything the imagination can muster up, and then be sent to someone in China right this very moment.

Or, maybe not. Maybe you will be proved right-on. Who knows?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 13, 2005, 12:34:14 pm
Hey there Steve, I am not sure that my machine is broken. Its been looked after by Ed Krupski a "Studer Switzerland" trained technician in the NY area Dan Zellman and John Chester.

I have even gone as far as to have John Chester check each channel during record and playback on his AP2500 analyzer. John who used to be the chief engineer at the filmore east and has built boards for Bob Dylan, Bill Graham and The Stones seemed to think that the operation of the machine is quite normal.

Ed actually was the first person to mention to me that I ought to be erasing between takes if I am going to be reusing tape stock. He stressed that this was more important at high fluxivity, which is pretty much how I run it all the time.

Hmmm.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bobkatz on December 13, 2005, 01:33:11 pm
maxdimario wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 11:52


My experience is that it's not the distortion, but the simplicity of tube designs and the linearity of tubes vs. transistors.




That's a commonly stated point by many "tubaholics", and I used to believe it. But now I believe it is the harmonic structure. There's nothing embarrassing about a little distortion, by the way. And you cannot make a valid argument about the linearity of solid state versus tubes, because an opamp with feedback is as linear as you can get.

HOW can you explain how the ADDITION of a tube circuit to a solid state chain can make the total sound "better"? Why do you not have to TAKE AWAY the so-called "offending" solid state circuit.

That's why I don't buy that argument.

I don't want to get simplistic and say it is simply the ratios of harmonics. But concentrating on that issue of the moment, it is clear that the harmonic structure of the opamp and the tube are completely different. And different opamps sound completely different; Fred Forssell makes a discrete opamp that sounds a lot like tubes!

Why can't we get past the issue of "what is more accurate" and simply accept that we like different forms of distortion and some devices provide that and others do not?

Since there is ALWAYS distortion, why can't we just accept that some forms of distortion sound better to us than others? For opamps, there may even be an "optimum" amount of 2nd and 3rd harmonic you have to have in order to mask some of of the 5th, 7th, and 9th residual. Whereas with tubes, there's enough 2nd and 3rd (always) to mask the 5th, 7th, and 9th that are in the opamp circuits in the same chain.

So, go ahead, make your argument, I have my own conclusions  Smile
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 13, 2005, 02:01:22 pm
acorec wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 17:14



This digital abuse will end someday when everyone is done with playing with their toys. And, the problems will be either fixed or re-defined or will not matter.





The current state of play with "Pro" digital, I'm talking 192khz, is that there seems to be a trend selling technology that is inferior in quality but takes more resources. As I said this trend is completely driven by marketing forces. There doesn't seem to be many compelling technical arguments, in terms of performance, to utilise higher sample rates. There is, however, evidence to the contrary.

I know throughout history the same marketing systems have been trying to compel us to buy their wares. But with digital the trend has gone beyond diminishing returns in audio quality and into the realms of pseudo science and marketing spin.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 13, 2005, 03:07:44 pm
bushwick wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 12:34

Hey there Steve, I am not sure that my machine is broken. Its been looked after by Ed Krupski a "Studer Switzerland" trained technician in the NY area Dan Zellman and John Chester.

If it's a Studer, it should be erasing completely in one pass. If it isn't, then it is mis-aligned or broken. You should have it fixed.

Quote:

I have even gone as far as to have John Chester check each channel during record and playback on his AP2500 analyzer. John who used to be the chief engineer at the filmore east and has built boards for Bob Dylan, Bill Graham and The Stones seemed to think that the operation of the machine is quite normal.

Ask him to look specificaly at the erase depth.

Quote:

Ed actually was the first person to mention to me that I ought to be erasing between takes if I am going to be reusing tape stock. He stressed that this was more important at high fluxivity, which is pretty much how I run it all the time.


Record a pulsed low-frequency tone (100 Hz, maybe) at 0vu on all tracks. One second pulses. Record a whole reel of it. Arm all the tracks, and begin erasing them, while listening to repro on the machine. listening to one track at a time, adjust the erase current until you hear not even a ghost of the pulse. If you can't get there on any channel, then you may have a problem with your master oscillator or distribution amplifier.

The reason you must be erasing all tracks at once during the test, even though you are only listening to one track, is that the crosstalk from adjacent tracks (even through the solo function on the desk) could be misleading.

Studers always had great erasing. If yours doesn't, then you can fix it so it does.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 13, 2005, 07:56:20 pm

Nick Eipers wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 08:17



I'd also like to add to the price discussion, which I agree is often a false economy. If it hasn't been said, it's obvious to me that any studio 'keeping up' with a true Pro Tools rig is spending more money over time than a studio that buys a brand new 2" deck and maintains it.


Yes, it would seem that with proper cost-accounting being applied to any digital session or project, you may find that digital is vastly more expensive than analogue.

And for those who seem to forget that everything digital is obsolete on the day it was designed, get ready to spend even more when those higher sample rate and greater bit-depth AD/DA chip sets take hold or when the MPfreakin3 and CD formats get dumped in favor of Next Gen Tech. But don't worry about using computer resources, you'll just have to get a new 64-bit speed demon and toss out your old obsolete box.

In fact, I'll bet many of the digital nerds are now working on their 3rd, 4th, or 5th computer, and at, say, an average of 3 to 5 thousand USA dollars at a pop, what's that?, perhaps 20,000 dollars or more right there, which, BTW, usually is not factored properly into the cost argument because proper cost-accounting methods are not applied by the digital adherents. They've all drunk too much of the spiked Kool-Aide and tend to overlook hidden costs or even properly account for the time wasted searching thru endless takes...let alone account for the time spent by people working on tracks in their homes...and their time is not free...all time on earth is limited and therefore has monetary value.

A proper spreadsheet comparing the true costs of analogue vs. digital which utilises proper cost-accounting methods would most likely show that analogue is the most cost-effective way to produce a band's record.

Nick Eipers wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 08:17



Last week I subbed for another teacher, and the class topic was to track simultaneously to 2" and Pro Tools (same chain, same performance), and compare the playback. Now, these students, being average college-age, are most accustomed to digital recording - from school, to their home rigs, to small studios they frequent as engineers or musicians, to much of the music they listen to. In playback, the vast majority of the class preferred the sound of analog tape to Pro Tools in this comparison (vocal and acoustic guitar).


This is the same conclusion that many musicians arrive at, they simply prefer the sound of analogue over digital.


 




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 13, 2005, 08:45:40 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 19:56


Yes, it would seem that with proper cost-accounting being applied to any digital session or project, you may find that digital is vastly more expensive than analogue.



Please describe the 'proper cost-accounting method' that you use in coming to this conclusion. Don't feel the need to oversimplify - I did a bachelor of commerce when I was a kid, so I might be able to keep up with your accounting skillz if I'm lucky, although it's been a while since I took financial accounting, so you never know.

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 19:56


And for those who seem to forget that everything digital is obsolete on the day it was designed...

... don't worry about using computer resources, you'll just have to get a new 64-bit speed demon and toss out your old obsolete box.

In fact, I'll bet many of the digital nerds are now working on their 3rd, 4th, or 5th computer, and at, say, an average of 3 to 5 thousand USA dollars at a pop, what's that?, perhaps 20,000 dollars or more right there, which, BTW, usually is not factored properly into the cost argument because proper cost-accounting methods are not applied by the digital adherents. They've all drunk too much of the spiked Kool-Aide and tend to overlook hidden costs or even properly account for the time wasted searching thru endless takes...let alone account for the time spent by people working on tracks in their homes...and their time is not free...all time on earth is limited and therefore has monetary value.

A proper spreadsheet comparing the true costs of analogue vs. digital which utilises proper cost-accounting methods would most likely show that analogue is the most cost-effective way to produce a band's record.



Obsolete. Dictionary definition; 1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful b : of a kind or style no longer current. With regards to the first definition - are RADARs obsolete in the sense that they are no longer in use or useful? No. Are they not a current style? No. Are ProTewlz HD systems obsolete in that they are no longer in use or useful? No. Are they no longer in style or current? No. Your point, as usual, sucks.

What has been the useful life of a typical analog deck like an A800? Wow, super long - I don't even know how long. Decades.

What is the useful life of a PT rig? A few years, right?

But I own neither. I use commercial facilities. I expect that depreciation expense is 'accounted for' in the budgets of those facilities. And I expect that the fast write-off of DAWs goes to my bottom line. I suppose that this contributes to between $20 and $30 per day to the day rate if we are talking about writing off a 30k rig over 3 years. Again, I guess that my accounting skills are not what they used to be, so if you want to condescend to me and explain how your 'proper cost-accounting' system works in this context then I would be most pleased.

As far as the cost of sifting through endless takes goes, this all depends on the situation. A professional producer/engineer who spends bona fide working hours sorting through takes without getting paid is a fool. On the other hand, where each individual take has unique character beyond the questions of "is it in time, is it in tune, does it have a groove, or does it suck" then each take has to be given careful consideration. If that careful consideration happens in the studio, or if that careful consideration happens at home, it's still time spent. I've done lots of straight ahead rock sessions with so-so players, and it's pretty easy to push them along and advise them if they need to hear a take or if we can just erase it. That is a much more dicey proposition when the music is highly sophisticated and improvisatory. In such an instance you want to live with the music for a while, see how you feel about the part where the tune threatened to go off the rails, see how you feel about a tuning issue that occurs in the midst of some heavy wailing. So the artist and producer do their thinking about the finer points of a take in the studio with everyone's clocks running, or they do it after the session. Hmm, Mr big shot Accountant, what do you think makes the most sense?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 13, 2005, 08:56:33 pm
acorec wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 06:28

Digital is still on the drawing boards, so to speak, and is not at the level that a 1980 MCI JH recorder was to the analog world.


Does this mean that my PTHD rig is going to suffer from Molexia? Razz
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 13, 2005, 09:12:28 pm
johhny b wrote:

"In fact, I'll bet many of the digital nerds are now working on their 3rd, 4th, or 5th computer, and at, say, an average of 3 to 5 thousand USA dollars at a pop, what's that?, perhaps 20,000 dollars or more right there..."

how much do you want to bet?

i'm still on the g3/400 pismo, which i purchased sometime in the last millenium for $au2000, and which had duly been depreciated @ 30 % a year, and which i can still sell for about $au500

so , i figure, i'm doing ok with a piece of machinery, which has just delivered an album for me

granted, it took 3 years to make, but hell, it was my time, and time spent on travelling to other countries, finding great musicians, and overdubbing in their loungerooms, time spent on mucking around with my son

i don't do more than three takes at a time, because i can take my TIME sorting through the takes to comp a decent track (not that hard with competent musos)

the money i've saved on upkeep and upgrades went to a top notch mastering engineer instead

he's happy, i'm happy, so what's the problem?



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 13, 2005, 09:19:35 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 17:56

acorec wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 06:28

Digital is still on the drawing boards, so to speak, and is not at the level that a 1980 MCI JH recorder was to the analog world.


Does this mean that my PTHD rig is going to suffer from Molexia? Razz



No, just the ram chips in your computer.

Speaking of MCI machines (and not the molex connectors), I was bending back into shape the little wire thing (when the head guard comes down, it trips the switch to allow the transport to rewind or FF) in the middle of a tracking date, and it came off and fell into the middle drawer!

That was a panic to get it out of there. Talk about heart stopping!

Another odd design piece.  The machine won't work without something more fragile than a hairpin and it gets smashed day in and day out.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 13, 2005, 09:23:33 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 01:45

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 19:56


Yes, it would seem that with proper cost-accounting being applied to any digital session or project, you may find that digital is vastly more expensive than analogue.




Please describe the 'proper cost-accounting method' that you use in coming to this conclusion. Don't feel the need to oversimplify - I did a bachelor of commerce when I was a kid, so I might be able to keep up with your accounting skillz if I'm lucky, although it's been a while since I took financial accounting, so you never know.


Emmm, in my humble opinion one of the best texts on cost-accounting comes out of the Harvard Business School, it's entitled "Relevance Lost." It's not all that difficult for an average reader like myself to comprehend and it provides illustrative examples of how improper cost-accounting methods have resulted in some businesses making really dumb decisions. In fact, entire industries have been abandoned due to stupid decisions that rested on bad cost-accounting.

"Relevance Lost" is a great book.

In fact, it's an award-winning book according to Amazon.com.

See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875842542/002-3078376-9850 427?v=glance&n=283155

Hope this helps. Smile      
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 13, 2005, 09:34:03 pm
You do cost accounting by reading books? Thats not the method I learned in two semesters of cost accounting.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 13, 2005, 09:37:04 pm
not books, just one book!
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 13, 2005, 10:19:23 pm
maxim wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 21:37

not books, just one book!



He's a multi-approach type of guy.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 13, 2005, 10:44:48 pm
Emmm, are some of the above posts more ad hominem?  Or, are some people angry that their digital gear is obsolete on the day it was designed.

No matter, "Relevance Lost" is good book according to one of the big accounting firms...(not the one which worked for Ken Lay and Enron and participated in that massive fraud tho')...Smile

Moreover, "Relevance Lost" is the "[w]inner of the American Accounting Association's Deloitte Haskins & Sells/Wildman Award Medal."



 
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 13, 2005, 11:20:26 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 22:44

Emmm, are some of the above posts more ad hominem?  Or, are some people angry that their digital gear is obsolete on the day it was designed.

No matter, "Relevance Lost" is good book according to one of the big accounting firms...(not the one which worked for Ken Lay and Enron and participated in that massive fraud tho')...Smile

Moreover, "Relevance Lost" is the "[w]inner of the American Accounting Association's Deloitte Haskins & Sells/Wildman Award Medal."



er, ah, um, ...eh....no, never mind - I won't waste my keystrokes. I give up. We've been Jonny B'd again.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 13, 2005, 11:51:15 pm

John, why don't you spend the 13 USA bucks and read the book "Relevance Lost" as you may learn something, remember something, or think about the cost issue in an entirely new way.

It's Christmas time, surely you can give yourself a small 13-dollar present. It just might be one of the best 13-dollar book investments you ever made.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: dcollins on December 14, 2005, 01:59:28 am
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 20:51


you may learn something, remember something, or think about the cost issue in an entirely new way.



If irony has a black-hole, you can see it from here.

DC
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 14, 2005, 02:03:10 am
i thought you couldn't see a black hole...


just its effects
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: dcollins on December 14, 2005, 02:06:54 am
maxim wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:03

i thought you couldn't see a black hole...


just its effects


Score!

DC
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Gone on December 14, 2005, 02:29:47 am
Allright, well, if I can steer clear of the bitch-fest and personal attacks...

I stand by what I said about the cost issue. Of the dozens of studios in which I have freelanced or where I know owners/engineers/etc, I don't know any who have had to buy a new 2" deck since I started in '92.

Of the studios I know who have started using digital recording, (which is most of them), there have been multiple upgrades in that same time period. I would say average 6 computers, several converters, many software upgrades. Like going from 882s to 888s to HD. These costs have far exceeded even the best maintained 2" deck.

As for the argument that digital is still 'young', well, wasn't Ry Cooder's album in 1979? That seems to be 26 years. If it was going to 'stabilize', it could have by now... The real issue here is that digital is irrevocably intertwined with computers now, so I seriously doubt the technology updates and upgrades will ever cease. (Do you picture Apple saying, 'Ok, OSX is as good as it will ever get. We're done upgrading.) Which means, just to stay current in the client's eyes, and compatible, you have to generally keep pace (even if the updates and upgrades become superfluous, technicalities rather than improvements).

(Personally, I resent having to learn WAY more about computers than I ever wanted to, just to do sessions. It's a lot of time that wasn't spent capturing music or making records.)
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 02:31:10 am
Emmm, looks as if someone always has to come off lame and often their ignorance shows when they do so. Yes, the bitch fest and personal attacks are unprofessional.

Look, if people want to take exception with award-winning books such as "Relevance Lost" published by the Harvard Business School, which, is all about proper accounting methods and learning how to avoid cost accounting errors, that's fine with me. Perhaps a few people are know-it-alls and can never learn anything from anybody at anytime, or, perhaps a few are simply too cheap to spend a measly 13 bucks...I just dunno

Then again, perhaps some are fearful that doing proper cost accounting may reveal that digital is often far more expensive than analogue...

And of course, it may be difficult to account for the post above about the college test on young ears which resulted in a loss for digital and win for analogue.



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 14, 2005, 02:39:05 am
dcollins wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 01:59

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 20:51


you may learn something, remember something, or think about the cost issue in an entirely new way.



If irony has a black-hole, you can see it from here.

DC



au contraire, i would think the term is 'supernova', not black hole. as in; i am blinded by the irony of being lectured by the likes of jonny b about learning, remembering and thinking about things.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 02:40:15 am
Nick Eipers wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:29


I stand by what I said about the cost issue. Of the dozens of studios in which I have freelanced or where I know owners/engineers/etc, I don't know any who have had to buy a new 2" deck since I started in '92.

Of the studios I know who have started using digital recording, (which is most of them), there have been multiple upgrades in that same time period. I would say average 6 computers, several converters, many software upgrades. Like going from 882s to 888s to HD. These costs have far exceeded even the best maintained 2" deck.




Oh yes. You are right on the money. And some good accounting would show it too.

Digital is cheaper...my ass. That digital obsolence shows up in ever increasing intervals...it's a black hole money pit...worse than a boat. But I suppose all that old obsolete digital gear can double as a boat anchor.




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Gone on December 14, 2005, 02:40:41 am
Denny W. wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 07:19


A nice story but meaningless unless the the comparison was done blind. They may not have grown up listening to analog but they are certainly well aware of the perception of analog vs digital in the industry and are far from immune to that powerful influence. As an instructer even your intrinsic view on the matter will influence there perception.  

Furthermore using the same source to both may demonstrate the differences but it doesn't demonstrate the total capabilities. You wouldn't necessarily use the same preamp, EQ or micing techniuess for both. Those would be optimised for the platform you are working on.


As I said, some of the comparisons were blind, some were not. And while I agree that the blind comparisons are generally better, sometimes it's even more interesting when they're NOT blind. Being college students, they're not necessarily predisposed to like what I like. Often, they'd like nothing better than to totally disagree with me. Many think that engineers who talk about analog tape are dinosaurs, or cavemen reminiscing about how rubbing two sticks together was WAY better than electricity. So, when a student who desperately wants to go AGAINST what I say HAS to agree, because they agree completely, and to their own surprise, that's more telling.

And, yes, this comparison used tape vs. PT as the only variable. That was the point. There is an inherent difference between analog and digital recording - regardless of which you prefer (or think is 'better'). The difference is audible, measurable, and undeniable. That's the real point. I prefer analog. I know more people who prefer analog - from an aesthetic standpoint - than digital. I have never denied the ways in which digital is superior or more flexible.

For those who haven't heard a digital record they like - really? I'm not being sarcastic here, just surprised... Lyle Lovett "Joshua Judges Ruth"? No?

I have done records I consider very good on both analog and digital. All other things being equal, I prefer the sound of analog.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 14, 2005, 02:42:52 am



I'll buy him the book, ok.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Gone on December 14, 2005, 02:42:52 am
Johnny B wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 01:40

 But I suppose all that old obsolete digital gear can double as a boat anchor.



Heh, heh.
Do any other Chicago folk here remember the Mits DASH machine they had at River North? Last I saw it, it was in the lounge, on its side, being used as a table...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: dcollins on December 14, 2005, 02:43:46 am
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:31


Then again, perhaps some are fearful that doing proper cost accounting may reveal that digital is often far more expensive than analogue...



Have you considered a career in lion taming?

Perhaps chartered accountancy is more your speed.

DC

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 03:09:53 am
dcollins wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:43



Have you considered a career in lion taming?



No, I'm married.

In fact, last week in Chicago, I spent a good bit of time discussing the issue of women with a respected guitar player and singer. He's a good man and he also has a lot of really cool guitars on his wall, all given to him by other guitar players. Anyway, we more or less came to the unbelievably fresh conclusion that in some male-female relationships the issue of lion taming is perpetual.  Who knew? Smile






Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 03:11:53 am
Nick Eipers wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:29

 Of the dozens of studios in which I have freelanced or where I know owners/engineers/etc, I don't know any who have had to buy a new 2" deck since I started in '92.




Yet if you had been making records from '62 to '75 you would have seen, not only studios replacing their master recorders from 2 track to 3 to 4 to 8 to 12 to 16 to 24 and up, but also the consoles to go with those decks, along with a big enough console to play back 2 decks, etc.  Those were major upgrades,

And you bet many of those machines still work, but yes some of them are being used for nothing at many many studios.

This is no endorsement of any format, just at little of the other side of the coin.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 14, 2005, 03:15:23 am
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:51


John, why don't you...


Yes indeed, the phrase 'why don't you' has occurred to me in relation to your postings more than once. I must say that 'why don't you spend $13' is not the phrase I had in mind. Decorum prevents me from telling you what I would like to end the phrase 'why don't you' with.

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:51


Emmm, looks as if someone always has to come off lame and often their ignorance shows when they do so. Yes, the bitch fest and personal attacks are unprofessional.



Well, Johnny, it's generally accepted that 'someone' comes off lame and ignorant in threads that you participate in. Guess who. I'll give you a hint; refer back to the thread that asked the question 'should Johnny B be allowed to post anymore?' if you are not sure.

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:51


Look, if people want to take exception with award-winning books such as "Relevance Lost" published by the Harvard Business School, which, is all about proper accounting methods and learning how to avoid cost accounting errors, that's fine with me. Perhaps a few people are know-it-alls and can never learn anything from anybody at anytime, or, perhaps a few are simply too cheap to spend a measly 13 bucks...I just dunno



Dude, I'm guessing you are referring to me. I don't take exception to award winning books. I'm working on my second master's degree part time. I don't think I'm afraid of reading good books, nor am I (obviously) afraid of learning things. If I knew it all I don't think I'd be in the pursuit of higher education. I do, however, take exception to being lectured about the cost-effectiveness of my choice of recording platform by a pariah of PSW. On this thread I posed a question to you, asking you to explain the cost planning and considerations behind your next album project, but you sidestepped it. Later, when I asked you to justify your views on cost analysis vis-a-vis choice of format you said 'read this book'. I read lots of books. I want to know WHAT you know about the things you natter on about.

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:51


Then again, perhaps some are fearful that doing proper cost accounting may reveal that digital is often far more expensive than analogue...



That makes no sense. Who, besides shareholders in Digidesign, would be 'fearful'? I sincerely doubt that anybody participating in this thread has a vested interest one way or the other. "Fearful" is not exactly the word I'd use.

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:51


And of course, it may be difficult to account for the post above about the college test on young ears which resulted in a loss for digital and win for analogue.



Well, many of the posters on this thread, being actual recording engineers (unlike you) have distinct views on the relative merits of the two formats. Having compared the formats in various rooms over the years under various circumstances I have an opinion which is based in personal knowledge and experience, unlike yourself. I have a great affinity for analog tape, personally. I think most if not all of us people who have actually USED analog machines would chose a well-maintained machine over a DAW all other things being equal. You are in no position to lecture anybody with actual experience about the relative merits of one over the other. Moreover, you seem to continually reflect this crazed conspiratorial attitude that other posters are trying to put one over on you and the rest of the community. Why would anyone try to "account for" the uh, er, ah "win for analogue" as you put it? Do you have any idea how silly you sound? You aren't a one-man campaign for quality in audio, or cost-effectiveness in audio, or if you are then stop posting inane and empty platitudes and relate some of your direct and first-hand knowledge of the subjects at issue.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 03:48:03 am
Nick Eipers wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:42

Johnny B wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 01:40

 But I suppose all that old obsolete digital gear can double as a boat anchor.



Heh, heh.
Do any other Chicago folk here remember the Mits DASH machine they had at River North? Last I saw it, it was in the lounge, on its side, being used as a table..
.


I've seem more obsolete digital gear than I can even remember...some used as tables...some used as ashtrays...some sent to third world countries...and a lot sent to the scrap heap for potential recycling or recovery of any metals...

However, much of the worthless digital gear ends up simply collecting dust...




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 03:56:34 am
John Sorensen wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 08:15

 I think most if not all of us people who have actually USED analog machines would chose a well-maintained machine over a DAW all other things being equal.


It would seem that others would also agree with this point. Smile
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 04:16:45 am
bobkatz wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 18:33

maxdimario wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 11:52


My experience is that it's not the distortion, but the simplicity of tube designs and the linearity of tubes vs. transistors.




That's a commonly stated point by many "tubaholics", and I used to believe it. But now I believe it is the harmonic structure. There's nothing embarrassing about a little distortion, by the way. And you cannot make a valid argument about the linearity of solid state versus tubes, because an opamp with feedback is as linear as you can get.

HOW can you explain how the ADDITION of a tube circuit to a solid state chain can make the total sound "better"? Why do you not have to TAKE AWAY the so-called "offending" solid state circuit.

That's why I don't buy that argument.

I don't want to get simplistic and say it is simply the ratios of harmonics. But concentrating on that issue of the moment, it is clear that the harmonic structure of the opamp and the tube are completely different. And different opamps sound completely different; Fred Forssell makes a discrete opamp that sounds a lot like tubes!

Why can't we get past the issue of "what is more accurate" and simply accept that we like different forms of distortion and some devices provide that and others do not?

