Why doesn't digital sound as good as analogue?

[Angelo Clematide]

yes Lee, your text is a extended version on the theme:

 

ITTPIG TMII (If the performance is great, the medium is irrelevant)

[Lee Flier]

No it isn't "an extension" Angelo... because if the medium doesn't capture the performance adequately then the medium IS relevant.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Your Ad Here:

I do think that one of the common deficiencies in digital recordings are unstable clock sources. Lock up a system to a stable clock such as an appogee and the image smearing goes bye bye.

That's true of cheap converters. With a high end converter the internal clock is always going to be more stable than an external one. There's no doubt that really good converters sound better than cheap ones, but even the best still come up short for multitracking... and then there's the mixing stage which introduces its own set of problems. Mastering from analog to a high end converter or recording direct to 2-track... no problem.

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...When I hear great performances I want to hear them recorded the best they can be, so we get the full impact of the performance when we hear the result...

I swear that such a confluence has to be for me, amongst the top four experiences on the planet.

[geoffk]

maybe this has been done, but I don't know about it and if so I would like to be pointed to a source...but it seems to me there should be some serious 'blind' tests made where performances are played back on 16 track analog, high end digital, etc. I wonder how much of the drooling is caused by a 'placebo' effect of knowing something is on tape -- especially compared to a digitally recorded track that was mic'd through tube compression, or used plug-ins to simulate tape saturation.

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by geoffk:

...I wonder how much of the drooling is caused by a 'placebo' effect of knowing something is on tape...

Drooling on high-end equipment, particularly one with moving parts, is a definite no-no.

[Saint Johnny B]

Let's say for the moment that digital has some serious drawbacks because we live, for the most part, in the real analogue world. So we are asking quite a bit of digital to begin with. It's no trivial task just to simply capture those analogue sound waves, turn them into zeros and ones, process them, then take the zeros and ones, and turn them back into analogue form and reproduce them all faithfully. That, in and of itself, is a rather tall order. And there's no question that digital technology has improved to some degree over the last 20 years.

 

Nevertheless, some "ear people," are still not satisfied. Clearly, they still prefer the sound of analogue. Can we agree that these people exit?

 

Yes, I thought so.

 

The real question I'm trying to get at here is, What can be done to improve the digital technology?

 

What can be done to the digital technology to make it sound better?

 

Are some people saying that digital sound is now at the point where it is the best that it can be? IOW, that no further improvements can or *should* be made? We are not at that point, are we?

 

No, I didn't thnk so.

 

But if you believe that further improvements in digital sound CAN and SHOULD be made, then please share with us where you think the improvements should be made.

 

What would you tell the chip makers to focus on? Where should the R&D money go? What studies would you want done?

 

Please discuss, thanks.

[M Peasley]

If you have a hi-end hifi store that sells turntables and the mega-expensive amps and speakers in your town or someplace you visit, I recommend you go there and let the salesperson give you a thorough demo of a top-notch analog playback system. And yes, try different styles of music, definitely.

 

Even if you grew up on analog, but you just haven't heard it for a long time 'cause everything's digital, the experience will make a significant point in this debate. There is just something in the analog that is not there in even the best digital. And I don't mean hiss and scratches (although that's there, too).

 

M Peasley

[Jimbroni]

What would you tell the chip makers to focus on? Where should the R&D money go? What studies would you want done?

Get rid of the hard ceiling at 0 dB by coming up with a way to model the nonlinear aspects of analogue. That would require a lot observation, recording of data, and cruve fitting for the many many many situations when analogue goes non linear.

[Angelo Clematide]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

No it isn't "an extension" Angelo... because if the medium doesn't capture the performance adequately then the medium IS relevant.

you are right, the word i haven't taken into account with my saying is "irrelevant"

 

BUT we can also say:

...if the medium doesn't capture the performance adequately then the medium IS IRrelevant.

 

couldn't we?

 

sorry Craig, you are not a genius no more, at least not for this quote, because you left out two letters, "I" and "R"

 

did i get it this time, Lee?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by geoffk:

I wonder how much of the drooling is caused by a 'placebo' effect of knowing something is on tape -- especially compared to a digitally recorded track that was mic'd through tube compression, or used plug-ins to simulate tape saturation.

There have been some blind tests done but of necessity, they are pretty simple tests that don't really take into account real world situations (e.g. plugins, outboard gear, a large multitrack mix). Once you introduce all these complex factors you can't really match up the two groups and thus it can't be considered a true indication. Even still, I've participated in a few of these blind tests and can reliably identify the difference. It is not a "placebo effect."

