Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Lee here:

Anyhow... to get back to what I was trying to explain yesterday, poorly... I never meant to imply that tape doesn't have the high frequency response of digital. I totally agree that the ultra-highs are definitely there, well out over 20K. What I meant is that the peaks (we're talking amplitude) of high-frequency transients are rolled off (or really, compressed) with tape. With digital, they are not, therefore on a close miked instrument the highs 1) sound unnaturally out of proportion to the the rest of the instrument's spectrum, and 2) a lot of headroom is wasted as a result of leaving those high-peaking transients in, thus leaving less headroom for the fundamental tones that you want to hear... which often results in a loud, transient close-miked instrument sounding "distant" as well as unnatural or unpleasant. Since tape doesn't really pick up those transients, it's more forgiving of close miking.
Once there's some distance between the mic and the source, the high frequencies lose a lot of their energy anyhow so this becomes less of an issue for digital recording.


Y'know Lee, unless you're close mic'ing all this with omnis, the proximity effect is going to be hyping the lows in a big way, most likely. And yeah that can be easier on the ears than hyping the highs! A lot of folks really depend on that to make their drums sound big and fat. I wonder if the enhanced highs on some analog make the proximity effect less muddy seeming...

But I gotcha, it's the transients. Interestingly, they seem more dramatic off tape- almost like you can hear the struggle to rein it in! If you hit it just right. Makes up for the compression.

Well... I realize that a lot of mistakes are made by the engineer and one can't "blame the tools," but one final point, while we're spouting "nonsense:" what makes me a bit uncomfortable about downplaying the role of the tools, is that tools represent intent too - the designer's intent. I believe that good design is somewhat tolerant of mistakes, and good designers' intent is to lift us out of the morass of crappy audio , even rank beginners. When I plug into a piece of gear I feel as though the designer is in some part, there in the room with me, and I would like to feel that the relationship isn't a hostile one. I can definitely feel the love from Mr. Neve and Mr. Massenburg. To suggest that they aren't there and have had no role in what I'm doing, doesn't seem right to me. And on the flip side of course, a designer can have a negative impact on the result too - even if the specs are perfect. I see failure to anticipate common human mistakes and abuses, and/or experimentation on the user's part, as being in part a design failure.

Wow, that's cool Lee. I dig that. I've felt that many a time.

It's always fun to trip out the designers, too, in theory anyway- like Dave Gilmour playing his '48 Broadcaster, who'd of imagined those noises coming out of that thing in 1948? And yet it's the perfect tool... And using gear "wrong" Beatles-style is another fun one.


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MusicMedicine, check your private messages!


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 439
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
[that the ultra-highs are definitely there, well out over 20K. What I meant is that the peaks (we're talking amplitude) of high-frequency transients are rolled off (or really, compressed) with tape. With digital, they are not,
This is not necessarilly so. You can allow for transients in either format, or you cannot allow for them.

Again, this is an operational determination. If you calibrate your DACs so that you are averaging 12dB of headroom, and you have a transient that requires 3 more bits, then you are not getting that represented correctly.

Lee, originally you stated that multitrack tape machines fell off almost completely at 15kHz. Then I think that you changed that later. If you look at the natural response of these machines, they will all reproduce well beyond 20kHz. I am not saying that all of these are linear, but they really cannot be, nor would you really want them to be, because of the tape itself:

Otari MX80, MX5050, MX80, MTR90, MTR100, Ampex MM1200, MTR102, Studer A80, A820, A827, MCI, etc.

Most of those machine are up 2dB @20kHz and are rising.

If a tape machine is able to record out to 30kHz (with ease), and you have the headroom, why would it not record the high frequency transient?

It seems to me that until 24-bit, 192kHz sampling came along, digital could not come close to analog representation of a spike. And even 192 is not perfect, but it is closer. Most people don't have good 192kHz convertors, so why are you bringing the transient thing up?