Since there is ALWAYS distortion, why can't we just accept that some forms of distortion sound better to us than others? For opamps, there may even be an "optimum" amount of 2nd and 3rd harmonic you have to have in order to mask some of of the 5th, 7th, and 9th residual. Whereas with tubes, there's enough 2nd and 3rd (always) to mask the 5th, 7th, and 9th that are in the opamp circuits in the same chain.



Perhaps we can add in the influence of old iron or transformers into a discussion of the harmonics as well.

Bob K's comment, however, reminds me of the old AES whitepaper by Russell O. Hamm.

Doug Fearn has it posted on his website, lemme see if I can find the link. Ah yes, here it is, might be good re-read for some or a good first read for those who have never read it. Love to see it updated tho'.

http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm  

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 14, 2005, 04:17:07 am
dcollins wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:43



Have you considered a career in lion taming?






Maybe those Lions would useful for hearing those NEW SANKEN MICS

They go up to 100khz (The Mics that is, not the Lions)
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 04:19:32 am
Emmm, why not try them on some cymbals and see if you like them. They may tame those cymbals for some people. And they can try them out on acoustic guitars as well.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 14, 2005, 04:21:37 am
Johnny B wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 03:56

John Sorensen wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 08:15

 I think most if not all of us people who have actually USED analog machines would chose a well-maintained machine over a DAW all other things being equal.


It would seem that others would also agree with this point. Smile



Right, ok, so your point is what exactly? I don't think the point I made needs to be supported or reiterated by you. It's my opinion, based on my own experience and interaction with others.

What about the question I posed to YOU three days ago - what are the economics of YOUR next recording? How much have you budgetted for 2"? Are you mixing to 1/2" or 1/4"? You must have feelings about the relative merits of 15ips vs 30. Have you thought about the economics of conserving tape by running at 15 versus the sonic effect? Show me the way, wizard - integrate your vast accounting knowledge with your extensive knowledge of the analog domain and wow me with your analysis.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 14, 2005, 04:39:24 am
Ronny wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:42




I'll buy him the book, ok.


Ronny, I assume you will be buying the book "Relevance Lost" and giving it to DC. Maybe you could be gracious enough to buy one for John S. as well.

Once again, it's an award-winning book published by the Harvard Business School and is available from Amazon.com for around 13 USA bucks. Used ones for less than 4 USA bucks. An extremely good deal considering the powerful information that one can get in the book.

See:
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875842542/002-3078376-9850 427?v=glance&n=283155


Smile


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 14, 2005, 06:02:46 am
johhny wrote:

"I've seem more obsolete digital gear than I can even remember...some used as tables...some used as ashtrays...some sent to third world countries...and a lot sent to the scrap heap for potential recycling or recovery of any metals..."

funny... last week i saw a 2 inch studer sitting in the corner of 301 mastering studio, collecting dust, while the the abbey road emi console was doing business as usual
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 14, 2005, 08:14:47 am
Johnny B wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 04:39

Ronny wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:42



I'll buy him the book, ok.


Ronny, I assume you will be buying the book "Relevance Lost" and giving it to DC. Maybe you could be gracious enough to buy one for John S. as well.



Hey - that's ok Ronny, save your money. If you feel particularly generous this holiday season send Johnny B a calculator. He is going to be putting together some numbers to compare and contrast the economics of different media types as it relates to his next engineering gig. I understand that his broad experience with different recording formats coupled with his brave insights into economics and finance are worth waiting for, but I can't wait forever. Please Santa, send him a calculator.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 14, 2005, 08:20:13 am
Quote:

HOW can you explain how the ADDITION of a tube circuit to a solid state chain can make the total sound "better"? Why do you not have to TAKE AWAY the so-called "offending" solid state circuit.



This is a fundamental point, and very interesting to talk about, because to access the point of why tubes sound better for music in the long run you have to do some personal experiments with types of tubes that are not the common variety, still used nowadays.

once you begin to use the higher-grade special design tubes, you realize that it's not the distortion, which can be very low with no feedback in special quality tubes if you use triodes, for example. (I mean feedback in the circuit, not 'internal feedback').

there is a way that the tube captures and reproduces those parts of the waveform essential to listening that has a very precise quality to it although the sound itself is soft compared to transistors.

The distortion of a most tube types tends to 'lose' information in a way that the sound is smoothed out every passage, due to the inherent distortion of the design.

in effect, the transistor has the effect of making the sound harsher as it distorts.
Which makes you realize that there must be something fundamentally wrong done to the audio, regardless of the importance we give it.otherwise the ear would accept it with more ease.

the best transistor designs are not harsch and overly bright.


but tubes can 'round out' the 'chaotic distortion' artifacts of harsh sounds...like in old guitar amps. make them seem more natural as the soft focus effect seems to 'round out' harsh or overly complex distortions.

that doesn't mean that tubes can't be made clean,

specs of 1% THD in the 50's were deemed acceptable as it obviously didn't create problems at the time.

and yet some of the most realistic recordings were done on all tubes.

but you can build them like transistor amps, with feedback everywhere imaginable, and have super-low distortion specs.

usually the distortion artifacts become more complicated as network feedback issues increase with complexity.
the 'processed sound'

which can be an effect as well, but it is not what tubes are about.

Tubes are simple and they sound like it, the sound is closer to the natural sound of the room.

in fact the best transistor schematics are built like tube schematics..almost, very few active components and high cost-per-part.

anyway it's not just the distortion, in my opinion.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 14, 2005, 08:21:29 am
Are you done pimping that book yet? John was asking about what the details of your cost analysis were, not what the Harvard Business school thinks about it. Its not exactly a convincing argument when you avoid the key questions. Personally I'd like to see it. I have a BA in accounting and finance, I really don't need to reread the theory and techniques yet again.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 14, 2005, 12:18:19 pm
Nick Eipers wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 23:42


Heh, heh.
Do any other Chicago folk here remember the Mits DASH machine they had at River North? Last I saw it, it was in the lounge, on its side, being used as a table...


OK.  That is fucking brilliant!  

Here's how I see the obsolescence issue: It takes money to make money.  Sure, my original PT rig decreased in value greatly and I only got pennies on the dollar when I resold it, but I made a great deal of money that I might not have been able to make had I not had that tool available.  Besides, audio pros are spoiled by the fact that their 1073s and U47s keep increasing in value.  In what other industry doe your tools increase in value the older they get?  How about all those offices that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars setting up DOS for everybody, or all the IBM Selectric typewriters before that?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 14, 2005, 12:24:16 pm
Johnny B wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 01:39


Ronny, I assume you will be buying the book "Relevance Lost" and giving it to DC.


Ironically, Dave told me that he was going to send Johnny a copy of I'm OK, You're OK, as well as the CD re-release of Up With People.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: danickstr on December 14, 2005, 12:36:02 pm
I am recording an audio book version of "Relevance Lost" using a Sanken mic and will be selling this through Amazon.com

And Johnny I only kid you because I think the you have yet to see the forest for the trees of your ability to get stuck in the mud on certain points, to an extreme degree.  It is not a bad thing in and of itself, but gets to be a bit preachy, which is probably not the best way to be perceived by those you are trying to impress or relate.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 12:41:24 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 03:02



funny... last week i saw a 2 inch studer sitting in the corner of 301 mastering studio, collecting dust, while the the abbey road emi console was doing business as usual


You would think if analog didn't need to be upgraded that there would still be many many Ampex MM 1200, MM1100 or MM1000 for 2" 16 track work, M79s working today.

You would wonder why any studio that ever bought an A80 would have ever "upgraded" to an A800, 820 or 827.

Of course this is an extreme example....


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 12:59:52 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 09:18



Here's how I see the obsolescence issue: It takes money to make money.  Sure, my original PT rig decreased in value greatly and I only got pennies on the dollar when I resold it, but I made a great deal of money that I might not have been able to make had I not had that tool available.  Besides, audio pros are spoiled by the fact that their 1073s and U47s keep increasing in value.  In what other industry doe your tools increase in value the older they get?  How about all those offices that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars setting up DOS for everybody, or all the IBM Selectric typewriters before that?


There was a time when some gear that is appreciating now, didn't.

The "big" studios in their day always wanted the newest gear.  DBX 160's going for a grand?  You couldn't give them away at one point.  Radio stations were dumping Fairchilds.

Until people started to part out neve consoles, there were not 1073's to buy.

Pro Tools and other DAW's are disposable - that's the point.  In today's dollars, 100 plus tracks is cheap.  We can argue quality elsewhere. There were plenty of people in the thick of analog who looked down on MCI machines, for instance.  

Compared to a new Studer A800 in it's debut?  A Sony or Studer DASH machine?  I don't believe the Mitsu format was DASH - Otari followed the Mitsu format, but maybe I have that backwards.

If someone owns a G4 mac dual 1.25 for instance, they could have upgraded from a mix system to an HD accel system with no issues, in fact many, many have with no computer upgrade.  They are still running fine.

There was not much upgrading to do to an Ampex 440 8 track.



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: thedoc on December 14, 2005, 01:06:20 pm
As far as digital reel to reel machines, Mit and Otari were PD format, and Sony and Studer were just a DASH.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 14, 2005, 01:50:12 pm
Hi Steve-

First off, thanks for sharing your time and experience here. Frankly, if what you were saying was coming from anyone but a small party of people I respect with regards to tape machines I'd deflect the help. One curiosity though, I was taught by Kim Stallings at SONY studios in NY here, who's been the studer tech there for at least ten years that to cal the erase, he records a 1k tone long enough to go through the erase cal. After which he records and adjusts the erase pot to get the most erasure possible. This is the technique i have been using now since I've had the machine. I have a very loud monitoring system and crank up the volume while I do this and when I get the erase current set properly, I still hear a very faint bit of tone, at least when I record the 1k at +9. I have been made to understand that this is going to be the case, which does not mean that the erasure is not very good. Again I am monitoring at very loud volumes and have not measured the db of the still-present 1k tone so I cannot say exactly what the level is. Perhaps I am being too worrisome.

Please don't misunderstand my tone here Steve. Its just that what you are saying goes against some other very long time audio guys and  respected indviduals with regards to this stuff and as such I am want for more info. With regards to my machine. I have personally recapped it and rebuilt the power supplies. Not sure what else I could do anyway.

A fan of yours Mr. Steve.

Best,
josh

**Edited for clarity.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 01:58:30 pm
Josh,

My comment is that even if you are doing many takes over and over on the same reel on the same song, there must be some songs that have quiet intros or bridges that this issues would show up at that point just as much as going to a new song.


Unless you start each take at the same place on the tape with no false starts etc, but that seems unlikely.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 14, 2005, 02:03:24 pm
True enough. My concern is with printing hot, and using a stretch of tape for a song that is very quiet or has a quiet passage, where previously there was a loud song. No doubt, if I were recording a loud rock band that pretty much was a loud rock band through and through, I would not be concerned. That was not the case with regards to the session I had through here that was the basis for my first post. They were a very dynamic band that had heavier stuff and very quiet stuff. . . Singer songwriter project.

josh
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 02:13:41 pm
I don't recall if I have ever used a reel from an outtake of one session on another, so you would know better.

But I have done, say, 4 takes of a song, used take one and gone back to take 2 and started a new song before with no issues - but of course would do longer pre and post rolls so no other unused song comes blaring back before or after the new take.

If you really like to be very thorough, and your clients can deal with 6 hours of studio time on a 12 song project via transfers and erasures, so be it.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 14, 2005, 02:16:52 pm
bushwick wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 13:50

...After which he records and adjusts the erase pot to get the most erasure possible. This is the technique i have been using now since I've had the machine.

Depending on the era of your machine (A80MKI, for example), it may not have been designed to erase 500nWb/m recordings. If that is the case, it will not be able to erase completely without modification or a different erase head. In either case, it is a solvable problem.

You should be able to get complete (un-noticeable) erasure from a multitrack machine. If you cannot, get it fixed. Spending half your time erasing is ridiculous, and probably accounts for why you don't have enough money to keep the session on tape to begin with.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: chrisj on December 14, 2005, 03:24:58 pm
kraster wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 04:17

dcollins wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 07:43


Have you considered a career in lion taming?



Maybe those Lions would useful for hearing those NEW SANKEN MICS
They go up to 100khz (The Mics that is, not the Lions)


As another guitar player who finds unexpected benefits in lion taming- it depends what you do with them  Very Happy

They are NOT less stroppy after dark. Twisted Evil

But you cannot claim reasonable wear and tear as professional expenses under paragraph 335C...

...time enough, I think, for a piece of wood...

Very Happy

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bushwick on December 14, 2005, 06:54:10 pm
electrical wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 14:16

bushwick wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 13:50

...After which he records and adjusts the erase pot to get the most erasure possible. This is the technique i have been using now since I've had the machine.

Depending on the era of your machine (A80MKI, for example), it may not have been designed to erase 500nWb/m recordings. If that is the case, it will not be able to erase completely without modification or a different erase head. In either case, it is a solvable problem.



The machine is an A800 MKII with 317 heads and MKIII head assembly.

electrical wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 14:16


You should be able to get complete (un-noticeable) erasure from a multitrack machine. If you cannot, get it fixed. Spending half your time erasing is ridiculous, and probably accounts for why you don't have enough money to keep the session on tape to begin with.


Easy there Steve, you are not being very nice. As you know It takes about 15 minutes to scrub a reel so I am not sure where 'six hours of down time' or 'half my time' came from. And therefore the basis of your knock....





Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 08:36:42 pm
I believe the 6 hours came from me.  You had said it took about 1/2 hour per track to transfer and erase.

I came up with a 12 song project it would be 6 hours based on your 1/2 hour per tune.

By the way, nice machine.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bobkatz on December 14, 2005, 08:55:38 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 19:56



Yes, it would seem that with proper cost-accounting being applied to any digital session or project, you may find that digital is vastly more expensive than analogue.




Especially if you start costing down time and maintenance. Some days I think I'm the slave of the computer; upgrades, firmware, bios, hard drive weirdness, booting weirdness, you name it, and it causes headaches and frustration. Hands down, an all analog studio with analog workflow and NO autotune, little or no comping, little or no "flying tracks around" and little or no "fix it in the mix" will be far less costly to run, both for the studio owners and the money the musicians pay.

It's just that the musicians themselves have gotten used to the idea of overdubs and punchins (which we did in the analog days) and all the other toys available, and (most of them) insist on those tools.

BK
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 09:25:27 pm
Adding to what Bob Katz said, in analog there was still, on some projects, multiple takes of basic tracks or even just drums, edited together.  Editing could take days.

I did a jazzy bluegrass album many years ago for Rounder and each song had 7 to 10 takes of the basics and 3 weeks of editing the 2" - Crazy stuff.  It happens no matter what the medium, people work in weird ways.  This guy did this as he had been in a band that George Martin produced a couple of records for and it was all about multiple takes and then editing it all together.

There is not much that DAWs do that didn't come from tasks already being done.  Beat Detective being new, although I read Mixerman talking about cutting pieces of wood to certain lengths to get the right bars and beats with drum edits (I may have that a bit screwy).

Ted Templeman was known for having take 73 saved, for instance.

Autotune? Before that there was the H3000, Fairlight, Publison, studio singers (remember Paula Abdul scandal?)

I can't count the times I mixed the 2" to a half inch, transferred the 1/2" back to a fresh piece of 2" did background vocals on more open tracks and then mixed the backgrounds in stereo to the 1/2" again and then flew them back to the master 2", a section at a time.

People had been making drum loops for years - way before samplers or DAWs made it so easy that anyone could do it.

There were projects with 6 slave reels.  Background vocal slave, guitar slave, lead vocal slave, keyboard slave, you name it.  Nobody, even before DAWs, wanted to commit.

It ain't new. Same stuff, different platform.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: fadeout on December 14, 2005, 09:55:01 pm
bobkatz wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 20:55


It's just that the musicians themselves have gotten used to the idea of overdubs and punchins (which we did in the analog days) and all the other toys available, and (most of them) insist on those tools.
BK


True in some cases, but I have to say I find that this is less prevalent than one might think. Maybe I'm just lucky (and picky) but on the sessions I've done recently, I've found that musicians and singers actually seem to be liberated in an environment where auto-whatever is not staring them in the face.

The last few sessions I've done have been to analog tape (Ampex MM1200s, 15ips +5/250 NNR on BASF 900) and digital (Mytek ADCs, Samplitude) simultaneously. The MM1200s are relatively new members of the family, so I'm still cautious, and using my rather reliable DAW for redundancy. So it's been a good opportunity for comparison, but I've also imposed some of the tape workflow onto the session, and found that to be an overwhelmingly positive thing.

I found the initial fear of not being able to edit to death is quickly outweighed by the happiness of the musicians on hearing the tape playback, who then rise to the occasion and play like their lives depended on it. Pretty good trade off if you ask me.

I could write pages on this topic, but for now, I'll just add that I sincerely do NOT think that the attraction of tape is nostalgia, or some mass hysteria. My perception is that staying in the analog domain loses less of the original signal's harmonic content than PCM digitizing typically does. You can implement it well, or not, but assuming good implementation, I prefer to stay analog if at all possible, for as long as possible.

And assuming well-maintained equipment, I strongly resist the notion that the only reason anyone would find analog recording superior is distortion and saturation.  

In these sessions recently, I consciously avoided saturation, and aligned both analog and digital systems in such a way that I maintained headroom on both. (One of the cool things about this method is that the digital peak meters give a much better indication of the signal than the VU meters on the Ampex.)

The end result, so far, is that the digital sounds pretty good, but the tape beats it for MUSICAL accuracy. The digital is quieter, crisper, but there is absolutely something that is missing from the recording that IS there coming off the tape, despite whatever other artifacts may exist (and honestly, other than a bit of hiss, I don't really hear any).

From a practical perspective, I notice the difference not in a/b testing, but in how long it takes me to get a satisfying rough mix. With the tape playback, about 30 seconds, no compression, no eq. With the digital, much longer, and I am switching on EQ and compressors to try to reach in and grab the music that feels a bit lost.

And fwiw, I've done a lot of work on my console to improve its accuracy and transparency, and it's pretty good. On these sessions the mic preamps included GML, Calrec and Langevin. (I picked the GML because I really just wanted to hear as much as possible. I LOVE those preamps! )

Finally, I have found that doing an analog mix of analog tape to high quality ADCs like the Mytek and making a ref CD from that with minimal limiting, can actually translate to all kinds of CD playback systems amazingly well. This is making me re-think how I approach handing off master tapes to a mastering lab. But that's another topic.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 14, 2005, 10:26:49 pm
bob k wrote:

"NO autotune, little or no comping, little or no "flying tracks around" and little or no "fix it in the mix" will be far less costly to run, both for the studio owners and the money the musicians pay. "

why is that a good thing? (other than financial)

where does this mythology come from, that quick is good?

there is some expectation that musicians should produce twelve magical moments in twelve hours, and the engineer should just capture it with minimum distortion

it's hard enough to come up with one magical moment in a lifetime, let alone on demand in a recording studio

sometimes the magic comes from the endless takes, comps, and fixing it in the mix (pet sounds, sgt peppers and dark side of the moon come to mind)




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: jetbase on December 14, 2005, 11:29:45 pm
maxim wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 14:26

bob k wrote:

"NO autotune, little or no comping, little or no "flying tracks around" and little or no "fix it in the mix" will be far less costly to run, both for the studio owners and the money the musicians pay. "

why is that a good thing? (other than financial)

where does this mythology come from, that quick is good?

there is some expectation that musicians should produce twelve magical moments in twelve hours, and the engineer should just capture it with minimum distortion

it's hard enough to come up with one magical moment in a lifetime, let alone on demand in a recording studio

sometimes the magic comes from the endless takes, comps, and fixing it in the mix (pet sounds, sgt peppers and dark side of the moon come to mind)







max, perhaps bob is talking about getting all that stuff right at the recording stage? i usually work on one or two lead vocal tracks (doing drop-ins), for example, rather than recording multiple takes & comping afterwards. then i can move on to the next thing, and the vocal is final & decided & on one track. pet sounds, etc, are great examples of pursuing ideas to the nth degree to achieve something great, but that's more about spending the time on artistic ideas reather than getting the performances right isn't it?

cheers,
glenn
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 14, 2005, 11:49:10 pm
jetbase wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 20:29



max, perhaps bob is talking about getting all that stuff right at the recording stage? i usually work on one or two lead vocal tracks (doing drop-ins), for example, rather than recording multiple takes & comping afterwards. then i can move on to the next thing, and the vocal is final & decided & on one track. pet sounds, etc, are great examples of pursuing ideas to the nth degree to achieve something great, but that's more about spending the time on artistic ideas reather than getting the performances right isn't it?

cheers,
glenn


What happens when you work with an artist who maybe has made a few albums, some succesful, that prefers to do multi takes and comp?

And they are headstrong.....  It happens.  It's not always about the way the engineer or producer wants to work. In the end, it is the artist's record.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: jetbase on December 15, 2005, 12:22:32 am
rnicklaus wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 15:49



What happens when you work with an artist who maybe has made a few albums, some succesful, that prefers to do multi takes and comp?

And they are headstrong.....  It happens.  It's not always about the way the engineer or producer wants to work. In the end, it is the artist's record.




yep, & personally i'm happy to work however an artist and/or producer feels comfortable working, so long as the studio i'm working in can provide for it. i did a session like that recently. i don't think anyone is saying there's only one way to work. however, i have been quoted as saying that i like the limitations analogue forces you to work within, & i think there is a lot of merit, in making decisions in the earlier stages of the recording process, rather than the later stages. i think there is even greater merit in singing in tune & playing in time. not all of my clients can do that. Sad

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 15, 2005, 01:26:32 am
jetbase wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 21:22


yep, & personally i'm happy to work however an artist and/or producer feels comfortable working, so long as the studio i'm working in can provide for it. i did a session like that recently. i don't think anyone is saying there's only one way to work. however, i have been quoted as saying that i like the limitations analogue forces you to work within, & i think there is a lot of merit, in making decisions in the earlier stages of the recording process, rather than the later stages. i think there is even greater merit in singing in tune & playing in time. not all of my clients can do that. Sad




I guess were we disconnect is how analog, as a format, can give any less choices or limits.  Sure, locking 3 machines is not the norm these days but......

There is no reason a slave can't be made, or 2, or whatever and that analog forces anyone to work within any limits.  That was never the case before DAWs.  Of course, DAWs have now gone to a zillion tracks so it's mind numbing.

I just get a little baffled when people speak about analog as limited to 24 tracks or that it's all about one machine or any "limits".  It was not unheard of to have 2 slave reels just full of vocals on a big project. And those reels would never be used for anything but to record and comp the vocal and the final would end up on the main slave reel in the end.

Yes I love analog, but I do not see it as a limited to a 24 track format.

Maybe now that some machines sell for 5K, people put one in a studio and think "there it is, analog" and forget that in many cases this machine was just one piece of the puzzle.

All of that said, I 100% agree about making choices right on the spot as often as possible and being done with that phase.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 15, 2005, 01:47:27 am
maxim wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 22:26

bob k wrote:

"NO autotune, little or no comping, little or no "flying tracks around" and little or no "fix it in the mix" will be far less costly to run, both for the studio owners and the money the musicians pay. "

why is that a good thing? (other than financial)

where does this mythology come from, that quick is good?

Where did the mythology that fake is better than real come from?

Quote:

there is some expectation that musicians should produce twelve magical moments in twelve hours, and the engineer should just capture it with minimum distortion

That sounds like an "expectation" you just made up so you could make fun of it. I don't know anybody that honestly harbors this expectation.

I know that when I make records quickly it's because that's all the budget allows for. There is certainly repairing, editing, punching-in, etc. done on them, and nobody thinks we're breaking any rules.

I make records quickly because that's what my clients require of me. As it turns out, I have also labored over records when that's required of me. I know from experience that the labored-over, time-intensive records are not generally better than those made more efficiently. They're different, sure, but not in any way categorically better. (Here is your opportunity to tell the world that they aren't better because I'm no good at my job.)

Quote:

it's hard enough to come up with one magical moment in a lifetime, let alone on demand in a recording studio

I think it's demeaning to a band to suggest that their art, the thing they spend all their time and energy on, isn't already good enough, and that they should be ashamed of it as it already is. I think these moments of expression have in-built qualities, and letting them be expressed is really important. More important than trying to conjure something up out of thin air. It is the lifes' work of the band, and I want them to have a shot at getting it out to the world the way they've always imagined it. I think the things the band brings in to the studio are precious and unique, and we should respect them, not hustle-up our own fol-de-rol to layer on top ot them.

Quote:

sometimes the magic comes from the endless takes, comps, and fixing it in the mix (pet sounds, sgt peppers and dark side of the moon come to mind)

I suppose it does, sometimes. Those moments are probably as rare as the few examples you mention. For every great record you mention that was labored over, I'll give you a dozen counter-examples of untouchably great records that were knocked-off in a weekend. Ready? Go!

After that, we'll go to the used record store, and I'll grab a hundred albums out of the "take it free, nobody wants it" pile that were slaved-over in an attempt to imbue them with a greatness they could never achieve because the fundamental ideas weren't strong enough, not because there weren't enough takes or overdubs.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 15, 2005, 01:54:46 am
rnicklaus wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 23:49


What happens when you work with an artist who maybe has made a few albums, some succesful, that prefers to do multi takes and comp?

I do this all the time on analog machines. Where do you think the digital engineers got the idea from?

Quote:

It's not always about the way the engineer or producer wants to work.

I'd go so far as to say the engineer's job is to let the band make the record they want, the way they want to make it, until the money runs out. If the band wants to keep plugging away, then it's our job to make that work productive.

