Paging Bruce Swedien: Whaddya think of this theory?

[Anderton]

I made this a separate topic to avoid overloading the other one...

 

I keep thinking back to those seminars we did in Mexico, where you mentioned your aversion to signal processing, but also how you liked to capture to analog tape for its qualities, then transfer to digital to preserve. I made some comment about how tape is basically a signal processor, just a mechanical one.

 

Then I started thinking about all the advice people give for good recordings: mic placement is more important than EQ, a real reverb space trumps digital delay, use tape compression instead of dynamics processors, use room mics for delay instead of delay lines...

 

And it hit me: All those instances are talking about mechanical signal processing! So why is that? My theory is that it doesn't involve converting the actual "air," the signal waveform. And this may be why people like the "sound" of analog as opposed to digital...there's no conversion. Ditto vinyl versus CD. Maybe the idea of converting a waveform into a representation of a waveform is inherently flawed for some reason we don't fully understand. Anyone have comments (not just Bruce)?

[Botch.]

Similar arguments are going on at the Keyboard Corner all the time regarding Hammond B-3 clones vs. the real thing.

[Anderton]

Yes, but I think it's pretty much established that nothing beats a real rotating speaker. The issue here is whether mechanical processing is always, or at least almost always, preferable to a process that requires conversion.

[fantasticsound]

Interesting hypothesis.

 

Perhaps the problem is most processing ends up dumbing down the dynamics of a signal. That's something that doesn't happen in open space. So the best recordings tend to be those in which the recording of an instrument is as close as can be to the finished mix. Once you start adding electronic stages to the signal path you begin to slowly deteriorate bits and pieces of subtle information that, apparently, adds quite a bit to our perceived realism of a recording. These are the qualities that musicians, producers, engineers and audiophiles refer to, subjectively, as "open-ness", "air", etc.

 

What do you think, Mr. Anderton and Mr. Swedien?

[doug osborne]

I am not Bruce Swedien and I do not play him on TV...

 

I have always used the argument that there is no such thing as digital audio.

 

Our ears can only hear the effect of air molecules being compressed and rarified; our bones can only feel vibrations conducted through resonant objects. We can't hear binary numbers, except as buzz through those other transductions. By the time a digitally-stored and -delivered sound hits our ears or bodies, poof, it is analog again.

 

We have been in a transitional period since about 1980, and it's about time we rid ourselves of old-think. Storing a representation of an acoustical event as voltage changes on rust/glue/mylar is just as colorizing as storing it as a bunch of 24-bit numbers, just a different colorization. If we can't get one acquisition or storage medium to sound the way we want, use another one - simple as that.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Originally posted by Doug Osborne:

I have always used the argument that there is no such thing as digital audio.

Me too. Data is data, sound is sound. No one has ever "heard" digital audio, making the "audio" part of the equation a misnomer.

 

Craig, I am a huge fan of not turning to technology when nature can be used for similar purposes. Convenience factor, lack of time and general laziness are the biggest reasons that we have all of these gizmos.

 

- Jeff

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Anderton:

And it hit me: All those instances are talking about mechanical signal processing! So why is that? My theory is that it doesn't involve converting the actual "air," the signal waveform. And this may be why people like the "sound" of analog as opposed to digital...there's no conversion.

Sure there is... the conversion of sound waves into a magnetic or mechanical representation of the sound waves.

 

I had a theory of my own on the Guitar forum not too long ago with respect to "modelling" devices vs. tube amps: so long as you are trying to merely use something to imitate something else, and/or to solve a problem or compensate for musical or acoustical shortcomings, you will fail compared to "the real thing," whatever the real thing may be. And most signal processing devices, modellers, etc. are simply trying to be something else.

 

However, over the years we've also learned to love the imitators just as much as the real thing at times. Why? Because at some point somebody stopped trying to use the tools for their intended purpose and made a new art form out of it. The example I used was that the electric guitar originated as simply a way to amplify an acoustic guitar enough to be heard over a big band with drums and horns. To be sure, electrifying the guitar solved the problem it was intended to solve, but it sounded like crap - as an "imitation" of an acoustic guitar, that is. It was horribly distorted. But then some blues guys got hold of them... and started using that distortion to create a whole other sound. And of course nowadays we guitarists lust after that sound, and geek out endlessly on which tubes create the best distortion and that sort of thing.