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Lee,

> Are you saying that you think the amount of high frequency harmonic content ... is the same whether you place a microphone one foot away in a room or 15 feet away? <

Not at all. But the reason there is less high frequency content 15 feet away is because the room ambience, which usually has much less HF energy, dominates the sound. It's not because high frequencies are attenuated in air more quickly with greater distance. Yes that does happen, but only over much longer distances.

> I found most of your post extremely condescending <

That really wasn't my intent. Sometimes I'm in too much of a rush to be as polite as I should be, and for that I apologize.

> "three bonus points for Lee!" <

I was just trying to be nice and inject some humor.

> in many cases you try to objectify and quantify things which are really subjective <

Never. I have no problem with you or anyone else expressing a personal preference for analog, digital, or anything else. I object only when someone attempts to explain why something is true or not, and gets it wrong.

> they may have a perfectly valid point but be unable to explain it in terms a scientist likes. <

Yes, that's true. But too often I see folks try to explain things they have no understanding of. Again, this is the only time I object. Audio is at least as much science as art, and I have no trouble keeping the two separate. Nobody has yet been able to explain why a particular guitar solo is cool, but much of the techie stuff discussed here has been understood fully for many years.

> I don't mind at all being questioned or asked to explain things further ... I felt their questions were in good faith and relevant <

That's all I was doing when I asked you to explain and back up your statements. I try very hard to stick to the facts of the discussion at hand, and I try even harder to avoid personal attacks. If I offended you I'm sorry. And I'm not here to make enemies! But if I call you on something, don't be mad just because I didn't take the time to say "With all due respect" or whatever. That should be implied.

--Ethan

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Ted,

> Perhaps you are thinking that the distances in question are not great enough, or the air not wet enough, and that the reflective issues are greater in a typical room? <

Yes, exactly.

> I did a session at 70% humidity ... 12khz simply does not exist at 200' <

Okay, maybe in an extreme case like that, or at such a huge distance. But in a normal sized room with even minimal climate control, the muffled nature of ambience is the dominant reason highs are reduced with distance.

> I have numerous acoustic problems in my house that sounded absolutely like hell on digital... Since I've been using analog tape, I have been startled to find that the room sound is almost a non-issue <

I can't imagine how the recording medium could interact with standing waves and other room acoustics problems. I'll stop just short of saying you're imagining things \:D but I do think you should look for another explanation.

--Ethan

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

But before you respond with yet another withering personal attack, Lee, let me point out to you something: When my mother dies, you are second in line to Miroslav as the number one bitch in my life. Just so you know, it might be a long wait.
Awwwwwwww Eric, sweetie...don't be such a little boy...are you pouting now too? \:\(

You invented and perpetuated the personal attack around here as far as I'm concerned.
If your memory fails you…go do some forum searching and you will see that I've only retaliated as a defensive maneuver…like most other folks are having to do with you.
I've even offered to put down the gloves a few times…but you haven't got it in you.
So when all that karma comes back at you...it's only well deserved….you've worked very hard at being a dick!!!

You know...maybe a little boy like you needs more than one mother...
...or should I say...bitch...in his life.

What do you say Lee?
Maybe between the three of us “bitches”, we can possibly teach him how to interact with people without holding his nose so high up in the air...
…as though he actually has something to hold it up for anyway…. :rolleyes:

OK now Eric sweetie…eat all your vegetables…go finish your homework…and if you are a good, polite little boy…the other kids just might want to play with you again.

So go ahead…go on now…don't just stand there pouting…

...AND STOP WIPING YOUR NOSE WITH YOUR SLEEVE!!! :p


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 232
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:
MusicMedicine, check your private messages!
Got it, thanks. Now check yours

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Imp,

> You can allow for transients in either format, or you cannot allow for them. <

That's an excellent point. When I used to own a pro studio and used 2-inch tape, I always recorded transient-rich material at -12 or even lower. If you record a bright sounding tambourine much above 0 VU on analog tape, the preemphasis can create terrible distortion.