Quote:

In the end, it is the artist's record.

It's their record from the beginning, through the middle, late-middle and end. Also for eternity afterward, and that's important to remember.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: canada on December 15, 2005, 02:00:52 am
electrical wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 06:47


I think it's demeaning to a band to suggest that their art, the thing they spend all their time and energy on, isn't already good enough, and that they should be ashamed of it as it already is. I think these moments of expression have in-built qualities, and letting them be expressed is really important. More important than trying to conjure something up out of thin air. It is the lifes' work of the band, and I want them to have a shot at getting it out to the world the way they've always imagined it. I think the things the band brings in to the studio are precious and unique, and we should respect them, not hustle-up our own fol-de-rol to layer on top ot them.


Just wanted to emphasize this.  Thanks.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 15, 2005, 02:02:26 am
bushwick wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 18:54


Easy there Steve, you are not being very nice. As you know It takes about 15 minutes to scrub a reel so I am not sure where 'six hours of down time' or 'half my time' came from. And therefore the basis of your knock....

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it stands to reason that for every hour of tape you record, you have to spend an hour erasing it to do take two. That sounds like a lot of wasted time on anybody's watch. Even if your studio doesn't charge a lot by the hour, and if your time isn't billable, it still seems like a hideous waste of time. I contend that your machine (any machine, really) should be able to erase its recordings. I wouldn't use a machine that couldn't.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 15, 2005, 02:03:05 am
electrical wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 22:54

rnicklaus wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 23:49


What happens when you work with an artist who maybe has made a few albums, some succesful, that prefers to do multi takes and comp?

I do this all the time on analog machines. Where do you think the digital engineers got the idea from?



I agree.  I was responding to someone saying they were punching in on one track and that somehow analog was limiting them to that way of working.  I don't see analog as limiting.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on December 15, 2005, 11:36:24 am
My experience has been that the extremes of production work ok but  the middle ground generally leads to mediocrity. An experienced  producer also reduces the amount of studio time needed to around 20% of what the artist would require to produce themselves.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 15, 2005, 12:27:01 pm
Right.

Bob O's point is a good one. When there's a producer, there is some form of cost accounting going on...but when someone has some kind of digital rig in their home, the time spent on doing endless tweaks is normally not accounted for and treated as if it's free...it's not free...time has value...

In a strange sort of way, it's as if the home studio business has become the model for some so-called "real" studios and the bad cost accounting has invaded and perverted the process and polluted people's thinking about the true costs.

And Bob K's earlier statement to the effect that analogue can be more cost effective seems to be well-reasoned.

Moreover, there's that difficult to account for "Sound Quality" factor and the musicians preference of what they really love to hear. Normally, that means the musicians prefer analogue.






Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PookyNMR on December 15, 2005, 01:20:22 pm
Johhny B,

I love digital.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 15, 2005, 01:22:12 pm
[quote title=Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 09:27

Moreover, there's that difficult to account for "Sound Quality" factor and the musicians preference of what they really love to hear. Normally, that means the musicians prefer analogue.

[/quote]

I have found that many musicians simply want to hear "more me".

They ask, "What amp did you use?" "Which guitar?" "How did you mic it?" "How did you get that room sound on the drums?"  "What snare was that?"

If they don't like your engineering chops, they don't care what format you use.  The cart is before the horse in your stance.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 15, 2005, 03:00:58 pm
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 12:27

Right.

Bob O's point is a good one. When there's a producer, there is some form of cost accounting going on...but when someone has some kind of digital rig in their home, the time spent on doing endless tweaks is normally not accounted for and treated as if it's free...it's not free...time has value...

Personal time spent working on a project does not involve writing a check to someone. Your applying a philisophical argument to a practical question.

Moreover, there's that difficult to account for "Sound Quality" factor and the musicians preference of what they really love to hear. Normally, that means the musicians prefer analogue.

I absolutely love how you speak authoritatively with blanket statements. The unmitigated arrogance is truly stunning








Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 15, 2005, 03:46:24 pm
Sure, there's a debate going on, it's been going on for years. Like any other schmuck, I'm entitled to my opinion.

I like the sound of analogue better, and so do all the musicians I know who have heard the difference. You can call us dumb and stupid all you want...but they are not going to suddenly give up their valve amps nor are they suddenly going to love the sound of digital...It's far more likely that they will trash any digital gear they have ever wasted money on...

Some of us feel that digital is good for demo work...that's about it...

And as discussed above, digital fan boys seem to overlook the true costs of digital as well...

There is also a workflow issue too, plus the long-term preservation issue...

Digital has a nasty habit of virtually obsoleting much of the gear including playback systems overnight...In stark contrast, stuff done in standard analogue formats done 30, 40, 50 years ago can still be played...

At any rate...there is the preservation and the digital obsolescence issue...These problems will only become more complicated and a bigger headache for the digital fan boys as the technology moves forward...

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Fig on December 15, 2005, 03:51:08 pm
fadeout wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 20:55



I sincerely do NOT think that the attraction of tape is nostalgia, or some mass hysteria.




Excellent post, fadeout!

Not just the above statement, but the entire post, fabulous.

I couldn't agree more.

Warm analog regards,

Thom "Fig" Fiegle
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Malcolm Boyce on December 15, 2005, 04:38:47 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 14:20

Johhny B,

I love digital.





Ditto!

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 16:46

Sure, there's a debate going on, it's been going on for years. Like any other schmuck, I'm entitled to my opinion.

I like the sound of analogue better, and so do all the musicians I know who have heard the difference. You can call us dumb and stupid all you want...but they are not going to suddenly give up their valve amps nor are they suddenly going to love the sound of digital...It's far more likely that they will trash any digital gear they have ever wasted money on...

Some of us feel that digital is good for demo work...that's about it...



What I find interesting in most of these debates is that fans of digital have no problem understanding and accepting why there are fans of analog, but the analog die hards seem to take the position that digital users are nuts and/or deaf.

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 16:46


And as discussed above, digital fan boys seem to overlook the true costs of digital as well...



I know in my market, digital is the only medium I can afford to run for what I'm doing.

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 16:46


There is also a workflow issue too, plus the long-term preservation issue...

Digital has a nasty habit of virtually obsoleting much of the gear including playback systems overnight...In stark contrast, stuff done in standard analogue formats done 30, 40, 50 years ago can still be played...

With marvelous fidelity I'm sure...
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 16:46


At any rate...there is the preservation and the digital obsolescence issue...These problems will only become more complicated and a bigger headache for the digital fan boys as the technology moves forward...



I have heard of examples of things that were mixed to digital AND analog as recently as 20 years ago.  As part of the recent remastering frenzy, both formats were revisited in the hopes that a newer digital transfer of the analog mix would be of benefit.  In these cases, the analog tape was so far gone compared to the
20+ year old digital copy, that they decided to go with the "old" digital version for mastering.

The preservation of digital is getting easier, not more difficult from what I've seen, and heard.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 15, 2005, 05:35:40 pm
I suppose the preservation issue has to do with what you are trying to do and who you talk to...

Same with the fidelity issue...sure their are some digital fans boys with an example or two of SOMETHING...but I think you can get consistently better results from an analogue system and much faster too...many times a mix is just a matter of pulling up the faders whereas in digital there seems to be this endless fighting with the system..updates, downtime, glitches...I dunno maybe it's just me...

I think if you have people who can play together, you can get the job done in analogue more quickly and the players will often like the sound better...again...maybe it's just me...I just know what I like hearing better...and it's not Putty Fools...

OTOH, if I had a britney or someone who can't sing but looks great on-camera...well...there may be only one choice...but I don't have a britney or anyone like that to deal with either...or any of the potential fringe benefits that might go with it...Lucky me, aye?




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 15, 2005, 05:58:55 pm
When people talk about analog as a format that will archive longer or forever as an argument for using it, is the thought that one day the multi tracks will be re visited at one point and remixed by someone else in the future?  Not that I don't believe that masters shouldn't last forever.  

5.1? Whatever comes along?

In the few cases that original multi tracks have been re balanced just for the marketing spin, has anybody cared or even wanted to hear them?

Oh, and Johnny B., when you make claims about an pop singer that can sing or not sing, I trust you have actually worked with that person and not just making up stuff.  I know I have no first hand knowledge - maybe others do.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: thedoc on December 15, 2005, 06:04:33 pm
Getting briefly back to the subject of complete erasure....

I have never had to do an erase pass due to incomplete erasure of a track.  Even when using Scotch 250 (which was IMHO the best smelling tape of them all...)

However, to be fair, I never elevated past  +6.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 15, 2005, 06:41:33 pm
dcollins wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 01:59

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 20:51


you may learn something, remember something, or think about the cost issue in an entirely new way.



If irony has a black-hole, you can see it from here.

DC



...

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 12:27


Bob O's point is a good one. When there's a producer, there is some form of cost accounting going on...but when someone has some kind of digital rig in their home, the time spent on doing endless tweaks is normally not accounted for and treated as if it's free...it's not free...time has value...

And Bob K's earlier statement to the effect that analogue can be more cost effective seems to be well-reasoned.

Moreover, there's that difficult to account for "Sound Quality" factor and the musicians preference of what they really love to hear. Normally, that means the musicians prefer analogue.



...and the circle of inanity is complete...we're back to the theme that musicians prefer analogue...the black hole swallows itself...and no one is the wiser for it. yay.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ron Steele on December 15, 2005, 08:38:54 pm
OK,

analog is great for real rock music.

Do 6 weeks of pre-pro with a band and get every thing tight.

Remember, most bands need to learn their songs and arrangements and then learn to perform and play them as a band. If you do it this way, I would highly recommend recoding to 2" tape.

If you don't do it this way, your just wasting alot of other peoples time thinking you going to "sound better" because your recoding to analog. It borders on delusional otherwise.

If you are recording crappy bands that don't give a sh*t about their performance or how they sound, analog IS the way to go.

If you going to do hard rock and you know you have to edit the crap out of the group, even regardless of alot of pre-pro, you are still delusional if you think analog is going to make any difference at all in the sound or performance.

If your producing any kind of popular music ie.... dance, club, r&b or hiphop that entails the use of racked midi devices and sequencer softsyth loop based programs, you are definitely delusional if you think bumping all that cool stuff you tweaked ITB will all of sudden sound great by going to tape.  

How about all those young and pretty girl singers?

Record them to tape?

You better have the patience of god if you think analog is a good format for them.

How about scoring for tv and film?

Yeah, lets bump 48 tracks of giga and logic and kontakt and move it over to 2 24track machines so we can get the added benefits of the sound of tape.
And when the client calls for a mix revision and edit, let's see what he says when you tell him you'll need an additional 3 to 4 grand to make the requested revision, and you can't do it til next week because the room you tracked in is booked with a  rock session.

Jazz musicians?

They like both analog and digital, but care More about the room and the piano in it then the format.

What are we really talking about here?

I love both digital and analog.

But, there is obviously different stokes for different folks, and different reasons for the choices made about any given format.

And that's OK.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 15, 2005, 09:14:29 pm
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 22:35


....whereas in digital there seems to be this endless fighting with the system..updates, downtime, glitches...I dunno maybe it's just me...







Are you recording on a commodore 64?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 15, 2005, 09:58:36 pm
steve a wrote:

"Where did the mythology that fake is better than real come from?"

what you think is real is already fake

all you can do is the make the fake sound more real...or not

that's the production choice that you and i and everyone else makes


" As it turns out, I have also labored over records when that's required of me. I know from experience that the labored-over, time-intensive records are not generally better than those made more efficiently. They're different, sure, but not in any way categorically better. (Here is your opportunity to tell the world that they aren't better because I'm no good at my job.)"

how can they be better when you don't believe in the process


"I think it's demeaning to a band to suggest that their art, the thing they spend all their time and energy on, isn't already good enough, and that they should be ashamed of it as it already is."

it's arguable that if their art isn't good enough, they shouldn't be there in the first place

it's a kinda luddite approach to music production, to suggest that the art cannot be improved in the process, though

to me the art of a record starts with song, followed by the performance, followed by recording, followed by editing, followed by mixing, followed by mastering, followed by graphic design

each of those stages is supposed to enhance and improve (sometimes, in a major way) the cut/album



"I think these moments of expression have in-built qualities, and letting them be expressed is really important."

granted

"It is the lifes' work of the band, and I want them to have a shot at getting it out to the world the way they've always imagined it."

when i pick collaborators for my work, i want people who will add something i've never imagined

otherwise, i'll do it myself

"I think the things the band brings in to the studio are precious and unique, and we should respect them,"

GWS (goes without saying)

"not hustle-up our own fol-de-rol to layer on top ot them."

that is also a daily production choice you make

"For every great record you mention that was labored over, I'll give you a dozen counter-examples of untouchably great records that were knocked-off in a weekend. Ready? Go!"

ok, you're on

"After that, we'll go to the used record store, and I'll grab a hundred albums out of the "take it free, nobody wants it" pile that were slaved-over in an attempt to imbue them with a greatness they could never achieve because the fundamental ideas weren't strong enough, not because there weren't enough takes or overdubs."

exactly

they didn't spend enough time at some process of the game

it's 99% perspiration, after all

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on December 16, 2005, 12:05:07 am
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 11:27

...When there's a producer, there is some form of cost accounting going on...
Actually not cost accounting. It's the ability to see the forest from the trees. I'm thinking very specifically of Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson and Marvin Gaye. Each could be produced five times faster by someone else AND each could produce someone else five times as fast as they could themselves.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 16, 2005, 12:14:35 am
Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 21:05

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 11:27

...When there's a producer, there is some form of cost accounting going on...
Actually not cost accounting. It's the ability to see the forest from the trees. I'm thinking very specifically of Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson and Marvin Gaye. Each could be produced five times faster by someone else AND each could produce someone else five times as fast as they could themselves.


If a record is a hit, nobody cares if it was over budget or under budget.

If it's a stiff, both are over budget.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: jetbase on December 16, 2005, 02:17:44 am

[/quote]

I agree.  I was responding to someone saying they were punching in on one track and that somehow analog was limiting them to that way of working.  I don't see analog as limiting.
[/quote]

perhaps my post, which you were responding to, wasn't worded clearly enough (or maybe it's my accent). in relation to the limitations of analogue i was thinking more in terms of editing rather than track count. and maybe i should of said that "i like that analogue forces you to be more disciplined" instead of "i like it's limitations". in relation to punching in on one track (or sometimes two or three), i was talking about a preference in methods of working & not saying one way was better than the other. i'm always interested in methods other than the ones i personally use & what may be the benefits & pitfalls of those methods. btw, i only have one analogue recorder, so technically i am limited in my track count on analogue, though i don't feel the need to expand on that at the moment.

cheers,
glenn

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 16, 2005, 03:12:04 am

I think most of the time when there is a producer on the premises, there's *someone* around watching the budget and taking account of what things cost...that dod not men they will do the right kind of accounting...just that they may be keeping better track

Now contrast that with the mind-numbing time spent by people fooling with digital in their homes...where people delude themselves into thinking it's all free...free time...free electricity...free computer...free software...free upgrades...free hardware interfaces...and so on....

My overriding point is that with proper cost accounting be applied, digital can be far more expensive than analogue...all things properly considered...

What this really means is that a large part of the agrument in favor of digital advanced by the digital fan boys which is based on cost considerations in really lame. This is especially so when in many cases an analogue project can be far cheaper to do.

IOW, if they want to argue for digital they will have do so on some other basis besides cost.






Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Gone on December 16, 2005, 04:38:34 am
Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 19:38

OK,


What are we really talking about here?





I thought, originally, we were talking specifically about the sonic qualities or aesthetic differences between analog and digital. Which seems to be a completely different question that what's more convenient, flexible, expensive, editable, etc...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: RMoore on December 16, 2005, 07:25:57 am
All I know is when everytime I have some drum and bass tracks built up on my MCI 1' 8 track and copy that into my DAW (Logic)  the difference in sound is just sad, it brings tears to my eyes but what can you do - that is the price of progress!
Title: Band self-producing. Was---why analog.
Post by: bobkatz on December 16, 2005, 07:44:51 am
About time we switch gears and talk about a topic that is near and dear to Steve's heart. It's called the "hands-on producer".

electrical wrote on Thu, 15 December 2005 01:47



I think it's demeaning to a band to suggest that their art, the thing they spend all their time and energy on, isn't already good enough, and that they should be ashamed of it as it already is. I think these moments of expression have in-built qualities




And the magic of the moment and the mood of the musicians in that moment, is the most important part... for records that are created by performances.

However, I recall a moment when the magic was happening, but the musicians were somehow not happy with the performance take on one tune. It was a bit of intricate perfectionism in notation that in my opinon was not as important as the feel of the tune. But what do I know, I was only the engineer  Smile.

It was the end of a long 4 day set of takes for a jazz album. So they went home, but rescheduled a session for a month later, flew the drummer in from Chicago, and did countless retakes of just one tune. They picked a take from that second session, but in my opinion, the magic had been lost; they had gotten so bogged down in the perfectionism of some inner moment in the music that they had lost the feel of the band and the groove. It wasn't my place to speak up; the "producer" was a very hands-off type and the band was really directing what was to be recorded and what takes were to be accepted. I think deep down in their hearts they knew also that the magic had been lost, but the leader had his say and they picked the "perfect take" that had no heart. That's what can happen, Steve, when the band self-produces, you know.

What do you all do in those instances? Steve  seems to be a very nice, "hands-off" type of producer, but as you know, there are bands that need a bit of "psychological help" now and then. That's where a producer can really help, I feel. "That take was great, let's move on."

BK
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 16, 2005, 08:03:29 am
Johnny B wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 03:12



Now contrast that with the mind-numbing time spent by people fooling with digital in their homes...where people delude themselves into thinking it's all free...free time...free electricity...free computer...free software...free upgrades...free hardware interfaces...and so on....

My overriding point is that with proper cost accounting be applied, digital can be far more expensive than analogue...all things properly considered...

What this really means is that a large part of the agrument in favor of digital advanced by the digital fan boys which is based on cost considerations in really lame. This is especially so when in many cases an analogue project can be far cheaper to do.

IOW, if they want to argue for digital they will have do so on some other basis besides cost.





You think those same people recording analog at home could do so without electricity or buying tape? A a pair of 2" machines a massive board will draw far more juice than the digital eqivalent.

I can run my room for a very long time before touching the costs of the 2 2" machines and an appropriate board not to mention the redesign of the building to accomodate all of that massive equipment.

If you had the first clue about accounting you would understand the difference between fixed costs and variable costs which is what we are talking about when comparing working at home vs working in a commercial room. I spend 8-10 hours a week working on one thing or another. Thats $2000 a week @ 200 an hr. Thats $300,000 over a 3 year period. You can build one hell of a digital setup for around 50k. When you consider the costs of mics, monitors etc are a wash regardless of platform I fail to see how you can even begin to make the cost claim when it comes to working at home vs a commercial room and I am not even considering the value of an always on always available space. We haven't even begun to discuss the costs of storage space for the tape or the environmental control that will be necessary to keep  those tapes playable long term.

I also don't understand  why you think people have to upgrade PC's and related gear annually. Some people choose to but thats not a necessity by any means. People used to replace effects monthly in analog setups too.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Malcolm Boyce on December 16, 2005, 11:33:18 am
Denny W. wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 09:03


I also don't understand  why you think people have to upgrade PC's and related gear annually. Some people choose to but thats not a necessity by any means. People used to replace effects monthly in analog setups too.


I've been using the same digi setup for 18 months now... no upgrade planned in the near future.  I'm very happy with how the rig works, and I don't have the "must have the biggest, fastest" fever.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 16, 2005, 01:55:11 pm
Quote:

All I know is when everytime I have some drum and bass tracks built up on my MCI 1' 8 track and copy that into my DAW (Logic) the difference in sound is just sad, it brings tears to my eyes but what can you do - that is the price of progress!

True that.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 16, 2005, 01:58:39 pm
vernier wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 10:55

Quote:

All I know is when everytime I have some drum and bass tracks built up on my MCI 1' 8 track and copy that into my DAW (Logic) the difference in sound is just sad, it brings tears to my eyes but what can you do - that is the price of progress!

True that.


Maybe the "price" of progress is better converters?

(hey, I thought it was funny)
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 16, 2005, 03:12:35 pm
Re: the cost accounting issue: I've already provided a link to great award-winning book on the topic that people of average intelligence can comprehend...People can read it and get ideas of how stupid accounting mistakes are made which lead to dumb decisions. My major point is that digital fan boys do *not* have a good argument re: costs because they are simply overlooking many of the costs of digital.

Some of the digital fan boys can stick to their mantissas and bad digital math rounding errors and attempting to fight with some of the other anomalies of digital...

Maybe with faster and more robust Next Gen Chips they will get it right...maybe in another 5 to 10 years...I dunno...

For now, I still don't like the way most digital sounds nor do I like the way it behaves...I happen to agree with those musicians who prefer the sound of analogue...




Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 16, 2005, 03:21:41 pm
It is noted that Johnny B does not like digital.

Also noted that he has read a book on cost accounting and believes he knows better than others in this regard.

There is nothing left to discuss with him on this topic.

The end.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 16, 2005, 03:39:29 pm
Ignore lists rule! Kind of like medicinal pot.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 16, 2005, 03:46:51 pm




Smile
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 16, 2005, 03:48:44 pm
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 20:21

It is noted that Johnny B does not like digital.

Also noted that he has read a book on cost accounting and believes he knows better than others in this regard.



Agree with the first sentence...but I would not go as far as you did in your second sentence...I merely provided a resource so people can judge for themselves whether digital is an exorbitant or an excessive cost...

Attempting to do digital in anything like a professional manner is certainly not cheap...as some are wont to claim...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 16, 2005, 05:30:14 pm
Johnny B wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 15:48

rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 20:21

It is noted that Johnny B does not like digital.

Also noted that he has read a book on cost accounting and believes he knows better than others in this regard.



Agree with the first sentence...but I would not go as far as you did in your second sentence...I merely provided a resource so people can judge for themselves whether digital is an exorbitant or an excessive cost...

Attempting to do digital in anything like a professional manner is certainly not cheap...as some are wont to claim...



Ok, your views are duly noted by actual recording engineers who have actual degrees in business administration who have actually used most of the analog and digital recorders in existance (and a few that are are actually obsolete). Please shut up now.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 16, 2005, 08:30:43 pm
You know John S....(or should I say Mr. Mantissa breath) you really are a horse's ass...

And for Christ's sake, brush your teeth old man...

If you have so much talent, how come you are such a dud...

Or that's right...all the AES awards, grammy's, and platinum records are hanging on your wall right next to all those IEEE awards for chip design...

OTOH, people are not convinced by them because they know they are either faked-up rubbish or they figure that you bought them at some pawn shop...

If you don't like analogue, why don't you just go someplace reserved for the digital fan boys..


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 16, 2005, 09:35:34 pm
Johnny B wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 20:30

You know John S....(or should I say Mr. Mantissa breath) you really are a horse's ass...

And for Christ's sake, brush your teeth old man...

If you have so much talent, how come you are such a dud...

Or that's right...all the AES awards, grammy's, and platinum records are hanging on your wall right next to all those IEEE awards for chip design...

OTOH, people are not convinced by them because they know they are either faked-up rubbish or they figure that you bought them at some pawn shop...

If you don't like analogue, why don't you just go someplace reserved for the digital fan boys..




I've been called worse things by smarter people. But still I may frame this one - it's an instant classic.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 16, 2005, 09:44:56 pm
Digital Fan Boy is not a bad name for a Techno/Trance project.

Goofy in terms of what it's being used for here - very 11 year old like - but not bad for a Japanese Girl Pop group or something.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 16, 2005, 10:51:47 pm
johhny b wrote:

" "rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 20:21

It is noted that Johnny B does not like digital.

Also noted that he has read a book on cost accounting and believes he knows better than others in this regard.:"


Agree with the first sentence...but I would not go as far as you did in your second sentence..."

so, you haven't even read the book

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 16, 2005, 11:45:33 pm
Good job fellas, this thread has really grown.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 17, 2005, 01:52:36 am
Sorensen doesn't like analog?  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 17, 2005, 09:20:58 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 01:52

Sorensen doesn't like analog?  


Not only that, but apparently I don't brush my teeth. You can tell that because my breath smells of mantissa, which is apparently the fractional part of a number to the right of a decimal place. I know that, of course, because of my seminal work on the subject in an IEEE award winning paper - "The correlation of word length rounding error and dither with erroneous cost-accounting in digital audio". It's available from Harvard Business School's publisher. Get it while it's hot.

So Miles indicated his dissatisfaction with the direction of the thread, and who can blame him? The thread was useful from the point of view of the discussion of erasure issues. The debate about analog vs digital is a dead horse. In the end, some folks convolve artistic process, studio practices, sonic preferences, media cost, software/hardware cost (purchase price), and hardware cost (maintenance), hardware cost (downtime), and the nature of obsolescence (useful life of hardware/software). And, in the end, it's quite difficult to generalize because the analysis will be different depending on your perspective (client vs proprietor), the nature of the music (rock, modern jazz, classical - they're all different), budget, and so on and so forth. If you go on location to record modern classical in a church in a remote area using your own gear your mindset is necessarily different from going to Hollyweird to record Sum 182 in a 5 room facility with full time maintenance. They're different things entirely. The debate derailed on this thread because of the presence of persons who either deliberately try to be difficult, or who have no experience, or ...well, I'll avoid being uncharitable and not finish this sentence.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 17, 2005, 11:21:37 am
John, you digitard, you.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 17, 2005, 12:31:25 pm
That's it!