 

Also, the differences between analog and digital are not just "tape saturation" or tube compression. Those things may improve the sound of digital but they don't really make it sound more like analog.

[Angelo Clematide]

Lee was there ever a intelligent paper written, who tries to explain the love for analogue in a all including manner?

 

what are all the phenomena here in comparison to digital?

 

are there explainable facts for this analogue love, or is it a feeling no one can expain scientifically?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide:

BUT we can also say:

...if the medium doesn't capture the performance adequately then the medium IS IRrelevant.

 

couldn't we?

Hmm I don't think so... because the medium is relevant so long as it is getting in the way.

[Angelo Clematide]

shit, i missed it again, but this is now philosophy, ins't it?

 

can "irrelevant" not also mean the medium is "crap"?

 

sorry Craig, i don't know anymore if you are a genius or not... sorry for the alternating bath

[the stranger]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Sure I'd rather listen to a crappy recording of a great performance than a great recording of a mediocre performance, but I've also heard too many great performances ruined by mediocre recording or production.

I'm not sure if I agree with this last part. If the performance is there, I don't think the quality of the recording matters.

And I've got a load of punk/hardcore records that are anything but quality recordings, but the vibe shines through, none the less.

I'm actually trying to think of a record that I felt was ruined by the recording, and I'm not having any luck. I know of quite a few albums that people didn't like due to the recording, but I've never really felt this way about any album.

Usually when I don't like am album, it is due to the content, rather than the quality of the recording.

There is a bunch of albums that I think could benefit from remixing, or re-mastering, but these are albums I love and got way into and after years of listening to them, it's not hard to imagine if some things had been done differently.

Of course, then you run into the paradox of "fixing" something that isn't broken.

And I can also think of more than a few albums that were ruined by somebody trying to remix or re-master them to make them "better".

 

I remember reading a tech article quite a few years back that talked about the a/d conversion process that said the method for d/a conversion was inherently flawed and the higher resolutions and bit increases only masked these flaws.

I don't remember all of the specifics, but if I can find it, I'll post it back here.

 

And yes, I do still have an operational turntable and still buy vinyl when I see something I like.

 

What is interesting is the idea that the typical playback device and medium are one of the real problems. The thread I posted a week or so ago where I percieved more air in digital was responded to with comments that some percieved the opposite (Hi, Lee!).

What this made me think about was the fact that for years I was listening to music on an inferior playback medium...cassette.

So when I first started buying CD's, the clarity of the cd medium was an obvious improvement over cassette.

Now maybe if I had been listening to albums on 2-track reel-to-reel (with quality playback equipment) for all those years, maybe I wouldn't have percieved such a drastic difference.

After the other thread (and Lee's response), it makes me want to do an a/b test between a CD and tape version of something classic (like DSOTM).

The only capability I have to do this would be between a CD release and a cassette, and obviously this isn't going to cut it.

I think everyone would agree that a cassette isn't going to hang with a CD.

 

What is funny is when I first started buying CD's, I was still making compilations on a regular basis to listen to in the car. (All my cars still have tape decks! )

And there was more than a few things that I think sounded better on the cassette dub, than the CD.

Of course, when I dubbed to cassette, I always had the needles in the red. And the everybody knows that that compression from pushing tape hard gives that certain quality.

[the stranger]

I do think that a lot of the percieved differences between digital and analog are due to the ever changing recording and mastering techniques.

 

I want to hear the a/b of the 12 drum tracks that were recorded on two inch and then transfered to logic. [mentioned ealier]

 

posted by sign-Then came the moment of truth, the producer came with his DAW, based on a Mac with Logic software and he transferred the 12 drumtracks to his DAW.

 

When this was done we compared the sound of the DAW to the sound of the two inch machine.

 

I'll not forget that look on his face, a big disappointment it was for sure. I've kept the tapes for him so long.

One question: Were the 12 tracks sent out direct from Logic to the same console that the tape tracks were? Or were the tracks mixed "in the box"? Otherwise, you have a whole host of things that would contribute to a difference in sound.

[sign]

Originally posted by The Stranger:

One question: Were the 12 tracks sent out direct from Logic to the same console that the tape tracks were? Or were the tracks mixed "in the box"? Otherwise, you have a whole host of things that would contribute to a difference in sound.

His tracks were from his own digital console and his buss out was sent to the master of my DDA board.

 

The tracks from the two inch machine were not mixed nor eq-ed, just a rough mix like his, but the difference of sound was significant.

 

The DAW tracks were a whole lot more flat sounding, the sound of tape had a lot more dimension and life in it.

[Saint Johnny B]

Ok, are we all agreed that differences exit between analogue and digital?

 

Good, I thought so.