 

On the flip side of the spectrum, we have also now learned to amplify acoustic guitars naturally. But it took decades, and part of the process was realizing that electric guitars were never going to "improve" to the point where they sounded like an acoustic. If you want that sound, you get an acoustic guitar. The electric guitar is a different animal altogether, and it didn't gain "legitimacy" until it stopped trying to be an acoustic guitar at all and became an art form unto itself.

 

Same thing with signal processors, including mechanical ones. A plate or spring reverb will never "replace" natural ambience or sound as good, if natural ambience is really what you want. But many people love the sound of a plate or spring reverb in its own right, because somewhere along the line some musicians (notably surf guitarists, 60's psychedelic bands, etc.) made artificial reverb an art form.

 

Maybe somewhere along the line people will realize that digital audio or signal processing is never going to be quite like analog, and that if you want that sound, you need analog. Others will be happy pushing their boundaries and making art with digital processing that is simply not possible with analog stuff. But if it's a particular sound you're after, I agree there is no replacing a sound with something else that imitates it. Rock'n'roll grew up alongside tube technology and multitrack tape machines, for instance, and so I don't think there's any real way to separate the two.

[Bruce Swedien]

Stand back everyone!!! Craig started something here!!!

 

Don't forget - I don't give a rat's ass whether it's a digital representation of a waveform or an actual analogue waveform that is effecting me!

 

When I do my lectures and master classes(Like the one in Mexico City where I met Craig) - I am often asked... Which is better, analogue or digital?

 

Digital or Analogue, that is the question. Or is it? In the light of whats happening in digital technology these days, the only way I can answer such a question is: Times are really changing!

 

Looking back now, it seems to me that as soon as the newness of digital recording had worn off, we found that sound quality is still a very key issue. The quality of the sound of digital recording was, and still is, measured by how close it sounds to analog recording.

 

Here are some comparisons I have heard, made by professionals, in the studio:

 

A - It sounds great. I love it! It has that wonderful Analog distortion!

 

B- It has that analog warmth to the sound!

 

C- You know... it sounds very close to analog!

 

Five years ago I would have said, Digital recording is sharp and clear, but by itself, as the primary recording medium, its a bit harsh to my ear." At that point in time, digital recording sounded to me as if part of the sound was missing. Low volume level dynamics were shapeless and fuzzy. Those criticisms are now a thing of the past, at least for me. However, there are a few sonic issues when recording music 100 percent in the digital domain, that bother me.

 

A couple of years ago I would have answered the Is Digital music recording superior or is it Analogue superior question with, I dont think either is better, merely different.

 

Well, digital sound, as it applies to music recording, has made tremendous progress in the past year or two. For instance, with the introduction of high-resolution digital recording at 96 khz - 24 bit, or Sony/Philips DSD technology, the sound of digital recording has improved drastically.

 

Today I would have to say that I am using the Digital Recording Medium as a primary recording medium almost all the time, now. Please notice that I said, almost all the time. I do occasionally find a song that likes to be recorded or mixed to analogue better than digital. What I am saying is that there are songs that actually prefer to be recorded in a specific medium. I found out long ago that, as an engineer, producer or artist, you cannot impose your intent over the sonic personality of a piece of music. You cannot record or mix a song to digital, or analogue either, for that matter, just because you want to! The music always wins out! Let the music tell us what it wants!

 

(I just told this story to the folks in our other forum, but in case someone was going pee-pee at the time, I'll tell it again with a little more detail.)

 

Heres a little story, from my own experience, about a song, that I think really illustrates that very point:

 

I was working with Michael Jackson on his Epic Records album Invincible. We were mixing the song 2000 Watts at Hit Factory/Criteria Studios in Miami, Florida. As Michael, Teddy Riley and I often do on these high-energy, funky, dance songs, we asked Teddy Riley sit down at the console and kick-off the mix. We have found that the Teddy Riley concept of the mix values of the basic groove cannot be denied.