Artist: Digital Fan Boy

Album: Digitard

Label: Harvard Business Digital Media

Track listing:

1.  Upgrade

2.  Upgrade Pt 2

3.  My New Computer

4.  My Newer Computer

5.  My Newest Computer

6.  Upgrade Pt 3

7.  Incompatible (Duet with Nat King Cole)

8.  The Missing File

9.  Bottom End Shocker

10. Postal!
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 17, 2005, 02:26:37 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 09:20

J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 01:52

Sorensen doesn't like analog?  


Not only that, but apparently I don't brush my teeth. You can tell that because my breath smells of mantissa, which is apparently the fractional part of a number to the right of a decimal place.





That is quite a relief, I could only think of a couple other possibilities, all inappropriate!

I know, I could have been charitable, and kept it to myself.. sorry.

Carry on, but Randy has to be home for dinner.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 17, 2005, 03:29:34 pm
maxim wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 03:51



so, you haven't even read the book





Oh no, I've read that book and many others like it in school...I'm also exposed to this kind of thinking quite a bit since my father-in-law is a CPA...And I've also had to sit on the Board of Directors of some...emmm....smallish...multi-million-dollar corporations...Some were non-profits, some were for-profit....In any case, it's not always a pleasant task...

In my case, besides the school, the accounting processes sort of rubbed off on me...and now I'm ruined forever...

But without seeing all the true costs accurately laid out on a spreadsheet, I would never make the wild claim that digital is cheaper than analogue...In many cases, I suspect that digital is far more expensive...even excessive in true cost...

Now it is the holiday season, I hope that I can state an opinion and read other's opinions which disagree with my own without any further resort to personal name-calling...

I apologise, for some of my above remarks as they may have been inappropriate...

Hopefully, we can all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Best Wishes to all in this Holiday Season.

 
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 17, 2005, 04:26:13 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 20:29



But without seeing all the true costs accurately laid out on a spreadsheet, I would never make the wild claim that digital is cheaper than analogue..

But you HAVE already made the wild claim that analogue is cheaper than digital
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 20:29


.In many cases, I suspect that digital is far more expensive...even excessive in true cost...


I'm glad you don't do my accounts. One of those companies you helped out at wasn't Enron by any chance was it?
I would say that there are actually very few scenarios where analogue would be cheaper than digital, claims about "endless editing" aren't valid, because that is a difference in workflow which is allowed, BUT NOT FORCED, by digital.
Of course you're welcome to propose a scenario where using digital equipment would lead to an increase in cost.
I can think of two, but that's it.
Of course there are also a number of scenarios where it would be practically impossible to achive the same results using analogue gear, but we can't cost compare those can we?
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 20:29


Now it is the holiday season, I hope that I can state an opinion and read other's opinions which disagree with my own without any further resort to personal name-calling...


Speaking as a former Digital Fanboy (I've long since qualified and as Digital Maths Scoundrel) and in support of a Horse's Arse I think we all hope you can avoid resorting to more personal name calling.
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 20:29


I apologise, for some of my above remarks as they may have been inappropriate...


They certainly were, John's Gold and Platinum records are real, as are his Grammies.
I'm guessing here, but I'll bet at least some of them were achieved using analogue equipment.
How about yours?
Johnny B wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 20:29


Best Wishes to all in this Holiday Season.
 

On this at least we agree.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 17, 2005, 04:43:21 pm
rnicklaus wrote on Sat, 17 December 2005 17:31

That's it!

Artist: Digital Fan Boy

Album: Digitard

Label: Harvard Business Digital Media

Track listing:

1.  Upgrade

2.  Upgrade Pt 2

3.  My New Computer

4.  My Newer Computer

5.  My Newest Computer

6.  Upgrade Pt 3

7.  Incompatible (Duet with Nat King Cole)

8.  The Missing File

9.  Bottom End Shocker

10. Postal!


The DVD release will have two bonus tracks,

11. I think the driver's buggy

and

12. Oh shit! Not another reboot
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 17, 2005, 08:28:13 pm
Freaky, homeschooled, analog huggers..

1. Reeltards

2. Pancakechyderms

3. Roller/Bladers

5. There is no 4, cavemen and drummers can't count (no offense to cavemen)
6. How many extra db they like to 'hit it' with.

7. Assetaters

8. Biased SOBs

9. Refer to 4

10. "Hey, Boss!"


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 17, 2005, 09:20:41 pm
Emmm, I may have mixed up a couple of the Johns here...I apologise for that...

OTOH, when guys seem to always be pimping for digital...it's easy to see how one might get the names confused...

Although, as alluded to above, if you have a problem with digital, chances are the source of those problems were caused by the Digital Math Scoundrels...

Best Wishes to all, have a happy hoilday season...





.



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 17, 2005, 09:38:58 pm
johhny b wrote:

"Emmm, I may have mixed up a couple of the Johns here...I apologise for that..."

you must have been thinking of yourself
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 18, 2005, 01:47:09 am
Quote:

How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?

We like it cuz, soundwise, we don't want to settle for less.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 18, 2005, 04:47:47 am
I have another question...

If Digital is as godawful as many people here like to claim, not only in audio terms, but also in hassle and now some say even in cost, then how come so many very successful producers, engineers and musicians, guys with great ears, experience and talent, many of whom can afford to use whaetever they want, are quite happy to use it for some or all of their recording and production process?



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 18, 2005, 07:46:30 am
Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 04:47

I have another question...

If Digital is as godawful as many people here like to claim, not only in audio terms, but also in hassle and now some say even in cost, then how come so many very successful producers, engineers and musicians, guys with great ears, experience and talent, many of whom can afford to use whaetever they want, are quite happy to use it for some or all of their recording and production process?






I have asked this very question a few times on these boards and no one ever answers..... I hope you have better luck because I really would like to hear the answers....
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 18, 2005, 09:37:29 am
Because digital is extremely convenient, and the average person cannot tell the difference in the short-term.

they will notice a difference after long-term exposure, going back to analog.. the 'live feel' comes back  more into the listening experience.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 18, 2005, 09:44:33 am
maxdimario wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 09:37

Because digital is extremely convenient, and the average person cannot tell the difference in the short-term.

they will notice a difference after long-term exposure, going back to analog.. the 'live feel' comes back  more into the listening experience.


can you cite research that supports your contention? (ignoring for a moment that it is inherently difficult to quantify what 'live feel' is supposed to mean)
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 18, 2005, 10:14:34 am
maxdimario wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 14:37

Because digital is extremely convenient, and the average person cannot tell the difference in the short-term.


But I'm not talking about average people, I'm talking about people for whom sound is not only their profession, but their vocation, they care passionately about the quality of their work, and have the ears, knowledge and talent to achieve it.

And I'm not talking about the short term, some of these guys have been involved in digital recording for 20 years or more... and had plenty of experience in analogue only setups before that.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bobkatz on December 18, 2005, 10:29:30 am
Denny W. wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 07:46

Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 04:47

I have another question...

If Digital is as godawful as many people here like to claim, not only in audio terms, but also in hassle and now some say even in cost, then how come so many very successful producers, engineers and musicians, guys with great ears, experience and talent, many of whom can afford to use whaetever they want, are quite happy to use it for some or all of their recording and production process?






I have asked this very question a few times on these boards and no one ever answers..... I hope you have better luck because I really would like to hear the answers....



George Massenburg prefers digital mixing and tracking, but no one on this forum or anywhere can dispute the beautiful sounds that he knows how to get. It's knowledge of the craft.

Similarly, in mastering, I've seen two engineers get very similar-sounding results with entirely different chains, one analog, one digital. It's the talent of the engineer that counts more than the gear he chooses.

Here are some reasons why they may prefer the digital:

Because:

a) they've learned to work with it and deal with its own weaknesses and exploit its advantages, AND they know how to patch in good ol' fashioned analog gear when they are looking for a sound they cannot get digitally, AND they use superior converters and sample rates to get superior results. AND they have learned certain tricks like how to use frequency-sensitive parallel compression to get an "analog" sound.

Let us not forget on the other hand, that some other engineers prefer analog because that works best for them. It takes a long time to become fluent in a language, and it takes a long time to develop methods and techniques that work, so why change horses unless there is really and truly a better horse?

b) they may prefer the workflow

c) they may prefer a feeling of "transparency" to "warmth", whatever that means
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 18, 2005, 12:43:15 pm
Emmm, correct me if I'm wrong but GM still utilises tube or valve mics for certain applications. Moreover, his views on improving the AD/DA converters in digital are fairly well known...maybe even legendary

Further, it is said he really loves those new 100kHz Sanken mics...heh...heh...

Perhaps, in the hands of a great guitar player a solid state amp can be made to sound great...just as a great engineer and producer can get great sounds from bad talent and bad gear...but most guitar players will opt for a valve or tube amp over a solid state amp when they are given a real choice...

I think we may begin to see a trend where the talent who can make such decisions will begin to insist on tracking and mixing in analogue...






Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 18, 2005, 01:03:20 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 09:43



I think we may begin to see a trend where the talent who can make such decisions will begin to insist on tracking and mixing in analogue...




Where do you get this info?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 18, 2005, 01:11:23 pm
rnicklaus wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 18:03

Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 09:43



I think we may begin to see a trend where the talent who can make such decisions will begin to insist on tracking and mixing in analogue...




Where do you get this info?



The same place he read John's CV.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 18, 2005, 01:27:58 pm
Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 13:11

rnicklaus wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 18:03

Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 09:43



I think we may begin to see a trend where the talent who can make such decisions will begin to insist on tracking and mixing in analogue...




Where do you get this info?



The same place he read John's CV.



I didn't know that my CV was included in boxes of Cracker Jacks. I mean, I think it belongs there, but I didn't think that it was already there Smile

In any case, just to split hairs, there's a difference between the definitive language that JB sometimes uses and language he chose in the quotation above. He 'thinks we may begin to see a trend'....a pretty equivocal statement. It isn't really info - it's opinion. Personally, I think we may see a trend towards flying pigs in the near future.

Considering JB's opinion is the opinion of a nameless, traceless sock-puppet who tirelessless reiterates the same 'analog rulz digital droolz' commentary in a factual and analytical vacuum - while occasionally flying off the handle then offering sheepish half-apologies when he sobers up - we can take it for what it's worth.

Nuttin.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 18, 2005, 01:36:39 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43

Emmm, correct me if I'm wrong but GM still utilises tube or valve mics for certain applications. Moreover, his views on improving the AD/DA converters in digital are fairly well known...maybe even legendary

Further, it is said he really loves those new 100kHz Sanken mics...heh...heh...

Perhaps, in the hands of a great guitar player a solid state amp can be made to sound great...just as a great engineer and producer can get great sounds from bad talent and bad gear...but most guitar players will opt for a valve or tube amp over a solid state amp when they are given a real choice...

I think we may begin to see a trend where the talent who can make such decisions will begin to insist on tracking and mixing in analogue...









Johnny B,

You can never make bad talent sound great. Mediocre at best. No amount of gear, be it analogue or digital, or engineering prowess will make something sound great if the source material isn't up to par.

Most people here like the sound of analogue. After all, isn't that what we're all trying to capture. How we capture it is where the argument becomes subjective. Sm58 or U47, solid-state mic pre or valve pre, All tube guitar amps or Line6 pod, pro tools or 2inch tape. All the listed items here are not fundamentally wrong or better. Great records have been made using every conceivable format. One is not fundamentally better than the other. Just different.

All you seem to be content doing is bashing digital because you believe that analogue (which is a very broad term) is superior. Again that's fine. If it works for you, then use it. But.....your incessant bleating that anyone who uses digital is a digital fan boy is just plain tiresome at this stage. This argument has, once again, degenerated into the "I can run faster than you" variety.

BTW I can run faster than you.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 18, 2005, 01:38:16 pm
In Tape Op, Ross Hogarth discusses a new female artist that insisted:

"I want to record to tape."

Her name is Holly Brook. Her album "Like Blood, Like Honey" should be out on Warners next year.





Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 18, 2005, 01:44:28 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43

Emmm, correct me if I'm wrong but GM still utilises tube or valve mics for certain applications.


And your point is?
It is well recognized that valve gear can impart a distinctive and often desirable sonic signature onto a signal, the fact that sometimes you use it to get an effect you desire doesn't even begin to imply that there is anything wrong with the system you are recording on. If digital was as bad as you like to claim, then George wouldn't use it anywhere in his recording chain.
I'm not questioning the fact that analogue gear can sound fabulous, I'm questioning your repeated assertion that digital gear all sounds terrible.
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43

Moreover, his views on improving the AD/DA converters in digital are fairly well known...maybe even legendary


I'd be interested to hear his recent opinions on these matters, so far the most recent I've found has been from nearly 10 years ago.
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43

Further, it is said he really loves those new 100kHz Sanken mics...heh...heh...


So far the only person I've seen saying that is you, but even if it's true it doesn't mean much, because
a) George Massenburg loves many microphones, including previous Sanken models, many of which will have frequency responses which don't even reach 20kHz.
b) Anyone who can read a microphone frequency response graph can tell that the Sanken 100k mic would have a distinctive (and possibly very desirable in some cases) sonic signature even if the listener could only hear to 16kHz.
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43


Perhaps, in the hands of a great guitar player a solid state amp can be made to sound great...just as a great engineer and producer can get great sounds from bad talent and bad gear...but most guitar players will opt for a valve or tube amp over a solid state amp when they are given a real choice...


Given a soundproof room so I could crank it at home and a roady to carry it to gigs, then probably yes...

But when I plug a guitar into an amp I WANT it to distort and add harmonics, affect dynamics  and stamp a distinctive tonal signature on it.

On the other hand I want a recording system to give me back what I put in it.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 18, 2005, 02:03:55 pm
I hate this thread.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: pipelineaudio on December 18, 2005, 02:18:07 pm
Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43

Emmm, correct me if I'm wrong but GM still utilises tube or valve mics for certain applications.


oooooook

Ive seen this before by special people who somehow fuse analog vs digital with tubes vs ss

You can use either with either

Thats pretty much like arguing solid vs liquid propellants in rocket engines, with red wine vs white wine in seafood meals
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 18, 2005, 02:24:04 pm
Anybody getting that weird sense of d
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: polypal on December 18, 2005, 02:30:05 pm
What a lot of energy, time and talent wasted!
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 18, 2005, 02:48:17 pm
polypal wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 19:30

What a lot of energy, time and talent wasted!


Yeah! That's the one.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 18, 2005, 03:33:15 pm
I hear you get a free John Sorensen in every box.

If this thread were a ramp, we could jump Snake River on a tricycle.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 18, 2005, 05:03:44 pm
I still hate this thread.

Your axe belongs to a dying nation.  They don't know that they own you.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 18, 2005, 05:36:46 pm
DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 15:33

I hear you get a free John Sorensen in every box.



Be careful you don't choke on me.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 18, 2005, 11:13:32 pm
Look John,

I've tried to like digital...really...I just don't like the sound of it...

I don't think I'm alone...

This is an analogue forum and ought not be polluted by the digital fan boys' lemming-like repetition of the digital gear pimp's marketing hype...

As it is, I think the current AD/DA chips in digital are weak, wimpy, and emasculated little pieces of silly-con shit...

I think the digital math scoundrels will need another 5 to 10 years of dicking around to  get the AD/DA chips right...

Then again, I'm told Intel got the exclusive rights to a few Chinese wizards who came out of UC Berkeley and these fellows came up with the tech where they can cram something like 400 transistors in the space that everyone takes for a single transistor...Motorola, AMD, and everyone else is playing catch up...You should see this new Intel chip in the new Apple products come January...Point being that the tech can make leaps and bounds virtually overnight and it may take less than the 5 to 10 years I'm predicting for digital to be robust enough for my taste...

Cheers... Very Happy

///
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 18, 2005, 11:17:34 pm
Anybody getting that weird sense of d
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 19, 2005, 12:07:19 am
This is all just,, strange,,or,, crazy ,, or some other word I can't come up with.. Jeez,, I thought this was all "solved" already.

I really like the sound of well done Tape. I'm sure most folks like it.. I have now, over the last three years, learned a lot more about how to properly use digital recording devices. While I certainly will be finding a tape machine for multi tracking my own tunes, I have found that I can  and do get fine results using all the digital stuff I have around here. It's a dead issue!!


Johnny B,, I get the impression that you don't,with any real frequency , have to concern yourself with the things that will either make a record sound great, or not so great. The songs, the players, the mics, the pre's, making sure you hit the red button on the take you almost let get away, keeping the vibe great and cerebrating the music.. . The list goes on and on. Providing that we are talking about relatively high quality gear in general here, I will get fine results from any pro  format you put in front of me.. IMHO, We should all be able to do this.. I can not speak for Steve but,, I would assume that although he loves  analog, he could produce great recordings on a DAW if that's what he had to do, At the end of the day, I'm quite sure it would still be about the band and the tunes.

In my opinion, a good engineer can use any of these tools and make a GREAT,not just a good record.

Fella's,,?? talk about this erase problem some more, I was learning a lot. My 440-B erases just fine while recording over the old tracks. No problem..

Ivan................

EDIT: to properly spell Devices,, Good God!@#$% Now I can't spell?? Normule I kin#$%^&*(
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: minister on December 19, 2005, 12:19:00 am
ivan40 wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 23:07

 ella's,,?? talk about this erase problem some more, I was learning a lot.
well, i started with the "ignore this user" on johnny b and, well, i get no bleed (or bleat) through, talkback...just fresh clean air!

why do you people entertain this hootenanny?  c'mon, pretned he isn't here and he will go away!

surely this is a topic worth discussing and debating! but with this level of demonstrable "knowledge" i am amazed at your guys' patience.

but, what do i know, it is butt-a$$ cold where i chose to live.  how smart is that?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 19, 2005, 01:01:13 am
this is kinda fun... masochistic fun, but fun, nevertheless
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 19, 2005, 01:10:52 am
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 04:13



This is an analogue forum and ought not be polluted by the digital fan boys' lemming-like repetition of the digital gear pimp's marketing hype...

As it is, I think the current AD/DA chips in digital are weak, wimpy, and emasculated little pieces of silly-con shit...

I think the digital math scoundrels will need another 5 to 10 years of dicking around to  get the AD/DA chips right...



///



We know all of this Johnny B. You've told us a thousand times before. In Bold letters. What I would like to know is what exactly you are referring to. When you say AD/DA chips. Which are the weak ones? When you say analogue are you referring to tape or outboard? If it's tape you're referring to which machine(s)? What kind of tape?

On what authority do you speak when you say stuff like "I think the digital math scoundrels will need another 5 to 10 years of dicking around to  get the AD/DA chips right...". How are you qualified to say this? What do you know of the practical aspects of any of the stuff you've ranted about?

My head hurts....
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 19, 2005, 01:37:10 am
John Sorensen wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:36

DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 15:33

I hear you get a free John Sorensen in every box.



Be careful you don't choke on me.





Please keep John Sorenson inside until the car comes to a complete stop.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 19, 2005, 01:42:49 am
Quote:

 Fella's,,?? talk about this erase problem some more, I was learning a lot.

I had the problem once ...needed to erase two or three times, but haven't had the problem since.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 19, 2005, 02:44:58 am
pipelineaudio wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 14:18

Johnny B wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 17:43

Emmm, correct me if I'm wrong but GM still utilises tube or valve mics for certain applications.


oooooook

Ive seen this before by special people who somehow fuse analog vs digital with tubes vs ss

You can use either with either

Thats pretty much like arguing solid vs liquid propellants in rocket engines, with red wine vs white wine in seafood meals


Exactly.

According to Johnny B. all analog sounds better than all digital. He is saying that a Tascam 4 track cassette player with low bias -50dB noise floor tape, -40dB crosstalk and 10 dollar stock mic pre's, sounds better than recording to a Harrison Engine using MS-10 mic-pre's.

Gee, why the 500,000 dollar cost difference. We should all record on Tascam cassette recorders with shit mic pre's, not only cost effective, but sounds so much better than digital.

You can't teach people that make blanket statements anything, when they don't have a clue. They don't have a clue because they don't conduct tests with proper parameters. They don't know the limitations of their own ears and they continue to make arguements based on speculation from being greatly misinformed.

While it's mildly interesting at times to see intelligent people trying to teach a brick wall something that will improve it, what gets me is that the brick wall still absorbs nothing. Can find nothing that the experienced engineers, including some ace converter designers such as Lavry, present to them at their own expense of time, to embellish. It's always the same weak and stringy argument, with never so much as one hint of, yes I see your point, or yes, I understand what you are saying. No, with Johnny B. it's always an arguement with no amount of understanding to meet in the middle and learn from the bottom up, instead of trying to do it from the top down. LIke a teenager that knows everything, they typically grow out of it and realize that there elders have already been there, done that, but I've lost all hope for JOhnny B. He'll never learn a damn thing, because he thinks he is so right. His mind is absolutely closed to logic, even when it's slapped in his face by the people that write the books on annie and digi recording.  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 19, 2005, 02:29:49 pm
No matter where this thread (and the others that precede it.. and will follow.....) goes, the difference is between analog and digital machines actually used in the making of records.

every other kind of machine doesn't really relate: from the tascam cassette-ic-portastudio to the 'theoretically perfect' recorder...which is often the last to come out.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 19, 2005, 02:49:44 pm
Emmm, I learned from GM not to trust Lavry Converters on an important project...that's some learning...No?

Maybe if DL would get off his anti-increased speed kick he might learn a thing of two himself from other designers out there...Ah, forget it...he's too stuck in his narrow-minded view...But if you like slow...be my guest...

Nah, it's gonna take a lot more speed for those AD/DA chips to ever get up to snuff...they are too slow, too weak, and too wimpy to even capture let alone reproduce the 104kHz coming off the cymbals that CalTech Professor Boyk measured...

Oh, and don't ever forget the "real" science which proves that so-called inaudible HFC's hit the brain's pleasure centres...But the current chips are too slow and too emasculated to really work well on people's pleasure centres according to the scientific researchers findings...

And, one luddite's goofy math theory will not change the fact that digital is in serious need of some major improvements in the tech...like a lot more speed and bit-depth...

Hey, but you Digital Fan Boys can disagree all you want...My ears tell me that analogue sounds better

Please let me know when you are going to junk your obsolete digital gear as I know people who desire more boat anchors...








Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 19, 2005, 03:05:46 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 14:49

Emmm, I learned from GM not to trust Lavry Converters on an important project...that's some learning...No?

Maybe if DL would get off his anti-increased speed kick he might learn a thing of two himself from other designers out there...Ah, forget it...he's too stuck in his narrow-minded view...But if you like slow...be my guest...

Nah, it's gonna take a lot more speed for those AD/DA chips to ever get up to snuff...they are too slow, too weak, and too wimpy to even capture let alone reproduce the 104kHz coming off the cymbals that CalTech Professor Boyk measured...

Oh, and don't ever forget the "real" science which proves that so-called inaudible HFC's hit the brain's pleasure centres...But the current chips are too slow and too emasculated to really work well on people's pleasure centres according to the scientific researchers findings...

And, one luddite's goofy math theory will not change the fact that digital is in serious need of some major improvements in the tech...like a lot more speed and bit-depth...

Hey, but you Digital Fan Boys can disagree all you want...My ears tell me that analogue sounds better

Please let me know when you are going to junk your obsolete digital gear as I know people who desire more boat anchors...












OK,, can I get more kick drum in the wedges please?? Oh, and,, take the damn organ out of the fills... Thanks.......

Ivan..........
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Len on December 19, 2005, 04:11:08 pm
Well those of you who know JohnnyB from the old SSS Political Forum from musicplayer.com know that JB only takes one extreme position and anything else is crap.  There is no point reasoning with him.  On that board, he gave liberals (like me) a bad name.  JB, please, you don't need to be the Ann Coulter of analogue.  If you prefer analogue, that's fine, but it doesn't mean everyone else who does not share that point of view should be maligned.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: pipelineaudio on December 19, 2005, 04:46:46 pm
Leonard Ng wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 21:11

Well those of you who know JohnnyB from the old SSS Political Forum from musicplayer.com know that JB only takes one extreme position and anything else is crap.  There is no point reasoning with him.  On that board, he gave liberals (like me) a bad name.  JB, please, you don't need to be the Ann Coulter of analogue.  If you prefer analogue, that's fine, but it doesn't mean everyone else who does not share that point of view should be maligned.



Holy crap that's THAT Johnny B ????

Seems like they were both blanket statement talking head parrots, and I had wondered myself before, but I thought "surely that couldnt be"

This explains a lot
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 19, 2005, 04:50:41 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 14:49

Nah, it's gonna take a lot more speed for those AD/DA chips to ever get up to snuff...they are too slow, too weak, and too wimpy to even capture let alone reproduce the 104kHz coming off the cymbals that CalTech Professor Boyk measured...

Hey, but you Digital Fan Boys can disagree all you want...My ears tell me that analogue sounds better



Don't misunderstand me - I realize I am responding to Johnny B, the most incorrigible troll to accost a music-related site since Jarl Sigurd....but....for the sake of any impressionable young 'uns out there that care, I offer the following;

NO analog deck is flat DC-to-light. I've done about half a gazillion alignments in my misbegotten life. I've had the experience of occasionally and accidentally cranking an oscillator over 20k, and noted how rapidly the meters fall off. I don't have bona fide stats on the bandwidth of various analog decks and formulations of tape in front of me. However, based on personal observations, I am completely confident in saying that there is no way that any deck or machine would ever encode and reproduce anything in the vicinity of 104k. Considering that few mics (other than the VAUNTED Sanken mic that Johnny keeps pimping) record that part of the audible spectrum, and that very few, if any, speakers reproduce that part of the spectrum...and that no analog decks record or reproduce that part of the spectrum...and no delivery schemes reproduce same......I wonder what Johnny B is talking about?