--Ethan

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 232
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
Yes... being a lifelong aficionado of drums and percussion, I have a lot to say on that subject, although it probably belongs in a different thread. Let's just say I know what you're talking about. \:\) I'm sure you and Ted and I could go on for quite awhile about it!
Now, this is a discussion I'd love to have... \:\)

Quote:
but one final point, while we're spouting "nonsense:" what makes me a bit uncomfortable about downplaying the role of the tools, is that tools represent intent too - the designer's intent. I believe that good design is somewhat tolerant of mistakes, and good designers' intent is to lift us out of the morass of crappy audio \:D , even rank beginners. When I plug into a piece of gear I feel as though the designer is in some part, there in the room with me, and I would like to feel that the relationship isn't a hostile one. I can definitely feel the love from Mr. Neve and Mr. Massenburg. To suggest that they aren't there and have had no role in what I'm doing, doesn't seem right to me. And on the flip side of course, a designer can have a negative impact on the result too - even if the specs are perfect. I see failure to anticipate common human mistakes and abuses, and/or experimentation on the user's part, as being in part a design failure.
Yes, intent here is also important. I have sme gear that was obviously made with care (dare I say, love) and I can feel it in the way it works. But there is NO way we'll able to quantify it (yet) \:D

Jeff

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperial:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
...that the ultra-highs are definitely there, well out over 20K. What I meant is that the peaks (we're talking amplitude) of high-frequency transients are rolled off (or really, compressed) with tape. With digital, they are not,
This is not necessarilly so. You can allow for transients in either format, or you cannot allow for them...

...If a tape machine is able to record out to 30kHz (with ease), and you have the headroom, why would it not record the high frequency transient?
If I may jump in here...

I think you may be mixing apples and oranges a bit here.

HF and HF transient content (or any transient) are not quite the same thing.

A transient is a momentary high-level peak...where as you can have a ton of HF content that is NOT momentarily peaking, but well within an acceptable, predetermined level.

With analog tape, when recording at hotter levels as most like to do for certain types of music, a transient can easily overload the tape...and so, is "naturally compressed"...good old tape saturation, long may it live!!!

With digital...until you crack "0"...all of that transient content is being recorded, possibly in all of its harsh, nasty glory...as may occur when close-milking.

So...what I think Lee is saying, and I agree with, is that with analog tape...close miking is a useable technique...often the natural compression of those transients gives you a pleasing sound.

Where as with digital...close milking may not be quite so forgiving...so you may do better to back-off the mic's a bit more so as NOT to pick up as much of the transient's amplitude...and thus you are then “softening” them up a bit…but not quite the same as tape saturation of transients will do.
So even though both analog tape and digital can capture HF content out to 30kHz…they won't capture those transients the same way.

And whether it's the humidity, distance or just plain room absorption that rolls off the HF content with distance of source to microphone…it's still rolling off. So…moving the microphones back a bit with digital helps with those transients.


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Miroslav,

> you may do better to back-off the mic's a bit more so as NOT to pick up as much of the transient's amplitude <

Why would moving a microphone farther away reduce the level of transients in relation to the sustained content?

--Ethan

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Ethan, have you not been listening? The further away from the source, the lower the amplitude of HF content.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
Miroslav,

> you may do better to back-off the mic's a bit more so as NOT to pick up as much of the transient's amplitude <

Why would moving a microphone farther away reduce the level of transients in relation to the sustained content?
Ethan,

Don' know where I said "level of transients in relation to the sustained content"...

But rather:
"...whether it's the humidity, distance or just plain room absorption that rolls off the HF content with distance of source to microphone…it's still rolling off. So…moving the microphones back a bit with digital helps with those transients."

So both will roll-off.

It's a balancing act...how far to place the microphones. Maybe just a few inches further than you would with analog tape...maybe a foot or two...???

Depends on the source and how transient-rich it is. I mean, you don't want to lose all the HF content along with the transients...but rather just to "soften" up the momentary peaks.