 

So Teddy worked on the basic mix of 2000 Watts for a day or so. He had the groove absolutely Kickin.

 

Then Teddy and Michael asked me to take over and complete the mix. I worked on the mix for a day or so by myself. I had it sounding absolutely fantastic! I planned on recording the mix on a highly-respected, high-resolution, digital recording system. Michael, Teddy Riley and I listened to the mix. All three of us thought it sounded really great.

 

I dont know why, but I kept thinking to myself, I wonder what this mix of this song would sound like, stored on analogue. That thought kept bothering me. So, after a bit I said to Michael and Teddy, I absolutely must try a mix on this incredible song on analogue! Of course they were both eager to hear it.

 

I had the technicians set up my Ampex ATR 102, one-inch, two-track master mix machine at 30 ips. The result was astounding! Everyone loved the sound of 2000 Watts mixed on my two-track analogue machine. A perfect example of the character of the music declaring its personality!

 

I must say that what the digital recording medium does well, it does dramatically well. For instance, digital recording is very robust. Digital recording is very consistent. Every time you play a digital recording it sounds the same. This is not necessarily true with analogue recording.

 

The bottom line in any music recording or mixing situation is to listen to the sound of the music with your ears first, but then ask your heart, Is this the way I want my music to sound? or better yet ask your heart, Is there any way I can make it sound better?

[blackfish]

Very interesting guys!

 

Could this difference be entirely psychological?

Could we percieve the extra conversion automatically as a degradation of sound quality? How many of us have never, I mean NEVER, heard an analog sound source? Not a single human on earth i should think. Our ears are a mechanism, mechanically(organically) converting pressure into swaves recognizable by our brain, so this is analog at its origin. If we could somehow route atmospheric pressure changes into an optical cable, and lightpipe the waves to our brain, would it sound the same as it has all our lives? But what if this is a left brain/righ brain situation? We could convert/hear with one side , and

simultaneously listen for familiarity in the signal. Is this sound like the Studer A80? Nope, Pro Tools...Eh, sucks. I ask this because in my limited experience I have never heard a digital recording I didn't know was digital.

[Ernest Buckley]

Conversion = Cloning

 

"Nothing beats the real thing" as they say.

 

Originals cost more, hence clones.

 

It all comes down to $$$.

[John Sayers]

Bruce - I assume that it was exactly the same mix of 2000 going to analogue and to the digital.

 

So why didn't you mix all the tracks to the two different mediums as it would be interesting to see if some of the other mixes actually sounded better in digital.

 

cheers

john

[TeleCarlos]

No opinion on this whatsoever but....

 

I remeber an small article in Guitar Player not so long ago on the Boston guitarist, Rockman inventor, electronic engineer and effects builder... what's his name....uh... you know who I mean!!! Anyway, he mentioned something how digital effects just completely screws up the angle of the sound wave or something, thus, not making it as pleasing or likable. I'm probably screwing up his actual response, it just struck me as interesting and knowledgeable.

 

My two cents:

 

Somebody, please, take this topic to him. I, for some reason, would like his explanation, him being who and what he is and his credentials (no, not for the Boston albums, for the other stuff!)

 

Where's that interviewer / forum annoyance when you need him???? Yeah you! Get on this.

 

Of course, lets avoid "my *(&^ is longer than yours stuff, ok.." not a pissing contest.

[Angelo Clematide]

Digital/Analog

Every production has it's own soul. To make a production from beginning to the end, one needs IDEAS at any moment when a decision has to be made to the better. In this sense, to get thru, one has to have a whole bag full of experience and the intuition to come up with something he never did before.

 

I'm in the happy position to work in a team with persons who have decades of experience. Out of short discussions, with let's say four individuals, easely a absolute new solution can be born.