I mean, he rails on and on that a typical digital system running at less than 192k would not reproduce in the vicinity of 100k....AND that he thinks that analog sounds better...are we to imagine that he has heard analog recordings featuring 100k+ content that 'stimulates his brain's pleasure centers'? If so, I'd love to know the name of the recording, and the playback system he used. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't expect him to give a straight answer, because he punts on every direct question put to him....
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 19, 2005, 08:06:43 pm
How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?... yet record to digital...?

oh yeah, it must be'coz digital is more expensive, less intuitive to use, and, most of all, sounds worse
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 19, 2005, 08:09:40 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 19:49




Nah, it's gonna take a lot more speed for those AD/DA chips to ever get up to snuff...they are too slow, too weak, and too wimpy to even capture let alone reproduce the 104kHz coming off the cymbals that CalTech Professor Boyk measured...





It's actually the analog end of the AD conversion process that suffers at high speed and not the digital side

Quote:




Oh, and don't ever forget the "real" science which proves that so-called inaudible HFC's hit the brain's pleasure centres...But the current chips are too slow and too emasculated to really work well on people's pleasure centres according to the scientific researchers findings...





Despite the fact that the other "real" science has consistently upheld the view that the frequency range of human hearing is from 20hz to 20khz

Nah, never let the facts get in the way....
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 19, 2005, 09:20:36 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 14:49

Emmm, I learned from GM not to trust Lavry Converters on an important project...that's some learning...No?

Maybe if DL would get off his anti-increased speed kick he might learn a thing of two himself from other designers out there...Ah, forget it...he's too stuck in his narrow-minded view...But if you like slow...be my guest...

Nah, it's gonna take a lot more speed for those AD/DA chips to ever get up to snuff...they are too slow, too weak, and too wimpy to even capture let alone reproduce the 104kHz coming off the cymbals that CalTech Professor Boyk measured...

Oh, and don't ever forget the "real" science which proves that so-called inaudible HFC's hit the brain's pleasure centres...But the current chips are too slow and too emasculated to really work well on people's pleasure centres according to the scientific researchers findings...

And, one luddite's goofy math theory will not change the fact that digital is in serious need of some major improvements in the tech...like a lot more speed and bit-depth...

Hey, but you Digital Fan Boys can disagree all you want...My ears tell me that analogue sounds better

Please let me know when you are going to junk your obsolete digital gear as I know people who desire more boat anchors...












You are so full of shit Johnny B. that I can smell it from here. You are only pissed off at Dan Lavry because he kept getting onto your ass about bringing up non-scientific crap. It clearly states in the forum description that his forum is for corrobative technical talk, not voodoo science and speculation. You lose every thread you argue about and this last jab at John Sorenson and Dan Lavry would get you kicked off any of my newsgroups. You haven't a fucking clue about audio, so shut the fuck up and learn something from the experts you ungrateful dweeb.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 19, 2005, 09:29:39 pm
Yeah , I've always thought the problem,{or the biggest Problem } with this little Layla card I have here is that I need to be careful about how hard I hit the analog inputs and outputs. { I multi track to the dreaded DA-88's} All in all though, It works fine. Man, It's so, so much about the stuff in front of the mic anyhow.  I wish folks would worry more about that..

Perhaps Mr. B. has some ideas about music and/or, where to put the 100-K mic on any given source? Hey,, How about the fact that,, If you are working in digital and the band sounds,, well,, not so good,, You can dump them to analog and ALL this High end appears and,,suddenly, the guitar lines are in TUNE... Talk about that Mr. B..



sorry, just being stupid ;-}

Ivan........................................................ ..............................................
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 19, 2005, 10:38:09 pm
John S likes to try to cloud the issue of "what's wrong with digital?" by taking shots at analogue...that tactic is absurd and should be reserved for the moron element



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 19, 2005, 10:43:58 pm
I have no horse in this race as I receive good sounding sessions on both formats all the time, but I have this question for Johnny B: how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 19, 2005, 11:09:31 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 22:38

John S likes to try to cloud the issue of "what's wrong with digital?" by taking shots at analogue...that tactic is absurd and should be reserved for the moron element



Ok, well at some point engaging with a nameless, traceless, non-recording-engineer, non-thinking, non-comprehending, troll such as yourself is going to have to stop....I think the time is getting very near. I do in all earnestness hope that your objective is a sociological experiment - something along the lines of research into the dynamics of online forums or the limits of human patience or the like. Because if you are actually serious about what you post, and if you think that you are actually a valuable 'member' of this online 'community' such as it is, then you are quite deluded.

Thanks again for the great sig line, I really like it. I may also cut and past the bit about the moron element into my sig too, cause it's pretty cute also.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 20, 2005, 12:38:49 am
ivan40 wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 02:29



Perhaps Mr. B. has some ideas about music and/or, where to put the 100-K mic on any given source?




I've a few ideas on where Mr. B should stick his 100khz Mic....
Let's just say Boyk never measured it....
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Gone on December 20, 2005, 01:25:39 am
I'm just a little curious why, since Johnny B started this thread in the first place, all those who profess displeasure towards him have grown this thread to 17 pages? It is a little amusing. If you think he delights in these conflicts, then you're making him very happy, and if he's on your ignore list, then you would have ignored the whole thread...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 20, 2005, 01:40:35 am
You make a good point but I don't use the Ignore button at all.

Ivan.......................
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: dcollins on December 20, 2005, 02:01:26 am
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 11:49


Nah, it's gonna take a lot more speed for those AD/DA chips to ever get up to snuff...they are too slow, too weak, and too wimpy to even capture let alone reproduce the 104kHz coming off the cymbals that CalTech Professor Boyk measured...



Yeah, buddy!

Quote:


Oh, and don't ever forget the "real" science which proves that so-called inaudible HFC's hit the brain's pleasure centres...But the current chips are too slow and too emasculated to really work well on people's pleasure centres according to the scientific researchers findings...



Youze guys fed the troll, and now it's come to this....

Happy?

DC
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: pipelineaudio on December 20, 2005, 02:03:02 am
oh its worth it
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 20, 2005, 02:45:39 am
Nick Eipers wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 01:25

I'm just a little curious why, since Johnny B started this thread in the first place, all those who profess displeasure towards him have grown this thread to 17 pages? It is a little amusing. If you think he delights in these conflicts, then you're making him very happy, and if he's on your ignore list, then you would have ignored the whole thread...




Two possible explanations.

1. The ignore list button is just too damn close to the add to buddy list and everyone is paranoid they'll click the wrong one.

2. Everybody needs a whipping boy.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 20, 2005, 05:26:41 am
Who is Jarl Sigurd?


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Bill B on December 20, 2005, 08:06:44 am
3 things-

Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 14:49


Emmm,
--
Hey, but you Digital Fan Boys can disagree all you want...My ears tell me that analogue sounds better
--
Please let me know when you are going to junk your obsolete digital gear as I know people who desire more boat anchors...
--



1. WHO IN THE HELL IS EMMM? It's makin' me nuts!

2. Can we start a band called the Digital Fan Boys? I realize I would have to give up my favorite amps and guitars for a Pod and some samples, and my B3/147/860 for a Native Instruments B4...

3. As a long time racer and cruiser of sailboats and former commodore of the Central Florida Yacht Club, I can categorically state that analog gear makes the best boat anchors.  A 1971 Fender Bassman has much better holding power in changing bottom conditions and tidal directions/currents than say, the aforementioned Pod. Although I may set a pair of Behringer(sp?) preamps for a lunch hook, on occasion.

text edited cuz I'm stoopid at times
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Bill B on December 20, 2005, 08:08:16 am
DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 05:26

Who is Jarl Sigurd?
M


JS is Johnny B's not-so-evil-but-still-kinda-evil twin.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 20, 2005, 09:25:30 am
Bill B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 08:06

3 things-

Johnny B wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 14:49


Emmm,
--
Hey, but you Digital Fan Boys can disagree all you want...My ears tell me that analogue sounds better
--
Please let me know when you are going to junk your obsolete digital gear as I know people who desire more boat anchors...
--



1. WHO IN THE HELL IS EMMM? It's makin' me nuts!



Dorothy's aunt in Kansas.

Quote:



2. Can we start a band called the Digital Fan Boys? I realize I would have to give up my favorite amps and guitars for a Pod and some samples, and my B3/147/860 for a Native Instruments B4...




Sure as long as you sell cd's at your concerts instead of cassettes, you can call yourself Digital Fan Boys.


Quote:



3. As a long time racer and cruiser of sailboats and former commodore of the Central Florida Yacht Club, I can categorically state that analog gear makes the best boat anchors.  A 1971 Fender Bassman has much better holding power in changing bottom conditions and tidal directions/currents than say, the aforementioned Pod. Although I may set a pair of Behringer(sp?) preamps for a lunch hook, on occasion.


The Fender Bassman works fine in Lake's George and Okeechobee where it's only 4 feet deep, but when you finish sailing across Central Florida and make it to the Atlantic, you'll need digital anchors for the deeper water. No worry's though a Behringer DDX1632 will work fine all the way to the Puerto Rico Trench.

Quote:

 

text edited cuz I'm stoopid at times



I'M WITH STOOOPID ---->
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 20, 2005, 12:10:34 pm
As far as boat anchors go, nothing tops a Mitsubishi X-880.


kraster wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 21:38

I've a few ideas on where Mr. B should stick his 100khz Mic....


Which reminds me of an old joke:

Q: What's the difference between an oral thermometer and a rectal thermometer?



A: The taste.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 20, 2005, 12:32:28 pm
 Laughing  Laughing

...I Don't think 100 KHz signals relate to music.

I do think that the absolute most critical range resolution-wise is in the 2K to 6-8K range, and that is improved by higher sampling rates...how or why it accomplishes this is a relative issue.

I also know from experience that ultra-fast amplifiers that can reproduce very steep rise-time transients have a more exciting realism to them, if they are not prone to self-oscillation or feedback-network distortions. this is most evident on drums and 'feel' instruments...not pads or sweetening etc.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 01:13:16 pm
Some of the best digital boat anchors can be made from recycled computer boxes and big boat digital desks...heh...heh...

It may be no laughing matter, however, for those who have made the serious mistake of buying into the digital propaganda and then made a major investment and spent gobs of money on digital gear only to watch it all rapidly depreciate into worthless junk.

And as far as an accurate cost accounting of the time wasted on digital gear, we've seen that many of the digital fan boys resist even reading a 4-dollar book highlighting accounting mistakes that companies can easily make. Therefore, it is understandable how they can err and make the inaccurate argument that digital is cheaper when, in fact, analogue projects can often be far more cost effective.

With digital, obsolescence, constant upgrades, and replacing old gear is a way of life...It can be as expensive as owning a boat...

In this way: Digital is a black hole that you throw money at...



 


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ron Steele on December 20, 2005, 01:21:01 pm
Quote:

In this way, digital is a black hole that you throw money at...



If you own a neve and studer combo, or something along those lines,

MAINTENANCE costs will also kill you.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 20, 2005, 01:21:46 pm
Johnny B: how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks,
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 20, 2005, 01:26:04 pm
maxdimario wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 17:32

 Laughing  Laughing

...I Don't think 100 KHz signals relate to music.

I do think that the absolute most critical range resolution-wise is in the 2K to 6-8K range, and that is improved by higher sampling rates...how or why it accomplishes this is a relative issue.


It's not a relative issue, it's not even an issue, since it doesn't happen.

If the critical range is 2-8k, then going over 20kHz bandwidth won't help ... i.e. higher sample rates don't help.

IF you can hear improvements in this frequency range from using a higher sample rate converter, the cause is somewhere other than the sample rate (some other variable must be changing when you change the sample rate, and that would be a converter specific issue), this is not am uncertain issue, it is a simple, provable fact.





Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 01:44:07 pm
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 18:26


It's not a relative issue, it's not even an issue, since it doesn't happen.

...going over 20kHz bandwidth won't help ... i.e. higher sample rates don't help.



This is where we part company my friend...I think you are wrong...Greater bit-depth and much faster sample rates WILL help...And the properly conducted scientific research supports my position by showing that the HFC's have a positive influence on the brain's pleasure centres...

Not to mention what real audio gear designers like Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve have gone on record saying about the importance of the HFC's.

Hey, but the digital fan boys can simply ignore all the scientific evidence, they can ignore what some reputable detractors of digital say, they can live with their severely and artificially constricted bandwidth, and they can continue to hear complaints about thin, weak, and wimpy sound.

There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, of course.

That great alternative is analogue.

Cheers. Smile



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 20, 2005, 02:02:21 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 13:44

Hey, but the digital fan boys can simply ignore all the scientific evidence, they can ignore what some reputable detractors of digital say, they can live with their severely and artificially constricted bandwidth, and they can continue to hear complaints about thin, weak, and wimpy sound.

There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, of course.

That great alternative is analogue.



Well, you know, I guess it was abundantly clear before you started this thread that you will never, ever, ever participate in any kind of rational discourse about audio technology or techniques.

What I'm curious about at this point is what makes you tick. Perhaps shedding some light on this matter might be the one contribution you make to this forum.

I think we can presume that you are interested in audio - it would explain your attempt to participate. It is also abundantly clear to anyone who reads your postings that you haven't worked in the field at any point in your life, and that you don't really know what you are talking about whatsoever. That's not an insult, but rather a detached observation based on the fundamental lack of facts and reasoned analysis in your arguments - you can't even cough up personal anecdotes to ground your point of view.

So I guess my question is; why do you bother? Really, and seriously. You have a resource at your disposal here - which includes people who know a lot of theory, who understand a lot of technology, and who practice in the field at a high level. If you are interested in audio why do you post message after message of drivel, contrived so as to provoke negative responses? I suppose it's easy enough to do - you have no reputation at stake since you don't use your real name...which does bring up the question of why you are allowed to be a participant under your current pseudonym at all...but anyway... What's the point? Seriously, why do you bother? What kind of enjoyment can you possibly derive from posting stupid messages that provoke derision from a circle of people who would otherwise engage you in a positive manner if you weren't such an asshole?

Please advise.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 20, 2005, 02:07:00 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 18:44

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 18:26


It's not a relative issue, it's not even an issue, since it doesn't happen.

...going over 20kHz bandwidth won't help ... i.e. higher sample rates don't help.



This is where we part company my friend...I think you are wrong...Gretater bit-depth and much faster sample rates WILL help...And the properly conducted scientific research supports my position by showing that the HFC's have a positive influence on the brain's pleasure centres...

Not to mention what real audio gear designers like Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve have gone on record saying about the importance of the HFC's.

Hey, but the digital fan boys can simply ignore all the scientific evidence, they can ignore what some reputable detractors of digital say, they can live with their severely and artificially constricted bandwidth, and they can continue to hear complaints about thin, weak, and wimpy sound.

There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, of course.

That great alternative is analogue.

Cheers. Smile


Firstly don't call me your friend at the same time as showing your troll credentials by missing out half the quote to change its meaning and misrepresenting what I say..., the full quote was
"If the critical range is 2-8k, then going over 20kHz bandwidth won't help"
Want to show me how going over over 20kHz can help in capturing a range of frequencies between 2 and 8 kHz?

It doesn't, so you can't.

The truth is that even if it did, then you couldn't explain it, because you haven't got the first clue about the subject of what goes on inside audio circuits, analogue, digital or hybrid.

For anyone who's reading this who hasn't cottoned on yet, Johnny B doesn't have a clue, his "research" is almost invariably either non existent, or completely misunderstood - the number of White Papers and datasheets he links to which aren't about what he thinks they are (often not even about audio) or don't say anything which supports his "theories" is a source of endless amusement for me. As for his "logic", it is so full of non-sequiturs as to not even qualify for that title.

"And the properly conducted scientific research supports my position by showing that the HFC's have a positive influence on the brain's pleasure centres..."

Which position is that? That analogue recording systems (most of which have a bandwidth which doesn't equal a 48kHz sampling system, let alone a 96kHz one) is superior, or that you need to record frequencies up to 100kHz for quality reproduction. You can have one or the other, you can't have both. Either Analogue recording is hugely inadequate, or you don't need frequencies up to 100kHz.

As for you talking about people ignoring scientific evidence, you wouldn't know scientific evidence if it walked up to you, announced itself, kicked you in the balls and walked off with your wallet.



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PookyNMR on December 20, 2005, 02:07:56 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 11:44

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 18:26


It's not a relative issue, it's not even an issue, since it doesn't happen.

...going over 20kHz bandwidth won't help ... i.e. higher sample rates don't help.



This is where we part company my friend...I think you are wrong...Greater bit-depth and much faster sample rates WILL help...And the properly conducted scientific research supports my position by showing that the HFC's have a positive influence on the brain's pleasure centres...

Not to mention what real audio gear designers like Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve have gone on record saying about the importance of the HFC's.

Hey, but the digital fan boys can simply ignore all the scientific evidence, they can ignore what some reputable detractors of digital say, they can live with their severely and artificially constricted bandwidth, and they can continue to hear complaints about thin, weak, and wimpy sound.

There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, of course.

That great alternative is analogue.

Cheers. Smile




Fill me in here.  If mics don't go >20k, speakers don't go >20k, how will working to reproduce >20k help?

If analog doesn't go over >20k (due to mics and speakers) how is going over 20k necessary for digital to make it sound equivalent?

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 02:08:13 pm
Oh, and one last bit of info.

For those who think that digital is accurate, they should think again.

First, there is no such thing as a perfect filter.

Second, the digital math is full of rounding errors and anomalies. I do not intend to single out Analog Devices as all silly-con chip makers publish such lists of digital problems but I merely provide this link as an exemplar.

 http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/REDESIGN_IC_Anomalies/39 988696021261_anomaly122204.pdf

Digital accurate? Yeah sure...





Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 20, 2005, 02:13:57 pm
Quote:

the number of White Papers and datasheets he links to which aren't about what he thinks they are (often not even about audio) or don't say anything which supports his "theories" is a source of endless amusement for me.


Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:08

Oh, and one last bit of info.

For those who think that digital is accurate, they should think again.

First, there is no such thing as a perfect filter.

Second, the digital math is full of rounding errors and anomalies. I do not intend to single out Analog Devices as all silly-con chip makers publish such lists of digital problems but I merely provide this link as an exemplar.

  http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/REDESIGN_IC_Anomalies/39 988696021261_anomaly122204.pdf

Digital accurate? Yeah sure...



THANK YOU JOHNNY B!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the Prosecution rests.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 02:16:58 pm
Nathan, the old "mic and speaker argument" for holding back on digital innovation is no longer valid...if it ever was, which I rather doubt.

There are now commercially available speakers which go down to the 5-8 Hz range and up to the 100kHz range...and the same with mics...

Those who want to hold back the digital progress and remain with the old slow sample rates will need to come up with some new material since the old "mic and speaker argument" has been fully discredited.






Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 20, 2005, 02:19:34 pm
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:26

maxdimario wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 17:32

 Laughing  Laughing

...I Don't think 100 KHz signals relate to music.

I do think that the absolute most critical range resolution-wise is in the 2K to 6-8K range, and that is improved by higher sampling rates...how or why it accomplishes this is a relative issue.


It's not a relative issue, it's not even an issue, since it doesn't happen.

If the critical range is 2-8k, then going over 20kHz bandwidth won't help ... i.e. higher sample rates don't help.

IF you can hear improvements in this frequency range from using a higher sample rate converter, the cause is somewhere other than the sample rate (some other variable must be changing when you change the sample rate, and that would be a converter specific issue), this is not am uncertain issue, it is a simple, provable fact.





prove what you like, but how do you explain that both radar and pro tools sound better on the same machine, same filters etc... remember the bass loss test...?

This alone should end the endless blabbering on who's right or who's wrong based on technical approximations of what should be going on in the converters.

the sound is better and more articulated in the higher sample rates in the mid-highs BELOW nyquist freq.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 20, 2005, 02:26:06 pm
maxdimario wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:19


prove what you like, but how do you explain that both radar and pro tools sound better on the same machine, same filters etc... remember the bass loss test...?



Sorry Max but your english is confusing me a little here, so I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

Anyway, I didn't exclude the possibility of something sounding different, I simply stated the fact that if the difference is in the 2-8kHz range then the sample rate itself is not the variable causing that change, some other variable (which is being changed at the same time) must be.

For a start bear in mind that when you have a converter that runs at 96 or 48 kHz, in most cases THEY ACTUALLY SAMPLE AT THE SAME RATE. What changes is in the digital decimation filters, the amount of downsampling is reduced, so you have the possibility that the downsampling filter is not as good as it could be. Also there is the question of whether your playback system has a different response for 48 and 96kHz.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 20, 2005, 02:30:29 pm
Stop feeding the troll (johnny B). He is only interested in winding you up and having 18 page long threads. JohnnyB aint interested in audio at all. Nothing you say will change this.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 20, 2005, 02:39:19 pm
Quote:

Sorry Max but your english is confusing me a little here, so I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

Anyway, I didn't exclude the possibility of something sounding different, I simply stated the fact that if the difference is in the 2-8kHz range then the sample rate itself is not the variable causing that change, some other variable (which is being changed at the same time) must be.

For a start bear in mind that when you have a converter that runs at 96 or 48 kHz, in most cases THEY ACTUALLY SAMPLE AT THE SAME RATE. What changes is in the digital decimation filters, the amount of downsampling is reduced, so you have the possibility that the downsampling filter is not as good as it could be. Also there is the question of whether your playback system has a different response for 48 and 96kHz.


if they sample initially at the same rate or not.. the effect is different at 96.

if you're saying that there must be something else other than the sampling rate that influences the sound, I agree.
I agree simply because there is no way of separating one element of a system from another.. there will always be interplay between the various components.

and any sampling system (not necessarily audio recording) improves in accuracy as sample density increases.

in the end though the tech. talk only confuses people into not listening to the end result..which is clear enough that you can hear it on a mediocre reproducer.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 20, 2005, 02:44:35 pm
maxdimario wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:39

and any sampling system (not necessarily audio recording) improves in accuracy as sample density increases.



yes, and no.

Bandwidth increases, but accuracy of individual samples decreases (laws of physics, limitations of electronics, can't get around that), so you have to choose, higher bandwidth or lower noise.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 02:45:10 pm
Kraster,

Actually, you are quite wrong in that assumption. I would indeed like to hear digital sound improve...And I challenge those who want to rely on the old obsolete digital tech to do what is necessary by discarding the past and moving forward with properly conducted science...

As it is, I do not really "love" the sound of digital, the opposite is true.

Moreover, every time you introduce intermediate steps, you give the computer programmers the opportunity to introduce even more math errors...and you also introduce more opportunity for latency and more timing errors...

The cumulative impact of all those digital errors cannot be overlooked...thus, system-wide thruput must be sped up by a considerable amount to adequately address these issues...

One possible way to do that is by removing as many intermediate steps as possible.

In the meantime, for the next 5 to 10 years, people can rely on proven technology that is perfectly acceptable....that being...analogue.



 

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 20, 2005, 02:48:20 pm
Johnny B: how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks,
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 20, 2005, 02:48:44 pm
maxdimario wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:39


in the end though the tech. talk only confuses people into not listening to the end result..which is clear enough that you can hear it on a mediocre reproducer.




Does anyone here have some nicely recorded 96kHz/24bit samples I could experiment with? If I have time over christmas I'd like to try some listening tests.

Individual instruments might be better than whole mixes
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 20, 2005, 03:03:41 pm
Jon,

on a whole mix, you hear the summed effect of more channels and the effect is more obvious.

if you want to check out a solo instrument, make it something with a lot of 'fine' HF information, like a bright string instrument or a drum.

there are the original bass loss test files still around somewhere, I think.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 20, 2005, 03:08:56 pm
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 20:44

maxdimario wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:39

and any sampling system (not necessarily audio recording) improves in accuracy as sample density increases.



yes, and no.

Bandwidth increases, but accuracy of individual samples decreases (laws of physics, limitations of electronics, can't get around that), so you have to choose, higher bandwidth or lower noise.




if the quality of the samples suffers significantly with increased dample density I agree, but if the higher sample density is reasonably stable there is no reason to be concerned.

if you can hear it, it's a problem.. if you can't hear it it's not.

I heard an improvement... a little TOO evidently.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 20, 2005, 03:29:26 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:45

Kraster,

Actually, you are quite wrong in that assumption. I would indeed like to hear digital sound improve...And I challenge those who want to rely on the old obsolete digital tech to do what is necessary by discarding the past and moving forward with properly conducted science...

As it is, I do not really "love" the sound of digital, the opposite is true.

Moreover, every time you introduce intermediate steps, you give the computer programmers the opportunity to introduce even more math errors...and you also introduce more opportunity for latency and more timing errors...

The cumulative impact of all those digital errors cannot be overlooked...thus, system-wide thruput must be sped up by a considerable amount to adequately address these issues...

One possible way to do that is by removing as many intermediate steps as possible.

In the meantime, for the next 5 to 10 years, people can rely on proven technology that is perfectly acceptable....that being...analogue.



 





I know what you're up to. Every single issue you mentioned has been addressed to infinity by the members of this board and other boards ,who are infinitely more qualified than you to comment on these issues, but you keep coming back with the same crap again and again.