If you don't want to move the microphones...then just stick a limiter in-line...something with a very fast/variable attack.
But moving the microphones may be more natural.

But what the hell am I telling you all this for…???...you know it better than I do! \:\)

Stop splitting hairs!!! \:D :p


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Ted: > I have numerous acoustic problems in my house that sounded absolutely like hell on digital... Since I've been using analog tape, I have been startled to find that the room sound is almost a non-issue <

Ethan: I can't imagine how the recording medium could interact with standing waves and other room acoustics problems. I'll stop just short of saying you're imagining things but I do think you should look for another explanation.

I agree, it defies reasonable explanation, but it's my experience. It mostly has to do with my rather loud, blues-shoutin' voice, which rings the room in a pretty obnoxious way- for some reason this picks up rather unflatteringly on the digital, not an issue with the analog. It must be a freak thing and a coincidence of some kind, unique to this particular situation over here, and doubtless there are other factors. Nonetheless, it's been the deal-killer for digital around here, and an unexpected bonus.

I definitely think there are a lot of psychoacoustics going on that incline me to this analog machine. It's doubtless about perception more than reality, but I'm in the perception biz when it comes to music.

On the transients, of course we must remember Nika's recent paper where he shows that reconstructed wave forms can be as much as 6dB higher in level than the highest sample, at 44.1. And probably higher than that, who knows. I wish I had a nice meter that could let me know. Anyhow, that's gonna play hell with the transients unless the levels are real conservative, and it ain't gonna be pretty!


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Scott,

> have you not been listening? The further away from the source, the lower the amplitude of HF content. <

Have you not been listening either? \:D

Distance does not change the shape or rise time of transients. All that happens with distance, in a normal sized home studio anyway, is an increase in the proportion of ambience to direct sound.

Yes, the ambience has less HF content so overall the sound seems less bright. But the HF content in the transients is not otherwise changed very much. It's really just an increase in midrange content due to the more prevalent reflections and ambience.

--Ethan

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Miroslav,

> But what the hell am I telling you all this for??? ... you know it better than I do! \:\) Stop splitting hairs!!! \:D <

I merely object to the notion that you should place microphones differently when recording to a digital versus analog medium. That just seems silly to me, and the explanations I've seen so far are not compelling. Sorry if that offends anyone!

--Ethan

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Ted,

> Nika's recent paper ... that's gonna play hell with the transients <

So you can't try recording at -10 to see if you like that better? \:D

I generally aim to record everything at -12, unless it's a compressed bass or miked fuzz guitar that I'm sure won't get louder later. The analog mindset of pushing levels as close as possible to zero does not work with digital, nor is it a good idea even with analog. With analog tape the distortion creeps up gradually.

The sweet spot for analog tape - at least with the tapes I used 100 years ago - is about -10. For tracks having "single note instruments" like a fuzz guitar or flute solo you can go much higher because the increased distortion mainly adds harmonics. But when recording multiple notes or a complete mix, the increased IM distortion makes even one generation of analog tape sound pretty terrible.

--Ethan

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Ted,
> Nika's recent paper ... that's gonna play hell with the transients <
So you can't try recording at -10 to see if you like that better?

Sure, can do that. But how much digital with harsh transients has been recorded a lot hotter than that! Which may be where these perceptions are coming from. I heard Lee mention she usually shoots for about -6, which may still be in the danger zone to some extent.

Ethan: "I generally aim to record everything at -12, unless it's a compressed bass or miked fuzz guitar that I'm sure won't get louder later. The analog mindset of pushing levels as close as possible to zero does not work with digital, nor is it a good idea even with analog. With analog tape the distortion creeps up gradually."

Right.

"The sweet spot for analog tape - at least with the tapes I used 100 years ago - is about -10."

Assuming you are talking VU now, not peak, now that we're talking analog?