 

he mentioned something how digital effects just completely screws up the angle of the sound wave or something

i guess he meant phase coherence. Don't worry, as long you feel it sounds weird and good, it sounds good.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by blackfish:

How many of us have never, I mean NEVER, heard an analog sound source? Not a single human on earth i should think. Our ears are a mechanism, mechanically (organically) converting pressure into swaves recognizable by our brain, so this is analog at its origin.

Mmm...no, actually, that's incorrect.

 

First of all, the human ear is a digital instrument which has a definable resolution. It does not read an infinite audio continuum.

 

Secondly, the universe itself is digital. Mostly. There are only two truly random phenomenon I'm aware of: Quantum uncertainty, and thermal noise.

 

To make a long story short, digital audio has been designed so that the human ear hears it as if it is "natural," or free of aliasing steps inherent in digital storage and representation.

 

It is important to remember that those stair-steps between samples you see on your computer monitor are not what you are actually hearing. That is merely a visual representation of what your convertors have stored.

 

The finite impulse response filters (FIR Filters) in your digital-to-analog convertors accurately reproduce the frequency, amplitude and phase of the original audio waves which first entered your analog-to-digital convertors. For real. A guy named Nyquist theorized how this process could be possible, and a guy named Shannon proved it.

[Angelo Clematide]

"your digital-to-analog convertors accurately reproduce the frequency"

 

In this case, there was no Neanderthal, it was Digithal from the beginning.

 

I have a neurotransmitter conversion build in too, but before i spend too much free time to answer such question to myself, i play some Violoncello to hear the thermal noise.

 

And please, don't tell me now my cello is digital too, - is it?

[Bunny Knutson]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by Anderton:

And it hit me: All those instances are talking about mechanical signal processing! So why is that? My theory is that it doesn't involve converting the actual "air," the signal waveform. And this may be why people like the "sound" of analog as opposed to digital...there's no conversion.

Sure there is... the conversion of sound waves into a magnetic or mechanical representation of the sound waves.

That's what I was gonna say.

 

Maybe Craig meant "there's no digital conversion." Craig?

 

Perhaps we can compare this audio conversion process to film vs. digital video. At some point of magnification, the granularity of film, which is admittedly part of the art, breaks down, and the image is obscured. This is true of digital imagery too, but digital cameras are now able to photograph images at a higher resolution than is possible with film. Whether one or the other is superior depends on the application of the medium. The same can be said of audio.

[not Cereal]

oh hell, i'm gonna go home and fire up my 1/4" 15ips scully then. THATS a hot sounding tape machine.

 

a long time ago in a galaxy far away (1998 and in my basement) i used this machine to track every single track of a tune before it hit protools. never since have i had a tune that mixed so easily, sounded so phat, and didnt fatigue the ears. its without a doubt my fattest sounding tune. i dont know why but i have never since used it. its about 400lbs and uses up tape like a smoker uses up tobacco, maybe thats why it sits on the floor.

 

yes, i am being serious. its very cool. but very heavy, and the right channel has a head alignement issue that i never could fix.

[Lee Flier]

I hear ya Coaster. I used to record a lot of my tracks that way through an old Ampex myself, and have similar feelings about it. Unfortunately I had to give the deck back to the friend who'd lent it to me. I am really missing it on guitar tracks. Sigh.

[Philip OKeefe]

First of all, the human ear is a digital instrument which has a definable resolution. It does not read an infinite audio continuum.

 

Hmmm... I don't know that I'd call the ear a entirely digital instrument. Seems to me that it has elements of both a microphone (analog - a diaphragmic transducer that converts analog waveforms - in this case, air compression / rarefraction - into electrical data - just as a microphone does), and a A/D converter. The brain takes that electrical information and processes it digitally. I am not an expert on the functioning of the human brain, but it would seem to me that human hearing - via the ears and the brain, incorporates elements of an analog transducer and a A/D converter and digital processing.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Phil O'Keefe:

originally posted by Curve Dominant:

First of all, the human ear is a digital instrument which has a definable resolution. It does not read an infinite audio continuum.