The only reason that you can conceivably continue to post your inane drivel is to irritate people and get some kind of bizarre kick out of it.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 20, 2005, 04:04:43 pm
Bill B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 08:08

DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 05:26

Who is Jarl Sigurd?
M

JS is Johnny B's not-so-evil-but-still-kinda-evil twin.



If anyone has his email addy, get him over here, let's see if he has anything to say.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 04:33:09 pm
I see the personal attacks and name-calling persist while the properly conducted science, such as science neither conducted nor funded by someone who is trying to pimp their digital gear, seems to be completely dismissed and simply ignored by certain small groups of digital fan boys.

For those who want to understand my position, here 'tis:

I have argued repeatedly that a "multidisciplinary approach" by entire teams of qualified specialists is required to better understand the human beings response to sound.

In the following paper the researchers explain "the natural environment, such as tropical rain forests, usually contains sounds that are extremely rich in HFCs over 100 kHz. From an anthropogenetic point of view, the sensory system of human beings exposed to a natural environment would stand a good chance of developing some physiological sensitivity to HFCs."

We now have commercially available speakers that reach high frequencies in the 100kHz range and we also have microphones such as the new 100kHz Sanken mic.

In addition, in the following paper you'll see that the researchers point to the fact that "t is widely known that the upper limit of the audible range of humans varies considerably." You'll also see other examples of high frequency gear as well as some citations to real audio equipment designers such as Rupert Neve.

For example, the paper points out that "artists and engineers working to produce acoustically perfect music for commercial purposes are convinced that the intentional manipulation of HFC above the audible range can positively affect the perception of sound quality (Neve 1992)."

And the researchers findings are summarised in their conclusions which state: "Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking n HFC."

Given that 100kHz speaker systems and 100kHz mics are now upon us, it is worthwhile and now feasible to construct other test suites on the entire human system utilizing a "multidisciplinary scientific approach" along the lines of the following paper.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 04:38:40 pm
In the meantime, people can use reliable, time-tested technology...

That, of course, is called "analogue."

Cheers. Smile

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 20, 2005, 04:42:30 pm
Johnny B: how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks,
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 20, 2005, 04:44:11 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 16:33

I see the personal attacks and name-calling persist while the properly conducted science, such as science neither conducted nor funded by someone who is trying to pimp their digital gear, seems to be completely dismissed and simply ignored by the digital fan boys.

Given that 100kHz speaker systems and 100kHz mics are now upon us, it is worthwhile and now feasible to construct other test suites on the entire human system utilizing a "multidisciplinary scientific approach" along the lines of the following paper.



Hmm, well the personal attacks and name-calling have come from you as much or more than from anybody else. So that's the pot calling the kettle black.

As far as the term which you coined for me - digital fan boy - I love it, and it's hilarious. You seem to have forgotten that I expressed a distinct preference for analog recording, but you're Johnny B and we expect that sort of thing from you.

Moreover, you have failed to address my point, which was that no analog recorder or tape will faithfully record and reproduce anything even remotely close to 100k. Ever. I asked you to rationalize your fetish for the part of the spectra above 20k with your fetish for a bandlimited recording medium. You said I was obscuring the issue by slagging analog and that I was a moron. (uh oh, there's that messy 'personal attack' stuff coming back on you again).

Again - I put to you a direct question; please rationalize your preference for analog recording (which you have never done) with your preference for 100k+ microphones and speakers, which you have never been in the same room with.

When you are done, please answer the question about the tape budget for your next album with an detailed explanation of the underlying rationale and attendant compromises or clever accounting triumphs.

Then, please answer the direct question about why you persist in being such an incorrigible troll.

Then tell us your real name. You know the real names of ever interlocutor who you have ever irritated. It's only fair. I understand if your last name is Bobbitt and you feel insecure about telling us, of course.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ron Steele on December 20, 2005, 04:48:41 pm
This is the most common sense I've  heard on this topic in years.

http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/8965/
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 04:56:04 pm
John, it's not a valid argument to attempt to draw attention to any deficiencies in analogue when the goal ought to focus on improving digital sound quality.

If you have ever had any children, you know that this form of argument rests on fallacy.

And while we wait for the digital tech to improve in sound quality...assuming it ever does...I, like many musicians, find analogue a perfectly acceptable, if not perfect, alternative.

The truth is, and I think you have said as much yourself, many people simply prefer the sound of analogue.



 



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 20, 2005, 05:07:26 pm
Ok, well this is ridiculous. Thanks very much for the laughs, it's been a great show, you've been a marvelous audience, don't forget to tip your servers. Drive home safe.

For now it's Actual-Recording-Engineer-Who-Has-Actually-Used- Digital&Analog Fan Boy Moron, over and out.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Malcolm Boyce on December 20, 2005, 05:21:24 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 17:56

John, it's not a valid argument to attempt to draw attention to any deficiencies in analogue when the goal ought to focus on improving digital sound quality.



It's not a valid argument to attempt to draw attention to any deficiencies in digital, when you refuse to answer any intelligent questions about what you are trying to say.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxdimario on December 20, 2005, 06:53:10 pm
Quote:

In working with digital, you sacrifice certain possibilities of sonic range and depth, while in working with analog, you sacrifice all the operational freedom that comes with computers.


I think the above quote from Eno (from the link) sums it up quite nicely!
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Plush on December 20, 2005, 07:23:35 pm
The key thing that JOhnny has forgotten is that ALL the
digital errors are corrected, otherwise the digital medium will
not play back. Response over 100K???---my butt!!!!

The key thing that Eno leaves out (if he was quoted correctly)
is that he claims no one cuts analog tape anymore and that it would be too much trouble to do it. NONSENSE! Many still cut very complex
(daw style) edits on tape. It's called a professional.

I refer Johnny to John Watkinson: The Art of Digital Audio
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: electrical on December 20, 2005, 07:27:27 pm
Plush wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:23

Many still cut very complex
(daw style) edits on tape. It's called a professional.

We just hosted a session with a large number of such edits needed in recording and mix. It is normal 'round these parts.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bobkatz on December 20, 2005, 08:13:49 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 13:44



Not to mention what real audio gear designers like Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve have gone on record saying about the importance of the HFC's.





Both Blackmer and Neve have cited scientifically unsound "reasons" or "explanations" for the need. You should pick someone with more scientifically correct backing than just someone with a reputation.

BK
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Peter Weihe on December 20, 2005, 08:51:12 pm
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 22:42

Johnny B: how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks,


Come on J.B. , tell us!

Otherwise I have to come to the conclusion, that you are just collecting other peoples statements from different
threads or  other sources and repeat them without having any personal experience with the above mentioned gear neither as a professional user nor as a listener.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 20, 2005, 09:41:32 pm
If i say I've worked on zero projects or a million projects it would not make any difference...there will be those who still will take shots at the messenger...

Bob K, I would hardly call either Mr. Neve or Mr. Blackmer "unscientific." What I would say is that their perspective and experience is valid, if not yet well-explained or fully understood by all. This is one of many reasons I keep pointing to the need to get more teams of unbiased multidisciplinary researchers into gear.  

Just look at the potential ways one might reduce or eliminate some of the digital math errors and how one might speed up overall system thruput for a moment. We might get some agreement on that account...I dunno

Cheers. Smile









 
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: pipelineaudio on December 20, 2005, 09:48:43 pm
so that would be *no* albums done on professional equipment?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 20, 2005, 10:13:30 pm
Come on guys....  If you are using any of your fingers to run the tape machine or move faders, you are working digitally.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 20, 2005, 10:39:30 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 20:41

If i say I've worked on zero projects or a million projects it would not make any difference...

How are we to take anything you say seriously if we don't know if you have any experience in actually using these formats you are talking about?

So I ask again, how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks for your reply,
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bobkatz on December 20, 2005, 10:53:56 pm
I'm joining the multitudes who put JB's posts on infinite filter.

BK
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 21, 2005, 12:03:00 am
johhny b wrote:

"thruput"

that is TRULY offensive

please, go away and write a 1000 times:

'before i post any more nonsense, i will learn how to spell it'
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Len on December 21, 2005, 06:48:42 am
Let's just say that without Google, JohnnyB would be as silent as sound in outer space.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 21, 2005, 07:44:51 am
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 22:39

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 20:41

If i say I've worked on zero projects or a million projects it would not make any difference...

How are we to take anything you say seriously if we don't know if you have any experience in actually using these formats you are talking about?

So I ask again, how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks for your reply,


What difference would it make? Everything he has written here has been a work of fiction. Even if he claimed vast experience it would be completely unbelievable. His statements tell me all I need to know about his complete lack of experience on pretty much any platform.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: lord on December 21, 2005, 10:51:52 am
How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound of Johnny B Shutting the Fuck Up?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ashermusic on December 21, 2005, 11:02:58 am
Why do you guys bother to respond to this fool? Just ignore him and maybe he will disappear,
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 21, 2005, 01:08:48 pm
I have a theory about this type of troll.  These are people who truly hate themselves, even though they may think otherwise.  Behavior like this, which instigates negative feedback (not the type in a U67), simply reinforces their negative self image and low self esteem.  They simply cannot hear phrases like "you're a moron" or "shut the fuck up" enough times.  It's like the abused spouse who equates a black eye with true love, because the only attention they could ever get from daddy was when they'd piss him off and he'd beat the crap out of them.  In fact, I will not be surprised when I'm in the supermarket one day and I see Johnny B on the cover of the National Enquirer, dating O.J. Simpson.  

As far as whether or not a know-it-all like Johnny B actually has any experience, it should be easy to see.  Of course he doesn't.  Like my friend David Palmer says: "Eventually, your experience catches up with your opinions."  So, in the meantime, self professed experts like Johnny B will always stay as far as possible from actually experience, so that they can bask in their ingnorant bliss.  God forbid they get anywhere near reality and shatter their grandiose delusions of knowing what the fuck they are talking about.  Let's just call him "Make Believe Fan Boy" in the meantime.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 21, 2005, 01:28:46 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 13:08

I have a theory about this type of troll.  These are people who truly hate themselves, even though they may think otherwise.  Behavior like this, which instigates negative feedback (not the type in a U67), simply reinforces their negative self image and low self esteem.  They simply cannot hear phrases like "you're a moron" or "shut the fuck up" enough times.  It's like the abused spouse who equates a black eye with true love, because the only attention they could ever get from daddy was when they'd piss him off and he'd beat the crap out of them.  In fact, I will not be surprised when I'm in the supermarket one day and I see Johnny B on the cover of the National Enquirer, dating O.J. Simpson.  

As far as whether or not a know-it-all like Johnny B actually has any experience, it should be easy to see.  Of course he doesn't.  Like my friend David Palmer says: "Eventually, your experience catches up with your opinions."  So, in the meantime, self professed experts like Johnny B will always stay as far as possible from actually experience, so that they can bask in their ingnorant bliss.  God forbid they get anywhere near reality and shatter their grandiose delusions of knowing what the fuck they are talking about.  Let's just call him "Make Believe Fan Boy" in the meantime.



You might be on to something here sir. I have never seen him type about his experience,, Like,, " well, I tracked this or that with digital and, man did it sound small""......... Or what ever..

I wont pretend to understand what moves him to post all this nonsense but, it's kinda cute,, for a while..

As I stated earlier, I don't use my Ignore function, ever.


Ivan..............................
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 21, 2005, 01:32:13 pm
lord wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 10:51

How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound of Johnny B Shutting the Fuck Up?



Musicians don't count, they aren't multi-approach enough.

You could take a poll, but the last one didn't clue Make Believe Fan Boy in, so I wouldn't expect another to do much better. I do believes he flutters from one newsgroup to the next planting seeds of destruction quite intended. Like a fly that lands in shit and than flies off to contaminate another spot.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 21, 2005, 01:40:16 pm
*click*
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 21, 2005, 01:59:45 pm
Brad...what are you a twenty-something?...No insult intended, just asking.

Look I've provided evidence and citations to the science...and it gets ignored by certain people...

Some of the dialogue can be reduced as follows:

Hey, there are serious errors and anomalies in digital...What are the chip makers going to do about it?

Ans. Yeah, well what about analogue?

Hey, the old mic and speaker argument is no longer valid...

Ans. Yeah, well what about analogue?

Hey, here's a scientific paper and the findings are the result of research conducted  by unbiased teams of multidisciplinary experts which shows that HFC's have a positive influence on the brain's pleasure centres...Look at those brain scans...It's as plain as day!...

Ans. Yeah, well what about analogue? And how many Grammies and gold records have you done?

Discussing any of the points raised results in attempts by the digital fan boys to muddy the waters, they engage in completely changing gears, and turning it into a personal attack based on a whole lot of inaccurate assumptions which have zero basis in fact and are made up of nothing more than unfounded and false allegations...a reprehensible and low tactic that I thought was reserved for the crazy conservatives and moron element in America...

BTW, I don't care what anyone says about me...They can call me any name they want...makes no difference to me...I'm only pointing out the lameness of the tactic of personal attacks and shooting the messenger...

I've made my points which rest upon valid observation, opinion, and sound science...enjoy the information....it will always be in the back of certain people's heads the next time they have a problem with their digital rig...despite their seeming state of denial...The information will be there nagging on them...Why they may become so fearful and angry that they lash out in an irrational manner at one or more messengers who have delivered the bad digital news...

And BTW, as things are, there's nothing that can be said to make me think that digital sound quality suddenly became non-thin, non-cold, non-weak, and non-wimpy....

I think digital sound is in a deplorable state and needs some serious improvements...So shoot me...

Who the hell knows how long it will take for digital to get its act together to get rid of digital math rounding errors, anomalies, latency, and time smear...not to mention its lame ass formats...of MPfreakin3 and weakling 16-bit CD's...

Oh yeah, those wonderful and duly pimped and marketed formats sound great to me...NOT!

One fellow aptly noted, "Listening to digital is like sticking an ice pick in my ears."

Ouch, now that's a rather painful picture.

Rather than being subjected to the fatigue and headache factor of digital, many find that analogue is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

And, like many musicians, I prefer the sound of analogue...

'Nuf' said.

Cheers. Smile

 






Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 21, 2005, 02:28:06 pm
Johnny B wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 13:59


...So shoot me...



Now THAT's the best idea you've had all week.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 21, 2005, 03:40:00 pm
Make Believe Fan Boy

I've made my points which rest upon valid observation...


Observation by whom?  Certainly not you, since it is obvious that you have no personal experience upon which to make observations.  You simply regurgitate things you read.  Maybe you should try 'learning by doing', like our Swiss friend.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 21, 2005, 04:17:45 pm
Johnny B wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 12:59

Brad...what are you a twenty-something?...No insult intended, just asking.

No, I'm a bit older, but I appreciate the compliment!

There's a valid reason for my repeated questioning, which you are side-stepping - you claim that digital has issues and analog does not, so I ask what your level of experience is so we may know whether your are speaking from experience or rather parroting what you've heard others say.

Right now, methinks a better name for you would be Polly.

Unless you are willing to share your level of experience with us, we will have to assume it's zero, which is what your opinion is worth if you've never actually recorded something to both analog and digital recorders so you could evaluate which was more 'accurate'...

How are we to take anything you say seriously if we don't know if you have any experience in actually using these formats you are talking about?

So I ask yet again, how many sessions have you done with Lavry/db tech, Prism, DCS or equivalent converters? How many sessions have you done on analog tape?

Thanks for your reply,
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Len on December 21, 2005, 04:19:53 pm
There's a great article on Trolls here http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 21, 2005, 05:51:36 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 14:28

Johnny B wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 13:59


...So shoot me...



Now THAT's the best idea you've had all week.



Wow, he finally said something that makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 21, 2005, 07:10:50 pm
like superman, he seems impervious to bullets
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: howlback on December 22, 2005, 12:02:22 am
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 21:41

...Bob K, I would hardly call either Mr. Neve or Mr. Blackmer "unscientific." What I would say is that their perspective and experience is valid, if not yet well-explained or fully understood by all. This is one of many reasons I keep pointing to the need to get more teams of unbiased multidisciplinary researchers into gear.  
Bob's criticism is extremely well-founded.  Neither gentleman was/has been able to produce scientific evidence, neither gentleman hypothesized and then actually TESTED their hypotheses.  Both approach(ed) this question with strong opinions which they have never been able to support with hard data.  Both gentlemen have/had products which they have tried to sell using what you are calling "HFC" as a justification. I very much respect Neve and Blackmer as designers with a vision, but they are very far from "scientists".

I would listen to John and Bob.  I have personally learned much from these 2 gentleman and have found their character to be "beyond reproach".  The numbers of degrees, accolades, awards, and exceptional projects that these 2 individuals have accomplished is remarkable.

Regarding "multidisciplinary" science, what is important vis-a-vis audio is that academic studies have relevance.  Unfortunately, many studies are undertaken by individuals who know nothing about audio engineering (and sometimes science) and their results are, therefore, often irrelevant to REPs.  

There are very few studies that I have seen that actually test what you are calling "HFC" properly.  The best have been directed by Hamasaki-san at NHK.  Only one of his subjects displayed statistically significant responses to musical material above 20 kHZ, and she was a young female musician in her twenties.  The male audio engineers could not hear a difference! (I knew there was a reason my wife helps me with quality testing during the recording process).

I am all-for developments in digital audio.  I am all-for studying preference.  I am all-for Sound Quality Assessment.  But I am starting to think that science has spoken quite loudly regarding threshold testing, and perceived quality of sound in music as it relates to "supra-threshold" content.

If you want to believe that supra-threshold content is important Johnny B, go ahead.  If you want to record on analogue, go ahead.  Believing in your gear is more important than being scientifically assured that it is the best.

-k. walker

PhD Candidate
McGill University

P.S.  I think you owe John and Bob an apology.  


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 22, 2005, 12:17:38 am


A most excellent post. Take the candidate off of your sig and leave the PhD.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 22, 2005, 12:59:46 am
I don't thnk it is very professional to take shots at the late Mr. Blackmer who can not respond to such insults...nor do I think it is at all professional to take shots at Mr. Neve...

As far as the current crop of AD/DA chips being too weak and wimpy...and the ugly sounding digital formats of MPfreakin3 and totally lame ass 16-bit CD...

well, what can I say...

I'd rather listen to analogue...

Of course, I don't have to worry about a large cash outlay in any obsolete digital gear becoming just another boat anchor...

And for the digital fan boys...that new Intel Yonah chip is already obsolete...heh...heh...

You may have to read thru a few pages of this link but it's pretty obvious that newer chips are coming and that the old stuff cannot be upgraded so easily...

From the link below:

"The first improvement is that now all three of Yonah's decoders can decode SSE instructions, regardless of the type of instruction. Improving the decode width of the processor is a quick way to improve performance.

"Next, SSE/SSE2 operations (not sure if all can be, but at least some) can now be fused using the Micro Ops Fusion engine of Yonah. At a high level, the benefit here is increased performance and lower power consumption, we'll get into architectural details of why that is when we eventually sink our teeth into Yonah next year.

"Each of the two cores in Yonah have also received support for SSE3 instructions much like the Pentium 4 E [Prescott].

"And finally there have been some improvements to Yonah's floating point performance, although Mooly would not say exactly what's been done."

Such a novel concept, increased thruput and better floating point math performance...Now, I wonder who else would have ever thought of such a thing?

The cycle continues, first there's a new digital product, which, soon thereafter, has to be replaced by a new and improved digital product rendering the older product obsolete...

And that means more boat anchors...cool...

Anyway, for those interested here's a link to some Intel Yonah chip info:
 
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627

Cheers. Smile





Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 22, 2005, 01:03:24 am
You can't tell the difference. In a blind test, you can't tell the difference.

You don't have a freaking clue as to what you are saying.

You can't tell the difference.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 22, 2005, 01:04:45 am
Yeah, right.





.....

NOT....

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: howlback on December 22, 2005, 01:16:09 am
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 00:59

I don't thnk it is very professional to take shots at the late Mr. Blackmer who can not respond to such insults...nor do I think it is at all professional to take shots at Mr. Neve...
I am not taking shots at either designer at all by saying that they were/are not "scientists".  I fully respect applied sciences and engineering and their respective contributions to recording.  Most of the evidence that Mr. Neve has collected and cited has been anecdotal not scientific.  The scientific evidence that he has cited is generally not "well-established".  

Mr. Neve is a self-proclaimed "artist". He stated so in his keynote address to the Audio Engineering Society in New York this year (I was there and heard his words for myself)
http://www.prosoundnews.com/articles/article_2731.shtml

2. Art or science. To measure or to listen!

Unlike other fields of electronic design; for example, communications and electronics, where intelligibility is paramount or computers, where accuracy and speed predominate and the numbers represent what you pay for; in our field of Pro Audio, the numbers,--specifications and measurements don't really describe the quality of the sound we hear.

This has lead to a jungle of subjective descriptions and "folk lore" which we professionals either scorn or laugh at.

But let's not be too hasty--Audio is not just about facts and figures; it's an art form, it's addictive and creative and above all, very fulfilling to both designer and artist--when he gets it right!

There is no written specification or set of measurements that will guarantee perfect reproduction of music.
Like I said, record on whatever inspires you - but don't jump to "scientific" conclusions.  

Mr. Neve does refer to one scientific study to try to justify his position, but he does not appear to make his design decisions based (only?) on scientific data.  The "science" part appears to be more interesting to him, rather than a motivation or justification for design.  The Oohashi study is interesting and often cited, however, I have not seen the results replicated (and the study is more than 10 years old).  His subjects were all Gamelan players and the music was all Gamelan.  Apparently, the reproduced level of high frequencies was very high.  There was also a slow rise-time to the cognitive effect that he found, meaning that traditional A/B testing would not reveal this kind of response.  So maybe, in certain instances for certain people, what you call "HFC" has some kind of merit.  But this is pretty "fringe" stuff and is far from a universal scientific fact.  

-k. walker

P.S. I am sorry to post this kind of stuff in Steve's forum.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 22, 2005, 01:45:36 am
Ok, by the same logic is it not wrong or an insult to say that Mr. Lavry is not a scientist either. Lots of people have a double e, it does not qualify them to do medical science and do brain scans to see that the HFC's have a positive influence on the brain's pleasure centres.

One might carry the example of that kind of logic further and say that self-serving math formulas are about as valid as one man's opinion of moonlight. One math formula proves Nada...certainly not what people ears and bodies tell them...And it's even worse when there has been no independently verified tests on living people...

There, how's that?  Does that sound fair to you...or...does it sound like it may be a little harsh and exaggerated....

To say that Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve did not or do not work with science and just make stuff up is going way overboard in my opinion. Further, I think some of the remarks which seek to slander or belittle them are disrespectful and highly unprofessional.

But I can sleep at night because I do not have to worry about upgrading my digital system which are all obsolete on the day they were designed...

Yonah...says so...


http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627

Cheers. Smile

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 22, 2005, 01:51:55 am
I want to know what Johnny did as a child that warranted the beating that resulted in this brain damage.  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: howlback on December 22, 2005, 01:54:34 am
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 01:45


To say that Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve did not or do not work with science and just make stuff up is going way overboard in my opinion. Further, I think some of the remarks which seek to slander or belittle them are disrespectful and highly unprofessional.


Please read what I wrote.  How many times must I state that I admire the contributions of Mr. Neve and Mr. Blackmer?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 22, 2005, 02:03:26 am
Ok, good. I'm glad you respect the late Mr. Blackmer and Mr. Neve.

For the record, DL has said some good things too...I just don't agree with everything he says...

OTOH, here's a guy some can admire and respect and some might even be friendly with on occasion...(ahh em...Bob O?)

http://recordist.com/ampex/biographies/jgmbio.html

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ryan Leigh Patterson on December 22, 2005, 02:20:54 am
hmmm, still going eh...
I guess every new forum needs to one or two of these  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 22, 2005, 02:29:50 am
JB, here let me say it simply for you:

You are an idiot. Goodbye.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 22, 2005, 07:42:49 am
DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 02:29

JB, here let me say it simply for you:

You are an idiot. Goodbye.


M


Amen brother! Concise and to the point!

JHC, what DOES it take to get banned around here? Apparently cluelessness isn't one of the criteria if ol' JB is still among us.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 22, 2005, 08:36:57 am
Personal bannings are easy.

I didn't click it, but I'll bet that link that Mr. Blackwood posted a few hundred pages ago was just like the following link..

Happy Place

If you click it, and the page reloads, don't be afraid, be happy... it's working.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 22, 2005, 10:19:48 am
DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 08:36

Personal bannings are easy.

I didn't click it, but I'll bet that link that Mr. Blackwood posted a few hundred pages ago was just like the following link..

Happy Place

If you click it, and the page reloads, don't be afraid, be happy... it's working.


M


I already did that but his quotes keep showing up in other peoples posts!!!! Shocked
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 22, 2005, 11:43:53 am
Denny W. wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 15:19

DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 08:36

Personal bannings are easy.

I didn't click it, but I'll bet that link that Mr. Blackwood posted a few hundred pages ago was just like the following link..

Happy Place

If you click it, and the page reloads, don't be afraid, be happy... it's working.


M


I already did that but his quotes keep showing up in other peoples posts!!!! Shocked



Not to mention the weeks I spent trying to get the words Sanken Mic out of my everyday thoughts.  Confused
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PookyNMR on December 22, 2005, 12:00:28 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 12:16

Nathan, the old "mic and speaker argument" for holding back on digital innovation is no longer valid...if it ever was, which I rather doubt.