I've found, on this particular machine, that slamming the hell out of it sounds best! Up to a certain point- distortion! I've heard from more experienced folk that this is atypical... and I am talking about things more like a complete mix, like drums and vocal and vibes all on the one mic... I'm sure it has to do with the analog signal path of the machine as well as the tape's response.

Hey, that's a fine lookin' cat you got there... did I mention that?


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Ted,

> But how much digital with harsh transients has been recorded a lot hotter than that! Which may be where these perceptions are coming from. <

Maybe, but I doubt it. I've recorded lots of times when the peak level accidentally hit zero, and I never heard a problem. I've even had digital overs that sounded fine, though obviously I try to avoid that!

> Assuming you are talking VU now, not peak, now that we're talking analog? <

Right.

> Hey, that's a fine lookin' cat you got there... did I mention that? <

Thanks, he really is awesome - the sweetest cat I've ever had. I tell him all the time that he's famous and his photo is all over the 'net. He just yawns and licks himself.

--Ethan

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:

I merely object to the notion that you should place microphones differently when recording to a digital versus analog medium. That just seems silly to me...
And that is and has been your real point all along. You seem to have decided right up front that this notion "seems silly" - a subjective analysis if ever there was one! \:D - and then attempt to obscure the points being made and/or discredit the person posting the opinion, by splitting hairs over minutia that are mostly irrelevant to the larger point. That doesn't seem to be approaching the discussion in good faith.

As a practical matter, the further you move a microphone away from a source, the more the HF content is attenuated. Yes, there are lots of different factors that determine HOW it is attentuated, and how much (ambience, humidity, eventually physical distance, etc.) but it really isn't relevant to the point being made. For the purpose of the discussion, it's enough to say "move the mic further away and there's less HF content, move it closer and there's more" and anybody with any engineering experience whatsoever will know what that means.

And no one said either that distance changes the shape or rise of transients, nor that the level of transients would be attenuated any differently in relation to sustained content.

Where transients ARE relevant to the point, is that IF a lot of the HF energy in a source is transient as opposed to sustained (such as with cymbals or distorted electric guitars), then compressing the transients (as will usually happen due to tape saturation) will 1) reduce the overall HF content, and 2) result in higher average volume.

And yes, Imperial, of course you CAN set up your tape deck so that it'll record most transients, although if the transients are particularly sharp you may still run out of headroom. And yes, the degree to which you can do this depends on a lot of variables, such as the way you calibrate your deck, the tape speed and the type of tape used. But again as a practical matter, especially in the cases I'm talking about (recording lots of loud transient sounds e.g. rock music), most engineers are going to be running at higher levels and going for a higher RMS, and some of the peaks will end up saturating the tape.

Of course if you do this with digital, the result will be ugly. So yes, I record at lower levels with digital. I go for average levels around -12 to -20, with peaks no higher than -6. I do NOT find lower levels to be optimum for analog, never have.

But of course the problem with recording at lower peak levels AND allowing the transients through, then, is that the average volume ends up being too low. In many cases that means people compress the bejesus out of the track in order to get the same perceived volume and impact that is easily obtainable from recording analog - and we all know how ugly THAT sounds. So you can argue all you like that "tape is an effect" but the fact is you're going to have to limit the dynamic range at some point anyway in cases like that, which is also "an effect." So pick your poison: tape saturation, or compressors. Even the fastest compressors can't always catch very sharp HF transients, whereas saturated tape just won't let them through to begin with. Convenient.

Other options are to use ribbon mics, which achieve a somewhat similar result, or to simply move the mics further away from the source, which will reduce the overall HF content and therefore the HF transients. Of course, again if you're recording loud music, you may not fully capture the impact of things like drums and guitar amps if you don't use anything but ambient mics. So this can be a conundrum when recording digitally.