 

Now, where should we put the effort to improve digital? Should we simply junk what has been done and start all over? Ie. look for entirely new ways to try and do the A-to-D and D-to-A process? Or should we spend time doing research of certain specific aspects of people's perception? Will the Next Gen chips provide better digital sound quality?

[Angelo Clematide]

Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe:

I for one think anyone who wants to be a producer or engineer should start with a four track cassette machine and create many a mix of songs and then move up to eight track. Only then should you be allowed to go to a DAW.

 

IMO, there's a lot to be said for that idea.

if recording would be like learning indian classical music from a master, then you operate from years 6 to years 12 only a mono recorder, and then you move to stereo for the next 4 years, after another 8 years the master alouds you to push the red recording button for the first time...

 

Johnny, you act like a talk master here, can i offer you casting, do you have the urge to go into tv What happen to your Walmart Commercial?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Now, where should we put the effort to improve digital?

Why don't we leave that up to the people who actually design and build the stuff?

 

We can certainly let them know if we aren't entirely happy with their products, but it's pretty condescending to tell them how to do their work.

[Angelo Clematide]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Now, where should we put the effort to improve digital? Should we simply junk what has been done and start all over?

well, we could talk about the chip design of the latest cirrus logic 64-bit A/D hardware and where the developpers are facing the dynamic limits with brownian motion.

 

But before i make a start, please read the whole website first and all PDF's

http://www.cirrus.com/en/

 

Well, for a start this paper will do!

http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/whitePaper/DS668WP1.pdf

 

One big problem with this sort of scientists is, they just measure in lab condition and don't have studio monitoring

 

-

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...Why don't we leave that up to the people who actually design and build the stuff?...

Is that a little like letting Congress do the work of government?

 

Besides, condescension is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I for one, would like to know why present digital has such a hard time reproducing back to front spatial relationships, as in reverbs, etc. when working "in the box."

 

Whereas working with even a small amount of analog summing, these spacial details are shown to be present and "reproduced" in a more satisfying way.

 

To my ears anyway.

[Saint Johnny B]

Ok, that's pretty good. What about the other guys, like AKM, Burr-Brown/TI, and so on? And what about Professor Boyk's findings? And what about time smear? And what about anomalies in the low end?

 

Ya know, digital has some real problems. What have people noticed improving over the years? what have they noticed after prolonged exposure and intense listening to digital?

 

Lee, sometimes the clues or the keys to unlock a problem can come from very unexpected sources. That's why I feel it's OK for anyone, anyone at all, to talk, since it can spur new thinking and new approaches. SInce I know how smart and experienced you are, I know you know this already, nothing new there, right?

 

And we do have new formats comming at us...I think the debate is going to heat up again.

 

YMMV

[Lee Flier]

I'd like to know why, too, Yorik (and I certainly agree about the imaging, I can get better imaging from a freaking TASCAM 1/2" deck and a Mackie than a Pro Tools HD rig), but I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet from any digital designer nor heard a record that appears to "fix" the problem. Still, there are smarter folks than me working on it and I'll just leave them to it. I've spent enough of my time trying to do their R&D for them... when I hear something that bowls me over, I'll use it!

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet from any digital designer nor heard a record that appears to "fix" the problem. Still, there are smarter folks than me working on it and I'll just leave them to it...

I think someone on the other thread mentioned that musicians seem to be absent from the discussion of technical details when designers are working on audio projects.

 

Now, I don't know if that is strictly true, as I know there are many "musical" people designing some truly beautiful analog hardware.

 

I do sometimes wonder when I am shown a new virtual sampler and the greatest excitement comes from showing me that the software has the ability to script various processes.

 

I don't want to script a program when I am looking to "play" an instrument, virtual or otherwise.

[Jimbroni]

I have a hunch that alot of the spatial FX and dynamics problems with digital are due to poor modeling of the nonlinear aspects of analogue.

 

Things like hard ceilings at 0dB vs analogue's bend but don't break aproach to limiting.

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...I can get better imaging from a freaking TASCAM 1/2" deck and a Mackie than a Pro Tools HD rig...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Angelo Clematide]

Originally posted by StoneinaPond:

someone on the other thread mentioned that musicians seem to be absent from the discussion of technical details when designers are working on audio projects.

i would bet with you, that chip designers know the sound of their own development only from the cheap elevator music in the cantine at intel.

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide:

 

...i would bet with you, that chip designers know the sound of their own development only from the cheap elevator music in the cantine at intel.

 

And that's canteen by the way. I know you don't mind.

[Angelo Clematide]

i don't mind, i'm only HAL-27 and programed to serve humans.