There are now commercially available speakers which go down to the 5-8 Hz range and up to the 100kHz range...and the same with mics...

Those who want to hold back the digital progress and remain with the old slow sample rates will need to come up with some new material since the old "mic and speaker argument" has been fully discredited.




It has NOT been fully discredited.  It is a very valid argument that blows your whole ultra high frequency premise apart.  

Sure there are a few freak manufactures that make gear that goes >20k.  But who uses them regulalrly???   Most If not ALL of the mics and speakers all your analog studios use are all <20k.  It's a very valid argument.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PookyNMR on December 22, 2005, 12:12:53 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 14:33


We now have commercially available speakers that reach high frequencies in the 100kHz range and we also have microphones such as the new 100kHz Sanken mic.




Too bad no one uses them.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 22, 2005, 12:31:17 pm
He's the Energizer Idiot.  He keeps going and going and going...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 22, 2005, 12:34:08 pm
kraster wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 11:43

Denny W. wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 15:19

DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 08:36

Personal bannings are easy.

I didn't click it, but I'll bet that link that Mr. Blackwood posted a few hundred pages ago was just like the following link..

Happy Place

If you click it, and the page reloads, don't be afraid, be happy... it's working.


M


I already did that but his quotes keep showing up in other peoples posts!!!! Shocked



Not to mention the weeks I spent trying to get the words Sanken Mic out of my everyday thoughts.  Confused




I always thought Sanken was coffee.......Smile
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 22, 2005, 01:16:47 pm
kraster wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 11:43

Denny W. wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 15:19

DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 08:36

Personal bannings are easy.

I didn't click it, but I'll bet that link that Mr. Blackwood posted a few hundred pages ago was just like the following link..

Happy Place

If you click it, and the page reloads, don't be afraid, be happy... it's working.


M


I already did that but his quotes keep showing up in other peoples posts!!!! Shocked



Not to mention the weeks I spent trying to get the words Sanken Mic out of my everyday thoughts.  Confused



Yeah, Me too..,, I finally just took a sharpie {red} and marked 100-K on all my high shelving EQ's... It sounds GREAT!!  It took a long time though ;-{  That's 32 channels X 32 Monitor's with 100-K shelving EQ's!! My dog freaks OUT man~!@#$%^..  So, instead of thinking of that Mic, I can just ad 100-K when I need it... It's really great on the way to my 20-hz-to-18-khz four track 1/2" machine.....


{yikes,,, Why did I cut back on drinking again??}

\
Ivan........................................................ ..............................................
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Malcolm Boyce on December 22, 2005, 01:20:08 pm
index.php/fa/2091/0/
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: howlback on December 22, 2005, 01:40:44 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 12:00

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 12:16

Nathan, the old "mic and speaker argument" for holding back on digital innovation is no longer valid...if it ever was, which I rather doubt.

There are now commercially available speakers which go down to the 5-8 Hz range and up to the 100kHz range...and the same with mics...

Those who want to hold back the digital progress and remain with the old slow sample rates will need to come up with some new material since the old "mic and speaker argument" has been fully discredited.




It has NOT been fully discredited.  It is a very valid argument that blows your whole ultra high frequency premise apart.  

Sure there are a few freak manufactures that make gear that goes >20k.  But who uses them regulalrly???   Most If not ALL of the mics and speakers all your analog studios use are all <20k.  It's a very valid argument.


Nathan is right. I still have yet to see a survey of high-resolution products indicating how much supra-threshold content there actually is on disks, but it must be very low, particularly on older recordings made with large diaphragms.

-k. walker
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 22, 2005, 01:51:40 pm
Laugh all you want...

Maybe you'll want to come back and reread this when the Next Gen Chips obsolete all the existing digital gear...

Oops, I forgot: All digital is obsolete on the day it was designed.

Yonah says so...heh..heh

For Christmas, some may want to consider giving the gift of love...a few mono blocks and a good turntable...

To paraphrase another analogue lover, "No digital ice picks shoved in your ears there." Aye?

Cheers.  Smile

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 22, 2005, 03:21:49 pm
Right now, a village somewhere is being deprived of its idiot.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 22, 2005, 03:46:16 pm
Maybe this article

"High Tech, Low Quality: Studio Gadgets Cannot Replace Professional Production"
(Billboard Editorial - June 19, 2004)

will help some of the digital fan boys understand.


http://members.aol.com/searsound/articles2.html
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: kraster on December 22, 2005, 03:50:49 pm
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 18:51

Laugh all you want...



More good suggestions... you're on a roll...troll
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PookyNMR on December 22, 2005, 03:55:12 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 13:21

Right now, a village somewhere is being deprived of its idiot.


Maybe "B" stands for 'Bush'...   Twisted Evil

Maybe I shouldn't go there....


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Malcolm Boyce on December 22, 2005, 04:28:04 pm
JohnnyB22???
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Bill B on December 22, 2005, 04:55:02 pm
Buh-bye now, Johnny.

*click*
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 22, 2005, 08:31:49 pm
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 15:46

Maybe this article

"High Tech, Low Quality: Studio Gadgets Cannot Replace Professional Production"
(Billboard Editorial - June 19, 2004)

will help some of the digital fan boys understand.


http://members.aol.com/searsound/articles2.html



You can file this article away with your Rupert articles in the total bullshit folder, JB. The author says that he was using a Moog in 1964. Bob didn't even reveal his first synth until the 1964 AES convention, it took him several hours to set up and it wasn't ready for commercial production at that time. The first commercial recording was done by The Zodiac during the Summer of Love in 1967. They were a throw together band of some of the best session players at the time and it was a one time project, they never recorded again. Moog's synth didn't really catch on in the industry until Wendy Carlos used it for Switched On Back in 1968 and I'll bet that's about the time that the author first heard about it. I got this straight from the horses mouth in a PBS interview in New Orleans in December of 1968.

RIP, Bob.

But of course JB will ingnore this first hand information and continue to sprout crap culled from internet articles written by people that he's never met, nor has any clue of their credibility. You can teach dumbasses something sometimes, but you can't teach anyone that goes out of their way to be ignorant a damn thing.

I liked JJ's new name, but I think we should change it to Johnny B Clueless.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 22, 2005, 09:08:33 pm
you can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make him think
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: TotalSonic on December 22, 2005, 09:56:31 pm
Ronny wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 01:31

Johnny B wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 15:46

Maybe this article

"High Tech, Low Quality: Studio Gadgets Cannot Replace Professional Production"
(Billboard Editorial - June 19, 2004)

will help some of the digital fan boys understand.


http://members.aol.com/searsound/articles2.html



You can file this article away with your Rupert articles in the total bullshit folder, JB. The author says that he was using a Moog in 1964. Bob didn't even reveal his first synth until the 1964 AES convention, it took him several hours to set up and it wasn't ready for commercial production at that time. The first commercial recording was done by The Zodiac during the Summer of Love in 1967. They were a throw together band of some of the best session players at the time and it was a one time project, they never recorded again. Moog's synth didn't really catch on in the industry until Wendy Carlos used it for Switched On Back in 1968 and I'll bet that's about the time that the author first heard about it. I got this straight from the horses mouth in a PBS interview in New Orleans in December of 1968.

RIP, Bob.

But of course JB will ingnore this first hand information and continue to sprout crap culled from internet articles written by people that he's never met, nor has any clue of their credibility. You can teach dumbasses something sometimes, but you can't teach anyone that goes out of their way to be ignorant a damn thing.

I liked JJ's new name, but I think we should change it to Johnny B Clueless.


Ronny -
The article linked is written by Walter Sear.  Walter was a friend of Robert Moog's and has one of the first Moog synths, 1/4" patch bay and all, still in near mint condition at his place.  I've met Walter a few times and was down there a little bit ago and he showed it to me in fact.  Anyway - his article just states that "I opened one of the first commercial electronic music studios in 1964."  It doesn't say anything about a Moog in 1964 - although he did have close ties with Bob - so maybe he in fact did have one that early.  So - while Johnny B is totally wacked in 99.9% of his posts - it's not like you should discount the article due to the fact you pointed out.

Anyway - Walter has no interest whatsoever in anything digital at all.  But his articles are all based on his personal preferences, and this one linked refers more to degradations of general practices in the recording industry than to any scientifically based reasoning for his preferences of analog.  So I'm not sure what Johnny B's point is with linking this particular article except that Walter Sear hates digital recording.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 22, 2005, 10:33:51 pm
The global village needs an idiot.

Nominations? Anyone?


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 23, 2005, 12:02:37 am
steve b wrote:

"So I'm not sure what Johnny B's point is..."

i think we're all wondering that one

as for global village idiot, surely, dubya is the odds-on favourite
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Klokkern on December 23, 2005, 03:10:36 am
Here is an interesting little wiev on the subject. The whole thing  can be found here:

http://www.sydec.be/About/POS/Details/?ID=47a8061a-560c-4303 -9c28-6f08c23ce2d9

"I have had a few bands that really liked the idea of recording on tape, I said OK we will do a blind test, I would record to tape and soundscape simultaneously, then set up a multitrack playback switch and call them A and B, don’t tell the Artist which is which and let them decide on Audio not romantic tests, They have always picked soundscape and never tape, when I tell them they always want a second go, but still decide the soundscape sounds better."
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 24, 2005, 01:43:36 am
TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 21:56


Ronny -
The article linked is written by Walter Sear.  Walter was a friend of Robert Moog's and has one of the first Moog synths, 1/4" patch bay and all, still in near mint condition at his place.  I've met Walter a few times and was down there a little bit ago and he showed it to me in fact.  Anyway - his article just states that "I opened one of the first commercial electronic music studios in 1964."  It doesn't say anything about a Moog in 1964 - although he did have close ties with Bob - so maybe he in fact did have one that early.  So - while Johnny B is totally wacked in 99.9% of his posts - it's not like you should discount the article due to the fact you pointed out.

Anyway - Walter has no interest whatsoever in anything digital at all.  But his articles are all based on his personal preferences, and this one linked refers more to degradations of general practices in the recording industry than to any scientifically based reasoning for his preferences of analog.  So I'm not sure what Johnny B's point is with linking this particular article except that Walter Sear hates digital recording.

Best regards,
Steve Berson



Understood, Steve. Won't be the first or last time that I misread something.  Smile
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rankus on December 24, 2005, 02:54:37 pm
DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 19:33

The global village needs an idiot.

Nominations? Anyone?


M


Oh, thats toooo easy!  His last initial is "B" as well... (GWB) Laughing
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 26, 2005, 02:32:53 am
Nope, wrong again,  the "B" stands for "brilliant, bold, beacon" and other positive words beginning with the letter "B." Heh...Heh...

I see some do not want to come out of their dark caves and see the truth in the bright sunshine, but that's Ok with me. I understand the emotional need of the Luddite element to remain wedded to old obsolete digital technology that still does not sound as good as analogue.  

I think the real village idiots are those who take shots at Mr. Sear, our host Mr. Albini, or any others who prefer the sound of analogue over digital.

It's disturbing that some people on this forum take shots at people without having any factual basis to do so, that suggests a complete lack of professionalism. Hopefully, remedial action and alteration of some of these nasty and rude habits can be eliminated by some of the posters here in the New Year. I'll try to do my part as well.

In the meantime, those seeking to correct some of the misstated facts posted by the misguided anti-analogue fanatics may want to visit the following website for accurate details.

http://www.searsound.com

Given the client list, and other valuable information posted there, it's a safe bet that a NYC project done there will have a professional analogue sound to it. Smile

To all: Have a Happy New Year!  

Very Happy

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 26, 2005, 08:48:25 am

The only one that isn't learning anything is you Johnny B.

No one is dissing Albini or anyone else for preferring analog. That is a preference, what people are almost unanamously doing is dissing your logic based on false hoods and misinformation.

Your statements are blanket, you continue to ignore people that try to explain where your misconceptions are coming from. You have no experience with analog or digital recording, no gear, no scientific testing to back up your rhetoric. You take offense when people try to help and clue you in and you start the name calling, than when people do the natural thing and call you names back, you are perfect and everyone else started it. I've seen you post on four PSW forums now and you continue to be clueless. You'd rather argue than learn. I've made countless common sense comments that you ignore as has several other people that are like me, they record both annie and digi. You have no basis for you information other than your misguided assumptions and rather than do your own testing, like people that have been trying to help you, you just paste crap off the internet from people that support your opinions, with no foundation of their own. All speculative and no basis of evidence.

No surprise that people call you a troll, you've been kicked off other newsgroups for stirring shit up and you continue to ignore people on PSW, that design the gear and write the books on both annie and digital platforms and the real differences between the two mediums.  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: RMoore on December 26, 2005, 12:34:48 pm
TotalSonic wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 03:56

 
http://members.aol.com/searsound/articles2.html


[/quote]


I liked this quote:

"No one has succeeded in creating a great painting on a computer, and I think that holds true for music as well"
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: TotalSonic on December 26, 2005, 03:31:54 pm
Ryan Moore wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 17:34


I liked this quote:

"No one has succeeded in creating a great painting on a computer, and I think that holds true for music as well"


Instead I know of hundreds of artists that have created some amazing digital art,  graphic manipulations, animations, edited movies, and done pretty much every element of current graphic design - all with computers.  Granted - there's a ton of crap being made digitally these days  - but there are also some true gems that represent some amazing stuff.  You just have to look for it (big hint: it's generally not in the mainstream)

I greatly greaty appreciate Walter Sear as someone who is incredibly knowledgeable and who truly cares about the integrity of audio.  Having been given a tour by him of his studios I can state the care at which he put into the design, construction, equipping, and maintainace is at the highest level you can get.  

However - I find that closed mindedness to other methods of working and to other genres besides the ones that he is intimately familiar with doesn't allow him to speak objectively on these issues.  The statement quoted above shows complete blindness to possibilities of art being made from recently introduced construction materials.  I fully appreciate that if a method of working is not for you then it shouldn't be forced down your throat.  But to write off all the work of others using that method is simply unwarranted.

btw - when I was last down there it was to look at one of his rooms to see if I wanted to rent it for my mastering studio.  The price was too steep for me (think I'm going to be staying in Brooklyn instead of Manhattan) - but he told me that if he wasn't able to get it rented at the price he wanted he was going to making it into a digital pre/post room

&
fwiw - ironically in one of the studios when I was taking the tour there was a PT HD rig brought in by one of the producers who was working there.

For all the digital nay-sayers:
I happen to think rock is best served by being recorded on analog.  Simply all my favorite recordings of rock were done to tape and I don't know of even a single digital recording of a rock band that I like that much.  
However -  I listen to a ton of music that isn't rock - in fact most of my daily listening is cross genre stuff that doesn't fit into a neat label.  And simply some of  the best sounding stuff in my collection to my ear has been recorded digitally.  Obviously ommv.

so -
I'd like to propose listening to one of my favorite "DDD" recordings of acoustic instruments - Rabih Abou-Khalil's "Yara" on the Enja label featuring one of my favorite cellists, Vincent Courtois - recorded in 1998 by Walter Quintus at Studio Zerkall (aka CMP Studios).  Honestly  - I really can not find anything in the sound of this recording where it would have benefitted from going to analog.  Obviously again - ommv.

Again - Johnny B -have you ever recorded anything??  Do you even have a single credit??  Have you ever even been in a room with a high end AD or DA converter??  As Brad stated - none of us can ever take you seriously unless you provide us with credits / work experience.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 26, 2005, 06:08:41 pm
More attacks on the messenger...totally lame and unprofessional...

I've simply posted links to some valid and direct evidence, evidence which would be admissible in any court of law, valid evidence which shows that digital has some rather severe shortcomings and problems.

Roadmap For Digital Sound Improvement and Advancement

If digital is going to get better (I'm not at all sure it will) it will have to take several steps, such as:

1) The first step is to accurately measure the ENTIRE frequency spectra that are actually produced by voices and ALL the world's musical instruments and create a published database that those seeking to advance digital sound quality can freely access. IOW, this freely-accessible database would be a more complete version of the work done by CalTech's Professor James Boyk.

2) The second step is take that "Expanded Frequency Spectrum Database" and utilise an unbiased multidisciplinary team of qualified experts and test appropriate samples of the human population (i.e. account for age, gender, national origin) to precisely determine how much of the frequency spectrum is truly important to the human experience of pleasure. This, of course, would involve scientific data such as brain scans, pulse-, and heart-rate monitoring.

3) Once the unbiased multidisciplinary teams of experts determine how much of the frequency spectrum is truly important to the human experience of pleasure, reports and papers can be published for appropriate peer review. At some point, a consensus will emerge on "how much?" of the frequency spectrum should be expanded because it is truly important to human beings experiencing pleasure.

4) Make any adjustments in the AD/DA chips, such as, increasing sample rates, to correspond with the ability to capture and reproduce the entire frequency spectrum determined by the unbiased multidisciplinary science to be "important."  

5) Increase and adjust bit-depths to increase system communication speeds, eliminate bottlenecks and intermediate steps, reduce or eliminate latency, rounding errors, and improve computer system throughput. Instead of focusing solely on how many bits it takes to represent the wave, the focus should be on other factors such as increasing the speed of the entire communication and internal processes.

6) Bring out new digital formats which are fully capable of storing and replaying the data that results from advances in the digital technology.

7) Make work for engineers in order to resell the back catalogue once again. Make work for engineers and producers to record, mix, and master better sounding digital product from new artistic endeavors.

There may be a better roadmap or alternative methodology to improve and advance the art and science of digital sound; however, the outline above makes logical sense and will be supported by sound and unbiased science.  For digital sound to improve and advance, it will take some time, perhaps, five to ten years.

Now what about analogue? It can also advance and has large head-start.

And for now, I prefer the sound of analogue.

Ok, I'm ducking. Smile

   
     
Title: Can't we all just get along? ...
Post by: vernier on December 26, 2005, 06:13:39 pm
Lets face it ...the best recordings made today are hybrid. As example, the chart-topping, record-breaking (and cool sounding) "Breakaway" ...made with loads of analog AND digital gear.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 26, 2005, 06:24:59 pm
The words of limitation you utilise "made today" say quite a bit, doncha think?

Ugh! I wish the long post I just typed which outlined a possible roadmap for digital sound improvement were not on the last page. I was hoping that people might comment on that roadmap and make helpful suggestions for modification, alteration, or inclusion.


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: t(h)ik on December 26, 2005, 06:36:17 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 00:08



2) The second step is take that "Expanded Frequency Spectrum Database" and utilise an unbiased multidisciplinary team of qualified experts and test appropriate samples of the human population (i.e. account for age, gender, national origin) to precisely determine how much of the frequency spectrum is truly important to the human experience of pleasure. This, of course, would involve scientific data such as brain scans, pulse-, and heart-rate monitoring.


   
     


This is the most in-depth taking of the piss I have ever seen.

The amount of energy makes it obvious that you are either bed ridden or in serious need of something to do.

There is no way I could read this whole thread but it is wonderful for winding down.

Congratulations sir and good night from the fatherland.

lemme nough

tik
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: t(h)ik on December 26, 2005, 06:39:42 pm
p.s.

I don't think heart rate monitoring...

or montitoring the heart rate in non-isle dwelling venacular...

is scientific..

thank you..

tik
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 26, 2005, 06:50:07 pm
 sixtiksix,

Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.

Whether or not this holds true for various groups of women of different ages or national origins is an "open question." A comprehensive, properly constructed, and properly conducted study by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts will provide the sound science that answers the question.

As to the importance for the unbiased team of multidisciplinary experts to utilise pulse-rate monitoring and heart-rate monitoring, the data suggest that the low-end frequencies often have a positive influence on these human activities. For example, more accurate scientific data in regard to heart and pulse rates would be extremely helpful to those seeking to exploit the dance market.  In any event, bass frequencies are extremely important and must be a part of any comprehensive study of human beings reactions to sound.

In a similar vein, the brain scans are also important because they can verify whether ot not the brain's pleasure centre is receiving positive stimuli from the frequencies under test. This is so, despite whether or not the frequency under test is supposedly "inaudible" and despite what the person may say to the researcher. The actual influence will clearly show up on the "objective" brain scan.

And, that's all good science!

Cheers. Smile



   


     
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: bblackwood on December 26, 2005, 08:19:38 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 17:08

And for now, I prefer the sound of analogue.

In what way, playback or recording?

Big diff, so please share...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 26, 2005, 08:42:36 pm
don't u know johnny only listens to 8 track cassettes
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 26, 2005, 09:29:14 pm
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 18:08


I've simply posted links to some valid and direct evidence, evidence which would be admissible in any court of law


Oh, good, now you're a lawyer too.

Tell me, Oliver Wendell Holmes, what do you think happens to someone's credibility on the stand when they ignore direct questions repeatedly, or merely offer half-baked evasive responses? I don't think the right against self incrimination extends to sock puppets, so no pleading the fifth...or the 11(c) [in case you are a country-man of mine - and I do ardently hope not].

Questions currently before the witness, awaiting an answer;

1. are you a recording engineer? have you at least ever been inside a recording studio?
2. what is your name?
3. assuming you are a recording engineer then what is the media budget for your next recording project. please elaborate on the projected breakdown between 2", your choice of 2 track media, and dats/cds you might burn through. do you plan to archive/safety to 2" or perhaps 48 dig or something else?
4. how do you rationalize your fetish for that part of the spectra above 20k with your purported fetish for band-limited recording and playback media?
5. how do you rationalize your disdain for those postings in which you are derided with your own bitter vitriolic postings? is abuse only 'professional' when it comes from a non-professional like you? and is it only un-professional when directed at you by actual professionals?

Now I'm guessing your answers will be something along the lines of "multidisciplinary pleasure centres are important and analog is awesome, digital fan boy, I should know because my father-in-law is an accountant", but if you can struggle against your basic nature and actually answer at least a couple of direct questions without embarrassing yourself (do sockpuppets blush?) that would be stunning.  
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: canada on December 26, 2005, 09:55:16 pm
it burns IT BURNS
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 26, 2005, 11:53:53 pm
Make Believe Fan Boy

Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.


That must be why they prefer boy bands, Kenny G and Michael Bolton.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: t(h)ik on December 27, 2005, 02:49:10 am
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 00:50

 sixtiksix,

Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.

Whether or not this holds true for various groups of women of different ages or national origins is an "open question."

....

And, that's all good science!

Cheers. Smile



   


     


Sir,

I think this point is brilliant!  Because it is a very open question.  If a woman was say, twenty-five and her national origin was say, Canada she could still be young and hear differently than a middle aged man, or not, a very open question.
Conversely a filly of twenty-one would still be young and may or may not be Canadian and could be deaf as a fukken door nail.  This line of reasoning is extremely intriguing and I stand corrected; from my brief interlude with science at the chemistry lab at university and as a systems technician for twenty-three years I find your posts to be very scientific if not cutting edge.

Your new fan,

lemme nough

tik
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 27, 2005, 09:32:23 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 23:53

Make Believe Fan Boy

Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.


That must be why they prefer boy bands, Kenny G and Michael Bolton.



-snork-

Ok, this thread is locked!

(I don't have admin privs, so just pretend like it's locked)


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: John Ivan on December 27, 2005, 09:53:23 am
sixtiksix wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 02:49

 
Quote:



Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.

Whether or not this holds true for various groups of women of different ages or national origins is an "open question."

....

And, that's all good science!

Cheers. Smile

 


Sir,

I think this point is brilliant!  Because it is a very open question.  If a woman was say, twenty-five and her national origin was say, Canada she could still be young and hear differently than a middle aged man, or not, a very open question.
Conversely a filly of twenty-one would still be young and may or may not be Canadian and could be deaf as a fukken door nail.  This line of reasoning is extremely intriguing and I stand corrected; from my brief interlude with science at the chemistry lab at university and as a systems technician for twenty-three years I find your posts to be very scientific if not cutting edge.

Your new fan,

lemme nough

tik




Oh Man,, TIK,,,  Don't mention 25 year old Canadian Women . I LOVE the women in Canada!!! Of course, I'm off the market now and I'm a good boy but,, Canada and 25 year old women bring back great memories..    { I think I'm gona cry}.

Ivan..............
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: t(h)ik on December 27, 2005, 09:55:20 am
The problem is they're all 52 now...

LMAO










just kidding brough


tik
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 27, 2005, 01:17:58 pm
If some people do not want to better understand the sound frequency spectra that the science shows has a positive influence on human beings, and whether or not specific populations around the world are influenced any differently, and to utilise good science conducted by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts to determine "How much?" of the frequency spectrum is truly important, is their own decision.

However, that will mean that they will likey remain in a state of ignorance as to this particular issue. Moreover, if they should go off and repeat the myth that all human hearing is limited 20Hz to 20kHz, and then jump to the inappropriate conclusion that "ONLY 20-to-20 is important" for digital sound capture and reproduction purposes, they shall do so without valid evidence. Further, the attidude that "We already know it all" is the kind of attitude that holds back scientific inquiry which normally leads to needed technological advances.

People have been complaining about the sound of digital for years. This continuing digital state of "not quite right sound" (to put it mildly) raised some serious questions, many of which remain unanswered. When you have people making comments such as "Listening to digital is like sticking an ice pick in my ears," despite 25 years of "efforting" by the chip makers, then it's clearly time for digital proponents to do some rigorous re-thinking, if not, some rigorous soul-searching.

Having a complete, comprehensive, freely-accessible, scientific database that has been compiled by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts and has been properly "peer reviewed," as has been suggested above, will clearly aid those who want to improve digital sound quality.