You can argue all you want that this is "silly" but I don't see at all what's wrong with the idea that digital is more appropriate for certain types of source material and/or miking techniques, and analog is stronger on others. That has proven to be true in many people's experience, just as we choose different operating levels, tape speeds etc. with analog tape based on the material, and different mics, pres, compressors, etc. There is really no such thing as a perfect recording medium, even though on the best gear, all the specs seem to be flat. \:D So most of us make the choices that we think will best represent the music, not what looks good on paper.

I'm quite sure that I've generalized and there are all sorts of hairs you can split in this post, too, but since we all have lives and stuff to attend to, it's the best I can do for the time I have, sorry.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 477
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 477
great post Lee!

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,905
Lee,

My goal is never to split hairs, obscure points, or argue minutiae. If you've followed any of my discussions with others - where you could be a more objective witness - you'll know that's true. If nothing else, I always stick to the facts. But every time I turn around here, the topic is a different moving target. By accusing me of such tactics you become the one making personal attacks. I have not once attacked you personally, just your logic and understanding of audio science. And you still haven't addressed my original points!

I just found myself reviewing Page 3 when I realized I don't care enough anymore to spend any more time on this. I don't want to fight with you or anyone else. I do enjoy discussing audio science, though, so if you want to go back and address my points that's fine. If not, that's fine too.

It's obvious to me that folks will believe what they want - logic, evidence, and science be damned. I just wish more of the anti-digital camp would realize there's a very good reason that blind testing is the only method accepted by science, and for a very good reason! If you've ever had a situation where a technique you used last week doesn't work today even though absolutely nothing has changed, you'll understand why anecdotal evidence is never acceptable. Even when it's your own personal experience! Especially with audio, human's fragile and short term memory plays too large a role to ignore.

--Ethan

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer:

My goal is never to split hairs, obscure points, or argue minutiae. If you've followed any of my discussions with others - where you could be a more objective witness - you'll know that's true.
Actually, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I HAVE observed you doing the same thing with other people.

Quote:
But every time I turn around here, the topic is a different moving target.
Yes, the topic has changed emphasis several times, but I think you're just as responsible for that as anybody else.

Quote:

By accusing me of such tactics you become the one making personal attacks. I have not once attacked you personally,just your logic and understanding of audio science.
OK, then I'm not attacking you personally either, just the way you're interpreting what others are saying. \:D

Quote:

And you still haven't addressed my original points!

I just found myself reviewing Page 3 when I realized I don't care enough anymore to spend any more time on this.
I don't really either. Most of what I wished to say, I said in my last post. I might go back to your earlier post at some point if I have the time, which right now I don't, but I didn't think most of it was relevant to the actual point I was making anyhow.

Quote:

It's obvious to me that folks will believe what they want - logic, evidence, and science be damned.
Yep... I could say the same on the other side. \:D

Quote:

I just wish more of the anti-digital camp would realize there's a very good reason that blind testing is the only method accepted by science, and for a very good reason!
First of all, I am not "anti digital." Just because I don't accept that digital is perfect, doesn't mean I hate it, or would like to convince everyone that analog is better. It just means I would like to see digital get better, that I still hear problems with it, and that there are some applications in which I still prefer analog.

Second, as I've already mentioned, I HAVE participated in a number of blind tests and I CAN reliably hear the difference in most cases. And where I can't, I generally know why.

And third, nobody's ever needed to do a blind test to prove that say, Rupert Neve's or George Massenberg's stuff doesn't suck, under any circumstances. \:D That in itself is evidence of something, methinks.

Quote:
If you've ever had a situation where a technique you used last week doesn't work today even though absolutely nothing has changed, you'll understand why anecdotal evidence is never acceptable. Even when it's your own personal experience!
Again, as a practical matter, most of us don't have the time to do blind testing or analytical experiments involving every possible permutation of different equipment, sources, room conditions, etc. So I feel perfectly OK about not being able to quantify everything, so long as I can repeatedly reproduce problems and solutions, and results - and I can, in the vast majority of cases.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Just because I like analog tape...I am not anti-digital either...I have plenty of digital gear.