Hmmm... I don't know that I'd call the ear a entirely digital instrument. Seems to me that it has elements of both a microphone (analog - a diaphragmic transducer that converts analog waveforms - in this case, air compression / rarefraction - into electrical data - just as a microphone does), and a A/D converter. The brain takes that electrical information and processes it digitally. I am not an expert on the functioning of the human brain, but it would seem to me that human hearing - via the ears and the brain, incorporates elements of an analog transducer and a A/D converter and digital processing.

Phil,

 

That's an excellent elaboration on my admittedly simplistic statement. Thanks.

[whitefang]

There must be other factors to consider. Type of music, arrangement, and the fact that their can't just be one way to do digital recording.

 

I don't know jack about any of this except what I hear. I know that for me, the earlier CD recordings of fully digital information(DDD) DID sound harsh. In subsequent years, I found CDs recorded first on analog tape and mixed digitally were more to my liking. But after this much time, as Bruce points out, the technology HAS to improve. Like with most anything else. I feel eventually, digital proccesses will improve to the point that you'll all look back on this discussion and laugh.

 

Whitefang

[Anderton]

I didn't mean for this to turn into analog vs. digital. The point was more mechanical vs. electronic. In other words, when you move a mic to change EQ, you're dealing with the air pressure itself. With electronic EQ, you're dealing with a replica of the air pressure, then manipulating it electronically.

 

I've been thinking about this some more, and think that perhaps the issue is that mechanical processors are inherently far more complex than analog devices or digital code. For example, think how difficult it is to capture the myriad effects that tape produces, the myriad changes in level/frequency/phase that a rotating speaker makes, and the zillions of echoes that happen in a reverberant space as opposed to the limited algorithms in digital reverbs.

 

It may be that the process of converting signals into something electronics can deal with basically "dumbs down" the signal into something compatible with analog or digital electronics.

 

Again, it's not analog vs. digital...it's mechanical vs. electronic. It's why a modeled Rhodes piano doesn't sound like a "real" Rhodes.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I didn't mean for this to turn into analog vs. digital.

 

...think how difficult it is to capture the myriad effects that tape produces, the myriad changes in level/frequency/phase that a rotating speaker makes, and the zillions of echoes that happen in a reverberant space as opposed to the limited algorithms in digital reverbs.

Hmmm...yup, all mechanical...

 

...BUT...also all analog!

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Anderton:

I didn't mean for this to turn into analog vs. digital. The point was more mechanical vs. electronic. In other words, when you move a mic to change EQ, you're dealing with the air pressure itself. With electronic EQ, you're dealing with a replica of the air pressure, then manipulating it electronically.

Craig,

 

The point I was trying to make, was in demonstrating how these processes ALL are mechanical, and also ALL are electronic, simultaneously.

 

Moving a mic to adjust its EQ response may SEEM like a mechanical gesture when rendering it, but it also has electronic consequences and issues involved.

 

Likewise, adjusting an EQ knob on either an outboard box or a plugin seems intuitively electronic, but there are inherent mechanical influences also.

 

Human biology, mechanics, electrons...it's a continuum. It has to be, because we had a hand in creating it.

 

This is why, like you, I also find the Analog Vs. Digital debate immensely tiring: It's ALL analog, and it's ALL digital.

 

I've been thinking about this some more, and think that perhaps the issue is that mechanical processors are inherently far more complex than analog devices or digital code. For example, think how difficult it is to capture the myriad effects that tape produces, the myriad changes in level/frequency/phase that a rotating speaker makes, and the zillions of echoes that happen in a reverberant space as opposed to the limited algorithms in digital reverbs.

 

It may be that the process of converting signals into something electronics can deal with basically "dumbs down" the signal into something compatible with analog or digital electronics.

 

Again, it's not analog vs. digital...it's mechanical vs. electronic. It's why a modeled Rhodes piano doesn't sound like a "real" Rhodes.

See above, same response.

 

The whole debate over "Real Vs. Modeled" assumes there is, in the listener's mind, a real difference.

 

Example:

 

The listener hears a song, and connects with it.

 

In that moment, everything about that song is real. It is the most real thing in the world, in that moment.

 

Who are we to say, "Oh, it's not real, they used a plugin on the synth instead of renting a Rhodes."