Some people here seem to have an irrational fear against even making more accurate scientific inquiries, let alone, an irrational fear against the coming digital technological advances. Perhaps part of their irrational fear and lashing out at the messenger is based upon the knowledge that "All digital gear is obsolete on the day it was designed" and that they will sooner, rather than later, be forced to junk what digital gear they have and buy new gear, I dunno

"Why" do I prefer the sound of analogue over digital? That's a good question. I suspect, I cannot now prove, that analogue technology captures the emotions and translates them to the listener better. As a direct result, people like me, and many musicians prefer the sound and the expereince of analogue.

As for analogue technology's so-called "limitations" being thrown up again, I see that as a smokescreen, an attempt to deflect attention away from honestly acknowledging the many deficiencies in digital, including, but not limited to, math errors, inadequate communication speed, total system thoughput problems, and the poor CD and MP3 formats. The attempt to throw up such a smokescreen rests upon a logical fallacy and is being used by some to try to hold back both scientific progress and digital's coming technological advancement.

I suspect, but cannot prove yet, that removing the artifical and arbitrary 20-to-20 frequency barriers from digital, thoroughly examining the data of the "important" frequencies for human populations to experience pleasure compiled by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts, will result in the clear need to increase digital sound's sample rates. The decision to do so will thus rest upon a solid foundation of peer-reviewed science.

I also suspect that the bit-depth in digital sound will need to be increased far beyond the mere representation of the sound wave, there will be some waste in the form of additional unused bits, but this "bit waste" will be more than offset by corresponding boosts in overall system performance. As it is, inadequate bit-depth is something of a barrier to system throughput, it reminds me of the old 640K memory barrier, where the intermediate process of memory bank-switching could not be eliminated and slowed the system down having a negative impact on system performance. In any event, whether I'm right or wrong about getting more overall system throughput by bit-depth expansion, bit-depth expansion in digital sound will still need to be addressed. Any bottlenecks that can be removed, should be.

In the meantime, people can hire wonderful analogue facilities all over the world. This is a great idea because even the digital advocates admit they like the sound of analogue and one also can satisfy the needs of those who still prefer the sound of analogue, such as, many musicians.

Happy musicians means better performances, therefore, hiring an analogue facility makes a lot of good sense.

Cheers. Smile

         



   
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 27, 2005, 01:40:53 pm
I rest my case.  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: acorec on December 27, 2005, 01:46:49 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 13:17



...


"Why" do I prefer the sound of analogue over digital? That's a good question. I suspect, I cannot now prove, that analogue technology captures the emotions and translates them to the listener better...


Cheers. Smile

 



I always wondered why pro machines used 2" tape. I guess 1" is for musical tracks and the other 1" is for the emotions.
I learned something today. Thanks!

         



 
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 27, 2005, 04:25:44 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 18:17


I also suspect that the bit-depth in digital sound will need to be increased far beyond the mere representation of the sound wave,



I'd love to know what else it is we're supposed to be representing in a sound recording. The thought waves of fairies perhaps?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: TotalSonic on December 27, 2005, 04:26:20 pm
acorec wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 18:46

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 13:17



"Why" do I prefer the sound of analogue over digital? That's a good question. I suspect, I cannot now prove, that analogue technology captures the emotions and translates them to the listener better...
Cheers. Smile

 

I always wondered why pro machines used 2" tape. I guess 1" is for musical tracks and the other 1" is for the emotions.
I learned something today. Thanks!
 


The thing you have to do with digital is go to the system menu and then choose
File -> Preferences -> Recording ->
and then unclick "Always Remove Emotions"

Most people don't know about this button - which is too bad considering how much "damage" has been inflicted to date.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Malcolm Boyce on December 27, 2005, 04:40:45 pm
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 17:25


I'd love to know what else it is we're supposed to be representing in a sound recording. The thought waves of fairies perhaps?



I think JB said something about the musical intent of the players, or something like that.  I don't know what the sample rate or bit depth would have to be for that.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 27, 2005, 04:49:56 pm
Just in case you guys are looking for the next really big thread, I thought I'd chime in with one I am watching.

PHNT: Potentially Huge New Thread


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 27, 2005, 05:53:24 pm
For all you digital advocates, get ready to spend gobs more money if you want to keep up. This new and burdensome expenditure in more digital gear will, if proper cost-accounting principles are applied, make the hiring of an analogue facility all the more cost-effective.    

Now, some people seem skeptical that digital sound will have to undergo some serious change and add exciting new technology insuring that existing digital rigs are now obsolete. Important to note is that the "hot new stuff" will not use the old burst tech found in the old Intel CPU's; instead, it is based on an entirely new architecture.

Perhaps this recent quote from Intel's CEO will shed some light on the darkness and get some people to reevaluate their current "state of denial."

"You're going to see Intel combine its R&D innovation, manufacturing and technology leadership with energy-efficient micro-architectures and powerful multicore processors to deliver unique platforms best tailored to individual needs," Intel's Otellini said. "We will deliver 'factor of 10' breakthroughs to a variety of platforms that can reduce energy consumption tenfold or bring 10 times the performance of today's products."

Intel's Mr. Otellini is, in essence, telegraphing the message:

All the existing digital gear is obsolete.

Cheers Smile



Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: JamSync on December 27, 2005, 05:54:47 pm
DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 15:49

Just in case you guys are looking for the next really big thread, I thought I'd chime in with one I am watching.

PHNT: Potentially Huge New Thread


M


Maybe not as big, but certainly equal in its irritating stupidity.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 27, 2005, 06:16:40 pm
Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 22:53

Intel's Mr. Otellini is, in essence, telegraphing the message:

All the existing digital gear is obsolete.



Obsolete means no longer useful, there's a world of difference between that and simply not being cutting edge.





Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: rnicklaus on December 27, 2005, 06:19:21 pm
JamSync wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 14:54

DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 15:49

Just in case you guys are looking for the next really big thread, I thought I'd chime in with one I am watching.

PHNT: Potentially Huge New Thread


M


Maybe not as big, but certainly equal in its irritating stupidity.



What's that comment about?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: t(h)ik on December 27, 2005, 07:10:47 pm
C'mon guys it's christmas for christ's sake.

Peace on Earth...goodwill and all that.

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 27, 2005, 08:22:59 pm
lmao... kk, randy, and tik..



M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: CCC on December 27, 2005, 09:14:09 pm
JamSync wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 17:54

DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 15:49

Just in case you guys are looking for the next really big thread, I thought I'd chime in with one I am watching.

PHNT: Potentially Huge New Thread


M


Maybe not as big, but certainly equal in its irritating stupidity.



Yes and or no. That other thread is pretty stupid, but this one is "Ann Coulter" stupid, which is a little beyond "you can't get pregnant the first time" stupid, and approaching "Church of Scientology invading a foreign country over non-existent weapons of mass destruction under the command of Pauly Shore" stupid. Now that - that's stupid.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 27, 2005, 10:23:52 pm
HAH!


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Ronny on December 27, 2005, 11:24:36 pm
John Sorensen wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 13:40

I rest my case.  Rolling Eyes



You could have rested your case, way back when he had his foot in his mouth. Now it's up to his knee.  Laughing
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PaulyD on December 28, 2005, 02:34:19 am
Johnny B wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 15:50

 sixtiksix,

Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.

Whether or not this holds true for various groups of women of different ages or national origins is an "open question." A comprehensive, properly constructed, and properly conducted study by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts will provide the sound science that answers the question.


The hearing ability of people of different age groups, races, and gender has been well-established by Bell Laboratories. The result of their research was used to create the logarithmic scale we use today to measure dBSPL. It was determined that black females from 18 - 22 years of age have the most sensitive hearing. The quietest average sound that 18 - 22 year old black females could hear became the 0 dBSPL reference point. 0 dBSPL is not the complete absence of sound, just quietest sound a human can hear.

Johnny B wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 15:50

As to the importance for the unbiased team of multidisciplinary experts to utilise pulse-rate monitoring and heart-rate monitoring, the data suggest that the low-end frequencies often have a positive influence on these human activities. For example, more accurate scientific data in regard to heart and pulse rates would be extremely helpful to those seeking to exploit the dance market.  In any event, bass frequencies are extremely important and must be a part of any comprehensive study of human beings reactions to sound.


Musicologists have known for years that different textures, timbres, tempos, amplitudes, modes, intervals, etc can be used to evoke physiological responses in humans. Ask any experienced DJ about what happens when they pump up the bass. It gets people out on the dance floor. No mystery there.

It's amazing what can be learned by reading books. It's not all about Google. Put into practice, that which is learned from books can make one a better listener and a better engineer...if that were possible...

Apologies to everyone else for feeding the troll...
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 28, 2005, 03:57:28 am
go on, it's fun to feed it

just watch it doesn't bite your fingers though
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on December 29, 2005, 08:07:47 am
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 23:16

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 22:53

Intel's Mr. Otellini is, in essence, telegraphing the message:

All the existing digital gear is obsolete.



Obsolete means no longer useful, there's a world of difference between that and simply not being cutting edge.








Since when was digital ever useful? Perhaps its useful for decimating 3D analogue sound waves...chopping them up, slicing and dicing them, and turning them into neat little zeros and ones that will be sent thru bad digital math and come out sounding...thin, cold, brittle, and ice cold.

But whether or not analogue still sounds far superior to digital is beside the point, all that digital gear is now, always was, or soon will be

OBSOLETE...

It's funny that anyone would even try to deny that all things digital go obsolete rather quickly. It's difficult to think of things that go obsolete faster than digital gear and computer software...

Ok John, so while everybody gets a 10-fold increase in Intel's new CPU performance, you are going to keep plugging away with whatever digital gear you now have?  I suppose you may feel that all the chip makers, all the software houses, all the people working on new formats, and next gen AD/DA chips are all going to sit still and wait for you? Don't think so.

Many of you will all be going crazy again, buying new digital gear, and trying to integrate it to get the crap to work.

Good luck with all the new digital gear, software, headaches, and extra expense.


Cheers. Smile


 


Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Larrchild on December 29, 2005, 12:27:16 pm
arent they missing you at gearslutz?
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 29, 2005, 01:09:25 pm
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07


Since when was digital ever useful?


Hmmm, I guess you're just talking about audio, either way this is an incredibly stupid question.
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07

Perhaps its useful for decimating 3D analogue sound waves


That would be those 3 dimensional signals coming out of your microphones which have the 3 dimensions of time, level and ...???
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07

...chopping them up, slicing and dicing them, and turning them into neat little zeros and ones that will be sent thru bad digital math and come out sounding...thin, cold, brittle, and ice cold.

If what you have comes out that bad then I'd blame your technique... except I think you've made it plain that you don't actually use the stuff you complain about or rave about.
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07


But whether or not analogue still sounds far superior to digital is beside the point, all that digital gear is now, always was, or soon will be

OBSOLETE...

It's funny that anyone would even try to deny that all things digital go obsolete rather quickly. It's difficult to think of things that go obsolete faster than digital gear and computer software...


Yeah, my notebook suddenly stopped working as soon as one was released with a faster processor, and would you believe it, all my software stopped working when the next version came out.

Strange how I still make a living from it though
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07


Ok John, so while everybody gets a 10-fold increase in Intel's new CPU performance, you are going to keep plugging away with whatever digital gear you now have?

Now in my case that would be silly, because since I'm a programmer a 10-fold increase in system performance would save me enough time that the gear would pay for itself.
I'll upgrade my four year old notebook for something faster and lighter this year for exactly that reason, though it's not a tenfold increase, more like 2 or 3.
For recording/mixing etc the same rules can still apply, you buy new gear if you feel that the extra functionality it brings you will help you make more money or have more spare time... no different from expanding your analogue studio with a new compressor.
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07

I suppose you may feel that all the chip makers, all the software houses, all the people working on new formats, and next gen AD/DA chips are all going to sit still and wait for you? Don't think so.


What do I care about them? New formats I can always convert to and from, I can always write the program to do it if I have to. As for converters well to be honest I generally get given converters which are better than I need for my day job. If I wanted to record something super-hifi I'd just have to invest in something by Dan, or perhaps Prism or Apogee or whoever - would make the decision when it was neccessary.
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:07


Many of you will all be going crazy again, buying new digital gear, and trying to integrate it to get the crap to work.

Good luck with all the new digital gear, software, headaches, and extra expense.



Computers give me shit sometimes, but they're the least of my problems.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: maxim on December 29, 2005, 08:50:44 pm
this is what i heard leonard cohen say last night on tv:

" ... coventional wisdom dictates that you should mix in the analogue domain, however, when we transferred the tracks onto tape, the warmth of digital disappeared.. i know it's supposed to be the other way around, but... there you go"


here, troll, try chewing on that
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 30, 2005, 01:14:12 pm
haha.. ahhh...

One day, it will be Easter, and this thread will be starting to crawl by then. I imagine first words.. by Labor Day.


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Mister Trent on December 30, 2005, 03:17:29 pm
INTERESTING ANALOGIES TO ANALOG VS. DIGITAL THAT I FIND WORTH DISCUSSING

Analog vs. digital?  What's wild/cool/fun to note is that this EXACT same aesthetic/artisitc consideration is being fought out in both film and the art world.  Here are some fun observations; let me preface them by stating my personal preference: I think analog sound rules.

FILM: DIGITAL VIDEO VS. 35MM
I remember watching Danny Boyle's the horror film 28 Days Later and being impressed by it- but then upon talking to some of my cineophile friends (including one, "Stephanie" who is an accomplished NYU film school grad) they were like; fuck that; it's not even a FILM; it was shot on digital video, not 35MM.

Later, reading an interview with Danny Boyle he explained that the scenes of empty London had to be shot so quickly that they had no choice but to use digital and try to make it look more 16MM( read: analog) in post production (read: later they put an "analog plug-in" over it in Final Cut Pro); and so not to be too jarring of a contrast with the other clips they decided to shoot the entire film that way with the exception of one scene (which IS in 35MM (?!?!?!?), and DOES look jarring once you see it- because it looks so much more "film." than the rest of the movie, but I saw the whole movie before I read the Boyle interview so I had to go back and watch it again.

From what I understand Michael Mann's Collateral is also a "video" instead of a film albeit with the visual equivalent of a super high sampling rate of Mann's own invention.

Points?  None, but here is an observation- my film friend Stephanie who dissed 28 Days later is a big Cure fan; when I pointed out to her that one of her favorite Cure releases was digital instead of analog and made her listen to it side by side with an older release she realized one sounded warmer. But being a true film snob, she didn't care...but still dissed the "videos" as not being films, LOL.

In fact film has eerie parallels- 16MM and 35MM (1/2 inch and 2 inch machines).  People use video the way we use digital- cheap home use, a minimum standard that will make people stand up and take notice provided we wrote good songs, and endless editing
since a lot of us NEED this since we lack engineering skills to nail it right the first time.

ART WORLD: OIL VS. ACRYLIC
Not to be longwinded here, but the same issue- I have known some clever artists who have made their acrylic paintings look "oil-esque", one of my friends John Cycyk used to add black pigments to his acrylics to make them looks darker ("more oil") and use heavier strokes, i.e. the equivalent in our world of hitting digital front end with killer pres/comp to "warm" it up.

Observations: For me, this is less than successful, certainly less so than film.  Acrylic is easily recognizable as such, as is oil. Oil paintings DESTROY acrylic. And it bugs me to see them and I wish that the artist had robbed a bank to get oils because its so much warmer and more tri-dimensional- like Caravaggio versus a cartoon strip.  I imagine this is how Steve thinks of Pro Tooled recordings. But that's just me.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS
Most of us are much better at judging/recognizing the documenting medium used of the art to which WE consecrate most of our work- I doubt that most people even reading this realized that Collateral and 28 Days Later are not even films; they are videos.  

For me personally, for film it doesn't bother me as much, although now I am WATCHING for film (what does this say about me, LOL)....for paintings, oil versus acrylic....let's just say I think acrylic SUCKS.  It ruins the experience for me.  

And musically? For me, digital doesn't "ruin" the experience...but I can hear digital from a mile away (on drums especially), I have become so attuned to it. I DO think like Tom Petty who says (I am paraphrasing here) that even if someone is not aware of the medium or directly comparing, analog will always give an extra boost to a song's impression in the same way that people prefer the warmth of a fireplace over a heatpack (that last bit was mine, LOL). But I can be fooled I guess, every once in a while.

And I will be trying to fool people myself shortly- I am doing freelance productions in San Francisco and my workload is finally such I can't keep hitting up my friends for editing time so I will be getting a new machine loaded with SONAR 5 this weekend for my flat....I just can't get the work done any other way at this point.  God knows I'll be doing the equivalent of putting black pigment in my acrylic and running tracks thru
my old man's vintage Ampex I am getting repaired/hotrodded to get a transfomer inline...whatever it takes.  Ultimately, I think digital is like digital reverb.  As long as it doesn't sound annoying, we can make it work.

I hope (gulp). For rnb, country, hip-hop, yeah....but I have rock clients too...has anyone ever created a digital rock album that CUT it?  That sounded better than a demo?  Anyone have an mp3 to prove it exists? I would love to believe it's not the car, it's the driver, but the medium, and maybe the necessary processes involved, don't seem to favor rock and roll.  Despite ruthless, er..."trainspotting" I have yet to hear one.

OK guys, thanks and cheers Trent

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 30, 2005, 03:37:45 pm
Mister Trent wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 20:17

has anyone ever created a digital rock album that CUT it?  That sounded better than a demo?


Well what do you mean by a digital rock album? Or indeed an analogue one?

What I mean is that at one extreme you could have Mics into mic preamps and into DAW, and then everything else is digital from then on, including dynamics, all the way until your final CD.

At the other extreme you could have no digital involved at all, with the final product being delivered on vinyl.

In between there's an endless number of variations, for example one producer might track everything to analogue tape first, then put it into the DAW for editing, another might do everything in the DAW except master to analogue tape to add warmth, another might do drums and guitars on analogue but vocals on digital. Some might use digital recording and editing but tube outboard for a more "analogue" sound, some would just use emulation.

So what would you consider a "digital" album?

(edited since it seems my brain was disconnected from my fingers when I typed it the first time)
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Mister Trent on December 30, 2005, 05:15:29 pm
Good question! Smile The technical answer would be an album tracked on 2 inch or 1 or 1/2...mixed however. But the best answer would be an album that doesn't SOUND digital, whether it was  recorded on blackface ADATS or not really doesn't matter.

And I think I might have found one example: after  posted I just listened to the debut album by The Bronx, no one would confuse this recording with the depth and dimension of say, Zep IV but it does rock!  I repeat: It sounds like it was recorded and mixed digitally but it DOES rock.  If it was recorded digitally I would love to know how they did it, there is hope after all! Smile

Interestingly enough in my old band did a 2 inch recording that was well tracked but the mix sucks- I can send you an mp3 if you'd like; this is one of the reasons I am getting a digital home setup- because I know even my mediocre mixing skills can do a better job in a digital environment given the luxury of time than we were able to get on the studio dime.  

Cheers and peace Trent

PS: Incidentally this thread started with the analogy of guitar players loving tube amps over all else; funnily enough this is one place where, as a guitar player of (God) 25 years I disagree. (Note: digital amp sims are NOT my thing)- solid state amps have proven themselves a million times over in certain applications to be the equal of tube amps.  Most of Brian May's great guitar sounds on record were not the AC30, but the "Deacy" created by John Deacon- a solid state amplifier that was just a reversed speaker without even tone controls. The infamous Ty Tabor King's X sound acknowledged by many rock guitar congnescenti as a holy grail tone (he hid the amp labels so no one would discover it) turned out to be a Gibson Lab series.  Zappa tones?  The Pignose.   Blissed out rawk a la Cult Love album ("She Sells Sanctuary") was a Roland JC.  Clean tones in general like Fripp's stuff with Sylvian- that shit is direct.

This said, for those of us that are into tube amp sound- a cool trick to give a solid state amp tube characteristics (and often cooler, depending on the application) is to put a cheap old Joe Meek "green box" such as a VC3 in the amp's FX loop and engage some compression- the character of the pre plus the optical comp element in many ways sounds warmer than tubes- a phenom noticed by Michael Molenda of Guitar Player magazine in an outboard preamp/comp shootout.  

You can get these VC3s dirt cheap on Ebay these days because the new ThreeQ series is out- DO NOT use the ThreeQ by the way for this app- the pre is WAY too transparent compared to the older models and you have to use levels of compression that are "audible" to get any (therefore non) satisfactory effect.  All of the warmth, even better mojo, plus far better consistency and maintenance issues to deal with than tube amps.  Sadly this does not work for digital modelers though!

Peace again and Happy New Year, Trent

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: PaulyD on December 31, 2005, 01:07:36 am
Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms was recorded on a Yamaha digital 8 track. I always thought that album sounded great. And I'll be danged if that wasn't recorded over 20 years ago...

How about Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop? That was almost 25 years ago...Makes me wonder how many great albums were done on Synclaviers that we all thought were analog. Zappa? George Duke? And what of Neve and Otari hard disk recorders?

I think for most of the people visiting these forums (myself included), the greater concern is the room(s) we record in, the mics, the pre's, the compressors, mic technique, and getting the levels right on the way in.

It seems great engineers can make great records on nearly whatever's lying around. Let's join them.

Paul
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 31, 2005, 02:12:09 am
Sony 24-track digital ...sound of the eighties.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Tidewater on December 31, 2005, 11:10:52 am
PaulyD wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 01:07



Makes me wonder how many great albums were done on Synclaviers that we all thought were analog.

Paul



Hold on... ok... after examining the lights... I think we are in record.... yes.. ok... uhh.. arm.. 12... count starting with 5 from the left on the second row... uhh.. hold on a second, this one is flashing.. I think you erased 12... hand me the manual..

Happy New Year, topic!


M
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: chrisj on December 31, 2005, 12:49:29 pm
Johnny B wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 08:07


Since when was digital ever useful? Perhaps its useful for decimating 3D analogue sound waves...chopping them up, slicing and dicing them, and turning them into neat little zeros and ones that will be sent thru bad digital math and come out sounding...thin, cold, brittle, and ice cold.


Look, this is not that complicated.

The chopping up and slicing and dicing is not a problem. Neat little zeroes and ones are your friend. You can get all 'Jurassic Park' with them, it's very liberating. You can do crazy things that cannot be done conveniently in analog.

Bad digital math is the problem. Even changing the gain of a track on the fly, much less fancier stuff like equalization, gets you a special kind of bad digital math that relates to treating the sample values like 'pieces of the audio', which they're not.

They are only pointers to the underlying wave shape which won't ever exactly correspond to the sample. What you want to be focussing on is RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN samples. That will retain the sub-sample timing information.

People don't usually do this, they write code to edit 'samples' individually.

Thanks to being on the losing end of an argument with Sony's Paul Frindle I started doing it, and digital done properly loses nothing, nothing whatsoever to analog. Not 'vibe', not warmth not depth not anything. It was all about minute jitter/timing irregularities produced by not considering the relationships between samples... when I fixed that, bingo.

I mean, listen to my CAPE tracks, even as mp3s (the teams have full res versions). Campfire/Galactic/Arsenal/Transmission. Most or all were mixed digitally but I counteracted that- I'd be able to do even more, with stuff either mixed analog or mixed with minimal bad-digital-math. The comparisons that were coming up for people were Dark Side of the Moon, Dixie Dregs, etc. People were being reminded of analog masterpieces. What I'm talking about here is not airy-fairy intellectual stuff, it's visceral. MY JOB is to hit people with the most musical experience off whatever music I'm given to work with.

For the reasons I outlined, historically analog is way better at doing this, but I think I'm establishing that it's not an axiom- you just have to do digital exactly right to completely capture the magic. When we're talking Pro Tools, that's pretty much digital done consistently wrong, though they improve bit by bit (ack! pun not intended)

Now if we're talking about whether it's sad to take musicians and plunk them in Pro Tools and put out casio-tone versions of their musical thought, that's another story, a whole other bookshelf. But please let's not call that 'digital' as if there wasn't the capacity to record exceptional digital.

The funniest part is, I'd be able to get more, much more, out of a recording that was done digitally but Albini-style, all documentation and as purist and unprocessed as a jazz session or classical gig. Frankly, if you sat a band down in front of two really good mics and sampled it through a damned good converter at merely 16/44.1K I would be able to take that recording, run with it, and you'd freak and swear it had to be great analog throughout.

It's digital overproduction that's bothering you guys.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: vernier on December 31, 2005, 05:53:45 pm
Even good digital is still different from analog. They are different.
Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on January 03, 2006, 02:31:50 am
HappyNewChrisj! wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 17:49


Bad digital math is the problem. Even changing the gain of a track on the fly, much less fancier stuff like equalization, gets you a special kind of bad digital math that relates to treating the sample values like 'pieces of the audio', which they're not.

They are only pointers to the underlying wave shape which won't ever exactly correspond to the sample. What you want to be focussing on is RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN samples. That will retain the sub-sample timing information.

People don't usually do this, they write code to edit 'samples' individually.

...I started doing it, and digital done properly loses nothing, nothing whatsoever to analog. Not 'vibe', not warmth not depth not anything.

It was all about minute jitter/timing irregularities produced by not considering the relationships between samples... when I fixed that, bingo.




Care to elaborate on the part in bold, I'm curious about the details of process you are using.

///

Title: Re: How Come Many Musicians Prefer The Sound Of Analogue?
Post by: Johnny B on January 03, 2006, 02:32:51 am
Smile