Both are useable...just different...and I kinda' thought that's what we were discussing...the differences...and not trying to convince each other that one is necessarily more "better" than the other...at least it's not been my intent.


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
You'd hope every endless variable in a session might inspire you to put a mic in a different place- so often a half-inch or 15 degrees totally changes the way things sound. I do think what you're hearing back off the medium ought to inform such decisions, whatever the medium is!

Lee, you still haven't addressed the issue of whether or not your cheap transistor front end is an issue when it comes to this digital/analog thing! Cheap transistor gear will do things to transients that you might not want to hear off of digital... any evidence that these transients are even making it intact to digital over there?


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

You'd hope every endless variable in a session might inspire you to put a mic in a different place- so often a half-inch or 15 degrees totally changes the way things sound. I do think what you're hearing back off the medium ought to inform such decisions, whatever the medium is!
Definitely! I never presume any mic placement, knowing what a difference even small movements can make.

Quote:

Lee, you still haven't addressed the issue of whether or not your cheap transistor front end is an issue when it comes to this digital/analog thing! Cheap transistor gear will do things to transients that you might not want to hear off of digital...
True, but no, it's not that. I did some direct comparisons in a studio that had a hybrid analog/Pro Tools (Mix Plus) system a few years ago, all top shelf gear. Couldn't even blame the converters, they had Apogees in there. I also work with Pro Tools HD quite a bit nowadays. Not to mention, I hear the same issues on other commercial recordings that were done in world class studios. Like I said, I'd like to think it was just me, or just my gear, but it doesn't seem so. Not that my specific gear doesn't have issues of its own, but I'd expect that from cheap stuff whether digital or analog!

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 286
H
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 286
I'm not saying this is the cause, or possibly the only problem, but Mike Rivers just raised an interesting point at rec.audio.pro. Summing of digital signals in the mix buss.

When you exceed the maximum allowable signals in an analog buss, clipping sets in, but it's softer clipping than a clipped digital signal. On a stereo buss, with a summed digital signal, that clipping may not even be visible (in the summed waveform), but it may be audible. Maybe that's part of what some of us are hearing.

Just a thought.


Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
ITRstudio.com
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally posted by miroslav:
Just because I like analog tape...I am not anti-digital either...I have plenty of digital gear.
Both are useable...just different...and I kinda' thought that's what we were discussing...the differences...and not trying to convince each other that one is necessarily more "better" than the other...at least it's not been my intent.
miroslav,

Very well said. I agree both "worlds" are indeed very useable.. ;\)

That said..I still feel a lot can be better...I just dont know for sure if the blame is to be put on the recording gear, or me as an engineer, or a combination of them all... \:D This is why I love to hear from all of you...

`cuss imho..I have yet to hear a recording that sounds exsactly as "the real world"...Iīm not talking about good, or bad players/singers here, but reproducing exsactly what I hear, and how I feel at a classical concert... when I walk in the rehearseal/studio room hearing the band playing...the amb..the sounds...the vibe..ect.(### fill in you own thing here)And even that might be hard to agree on..`cuzz what you all hear/feel might be very different from what I do..!!

From my own humble experienceI..itīs beginning to be more, and more clear to me, that the known sinus, square, triangle, thd+N ect..messurements might just not be enough to establis a "common ground" to start from. How can we even "agree", "messure" ect, on what is the "perfect" signal path, recording system, and reproduction system..???

This is very interesting stuff to say the least..!!! \:\)

Kind regards

Peter


Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.>>S
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
I donīt kow where I found this link..might be here..??? Just thought it was pretty funny to read, and look at regarding the tape stuff.

http://www.endino.com/graphs/

Kind regards

Peter


Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.>>S
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Hi Peter,

Yes...I've seen that chart before...very interesting and informative.

Of course...my favorite line in the article is:

"I still mix to half-inch whenever possible (and I prefer 15 IPS for rock and roll) despite the stuff you're about to see below..."

It's like...I know tape ain't perfect, but I still love that sound! \:D


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5