 

Whatever music you make is much more real than any gear used to make it.

 

Example:

 

You have a Neve console in front of you. You can lean on it, look at the array of functions, grab them and mix your track. Then put your feet up on it afterwards, and smoke a cigar.

 

But if you asked a physicist to describe a Neve console on a quantum level, it would seem like a ghastly apparition, indistinguishable from its surroundings.

 

Certainly indistinguishable from the DAW sitting next to it.

 

This is why I feel the whole "analog vs digital" debate needs a "third way."

 

??

[bearded yeti]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

However, over the years we've also learned to love the imitators just as much as the real thing at times. Why? Because at some point somebody stopped trying to use the tools for their intended purpose and made a new art form out of it. The example I used was that the electric guitar originated as simply a way to amplify an acoustic guitar enough to be heard over a big band with drums and horns. To be sure, electrifying the guitar solved the problem it was intended to solve, but it sounded like crap - as an "imitation" of an acoustic guitar, that is. It was horribly distorted. But then some blues guys got hold of them... and started using that distortion to create a whole other sound. And of course nowadays we guitarists lust after that sound, and geek out endlessly on which tubes create the best distortion and that sort of thing.

Definitely. In the same vein, Rhodes and Wulitzers are a really shitty "model" of an acoustic piano sound, but damn if they aren't great sounds of their own.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I've been thinking about this some more, and think that perhaps the issue is that mechanical processors are inherently far more complex than analog devices or digital code. For example, think how difficult it is to capture the myriad effects that tape produces, the myriad changes in level/frequency/phase that a rotating speaker makes, and the zillions of echoes that happen in a reverberant space as opposed to the limited algorithms in digital reverbs.

 

It may be that the process of converting signals into something electronics can deal with basically "dumbs down" the signal into something compatible with analog or digital electronics.

Ah. Yeah, totally. This has always seemed really obvious to me actually. The idea that someone can accurately "model" anything in nature has always seemed like the height of arrogance to me. Ditto the idea that all the variations that aren't obvious to us are "inconsistencies" and therefore "mistakes." Or the idea that if you program "random" variations into a drum machine it'll be anything like what a drummer's body does unconsciously in reponse to the music... etc. None of that stuff can EVER be more than a "dumbing down," as you put it, of natural processes.

 

Like I said earlier, it's not like those "dumbed down" sounds can't be cool in their own right, as part of a complete and balanced recording diet. But what bothers me is reductionism - pretending they're equivalent. IMO that doesn't show proper respect for the physical world, nor for the role of our "animal" instincts (as opposed to conscious intention) in making music.

[audiofreek]

Music,by definition,is an emotional response,and in the dictionary,it is the "differences between consonace,and disonace",that create that response.Digital does this just fine,and like Bruce said,"sometimes analog is better,sometimes digital is better",but perhaps analog helps improve the dynamic and harmonic content in certain situations.I know for a fact,that it improves drums and elecric guitars for my music,for me.Does it have the same effect on the person sitting next to me? 99 times out of 100,I have to say yes.

To me,the very nature of analog means something that is continuously variable,and quantizing those variations that occur,simply is limited to the the tools we use to capture that continuously variable sound.The reason why we can "hear the difference"is because our hearing is infinitely more variable(higher resolution) than the digital tools we use to capture the sound,even though our conscious and emotional self may not recognize it,something is wrong for those of us that know the difference. Analog is thought to be continuously variable,but has a limited dynamic range,in relationship to the human ear,as does digital,so the quality of the circuitry,and the amount of phase inchoherentcy,non-linearity and distortion that is introduced in the process,is audible to the trained ear,and subliminaly(at least) to the untrained ear.Therefore,the fewer circuits the audio takes,the purer it remains.So as long as it passes through a process of high integrity(if that is what is desired),putting it through more circuitry will simply degrade the signal,but perhaps in a desirably way.

For great sound,nothing can compare to being there,in the space that it's being made in.We just aspire to duplicte that,and even in some instances improve upon it,and take it to another level artistically,and emotionally. In this day,and age we have some amazing tools to help us,but they still fall short of our own hearing.As far as dynamic range,sofistication ,and complexity are concerned,our ears are the final,superior measuring tool.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Lee Flier:

what bothers me is reductionism - pretending they're equivalent. IMO that doesn't show proper respect for the physical world, nor for the role of our "animal" instincts (as opposed to conscious intention) in making music.

Lee,

 

Try not to look at it as "reductionism."

 

See it instead as inclusiveness.

 

It is the connectedness between the physical and the animal that is missing in your equation.

 

Try looking at your DAW as an extension of your animal self, and it will all come together.

[Hendmik]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I didn't mean for this to turn into analog vs. digital. The point was more mechanical vs. electronic. In other words, when you move a mic to change EQ, you're dealing with the air pressure itself. With electronic EQ, you're dealing with a replica of the air pressure, then manipulating it electronically.

I honestly have no preference. I liked what Bruce said, in that let the song dictate how it sounds best.

 

But when we get down to it, whether we use mic technique or EQ to mold the sound, it's all still with the same goal: a manipulation of sound to try and trick the listener. That is the very essence of audio recording; to capture and reproduce with the same fidelity. Somewhere along the way, someone tried to make it better than the original. The use of EQ, compression, panning, even mic technique is a manipulation of how we re-represent the sound back to the listener. Digital manipulation is just the next logical step beyond signal processing and synthesis.

 

We've all seen the engineers who profess to try and accurately reproduce a sound source with no color, no changes. That's fine. A bit lofty and inherently naive, but that ok. It produces interesting results.

 

I guess what it comes down to for me, is are we painters or photographers? Is one more accurate/valid than the other? Is one accurate at all? Should that even be our goal? Does accuracy translate into emotional response from the listener (which I think is/should be our real goal, even if we often are sidetracked from it).

 

Lastly, I'm hesitant to believe anything Mr. Swedien says until I see his post count increase.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I didn't mean for this to turn into analog vs. digital. The point was more mechanical vs. electronic. In other words, when you move a mic to change EQ, you're dealing with the air pressure itself. With electronic EQ, you're dealing with a replica of the air pressure, then manipulating it electronically.

 

I've been thinking about this some more, and think that perhaps the issue is that mechanical processors are inherently far more complex than analog devices or digital code. For example, think how difficult it is to capture the myriad effects that tape produces, the myriad changes in level/frequency/phase that a rotating speaker makes, and the zillions of echoes that happen in a reverberant space as opposed to the limited algorithms in digital reverbs.

 

It may be that the process of converting signals into something electronics can deal with basically "dumbs down" the signal into something compatible with analog or digital electronics.

 

Again, it's not analog vs. digital...it's mechanical vs. electronic. It's why a modeled Rhodes piano doesn't sound like a "real" Rhodes.

Wow, that sounds familiar! Am I talking to myself?

 

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Interesting hypothesis.

 

Perhaps the problem is most processing ends up dumbing down the dynamics of a signal. That's something that doesn't happen in open space. So the best recordings tend to be those in which the recording of an instrument is as close as can be to the finished mix. Once you start adding electronic stages to the signal path you begin to slowly deteriorate bits and pieces of subtle information that, apparently, adds quite a bit to our perceived realism of a recording. These are the qualities that musicians, producers, engineers and audiophiles refer to, subjectively, as "open-ness", "air", etc.

 

What do you think, Mr. Anderton and Mr. Swedien?

A whole page of analog vs. digital before Craig restated my previously ignored point about our perception of sound in a real space, recording techniques that limit the number of electrical circuits vs. processing the mic signals with EQ, compression, and myriad other electronic processes.

 

There seems to be a huge amount of aural information that gets lost as more electronic circuits are placed between an instrument in real space and final mix.

 

In a sense, and this ain't rocket science folks, we already attempt to reduce the number of circuits, when recording, to combat this effect. How many of you use input modules direct to your recording media rather than use input channels on a recording desk? This is a technique used by owners of six-figure priced consoles to reduce the amount of circuitry between instrument and recording media.