|
When will the obsession with "analog" stop? (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Innocence Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
I use a TASCAM 4-track recorder. I actually began using a DAT player, but nobody uses those anymore, and it's too costly and frustrating, nowadays. |
:tongue2 |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Which tascam do you have? I used to service them and IME the recording quality is pretty horrific.
Palm is suggesting a good ADC because unless you intend to only distribute your music on tape reels then it's going to end up as a digital recording and therefore you want a great DAC, especially given that your chain is so nice and analogue. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Robotrance
if you would like any other than yourself to enjoy what you are making... and hear what you hear from your mixer it is important that it is recorded as correctly as possible using the highest dynamic range possible and as little error as possible so that the wav reflex the mixer output.
|
Apparently some people enjoy what I've made. I also never said I record with professional quality. I do appreciate your tip, however.
| quote: |
the fact that you cannot hear the difference on your setup says more about your ears or your monitoring or mixer...
|
I said it sounds virtually the same.
| quote: |
...you probably loose all benefits from the analog equipment and chances are you just like analog noise/distortion, you could just as well record a VST using a tape recorder.
|
Wrong, because when I tried VSTs they sounded nothing like my productions with analog equipment.
| quote: |
and here is my point.
you all claim analog sound so damn good, but you have infact recorded it digital with a crappy interface and cant hear any difference. it tells me you have either not the ears for hearing the details or you do not have the setup to be able to tell them a part or you probably just like distortion which is fine.
|
I challenge you to record the same track I've recorded analog, using VSTs or Digital. I guarantee you that it will never sound the same, let alone similar. Just because I use a digital recorder does not mean it makes my analog machines sound like VSTs.
| quote: |
but dont tell me analog is better.
|
I never said it is.
But I will definitely take into consideration of using a balanced ADC audiocard and a PC for my recording if it will sound more "analog." Cheers! |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Which tascam do you have? I used to service them and IME the recording quality is pretty horrific.
Palm is suggesting a good ADC because unless you intend to only distribute your music on tape reels then it's going to end up as a digital recording and therefore you want a great DAC, especially given that your chain is so nice and analogue. |
Tascam DP-004. I do appreciate the suggestions, I really wasn't sure I could use another method to produce a better recording. Maybe I didn't care enough, as it sounded quite similar to what I would hear from my analog mixer and monitors. |
|
|
| inversoundzzz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Robotrance
all sound is analog to the ear anyway. its just that we move the chain towards the ear that becomes more and more exact the further the digital convention is. remember that we all listen to 44,1kHz 16bit anyway. whats the point in analog before that? more convertion and noise only. the best would be if everything was digital all they up to the speaker and only there would the only convertion to ty analog randomness happen. next step would be to plug the digital bits into ones brain directly bypassing any DAC, speakers and ears. think about it. endless of dynamics not limited by laws. |
exactly....we listen in analog...our ears are analog devices..........how do you separate analog from digital....what isn't analog/part of the real world is digital.....it doesnt exist except as 0s and 1s, information........so what is an analog signal before it becomes analog...it's informatoin....on the subatomic level, a continuous current is the exact same as a discrete current...with finite numbers....the numbers are so infintely small that there is no ing way that the human analog ear can tell a real difference...only difference is an illusion.....lthat added random noise from a continuous current...there is no iun between only on off in a digital series....thats why its called digital it's digits// or only whole numbers integers.
these ar the links i found o put on gearsluts that are papers from prinsceton and etc that explain mathemeically why analog and digital signal processing is equivalent.... aand the signal processing theory...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.4291.pdf
http://www.informatics.buzdo.com/p030-signal-theory.htm
Plus, digital instruments are actually way more vintage than analog ones....because the math that creates them was around way longer before any physical synthesizer was invented....take that.
| quote: | | and chances are you just like analog noise/distortion, you could just as well record a VST using a tape recorder. |
exactly....analog gear does add noise intot he mix...which can add grit or bite...in certain situation this might be good...or just having that random amount of tiny noise......because analog flow is conintinuous and has non-whole information in the signal.......it's not as clean...as digital......digital creates the purest clean sounds....but might be subject to random glitches or stepping...etc....so each of them has problems....but digital is way better and more reliable....and all the people record there analog gear into digital devices at some point and squish it to 16 bit any way...
but.....i think the real reason there is so much love for the vintage analog synths...is they are sexy..and they are powerful...and amazing feats of engineering.....to be able to have that much sonic complexity and power within a single box, is sexy......... |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by inversoundzzz
exactly....we listen in analog...our ears are analog devices..........how do you separate analog from digital....what isn't analog/part of the real world is digital.....it doesnt exist except as 0s and 1s, information........so what is an analog signal before it becomes analog...it's informatoin....on the subatomic level, a continuous current is the exact same as a discrete current...with finite numbers....the numbers are so infintely small that there is no ing way that the human analog ear can tell a real difference...only difference is an illusion.....lthat added random noise from a continuous current...there is no iun between only on off in a digital series....thats why its called digital it's digits// or only whole numbers integers |
 |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
Well I've had both analogue and digital and I personally prefer analogue outboard and synths despite being 95% ITB at the moment, although I do use a Roland digital synth.
Digital is only ever an approximation of 'real' events, in the same way CGI is just an approximation. Programming cannot emulate the trillions of possible outcomes found in the linear world where things are not granular but a continuum.
I plan to go more analogue over time especially on outboard processing. |
|
|
| inversoundzzz |
| quote: | | Programming cannot emulate the trillions of possible outcomes found in the linear world where things are not granular but a continuum. |
but..it can....and does.....it's called noise....completely random generated outcomes.....computers can generate completely random outcomes.....
this make the sampling/(waveform generating) a completely continuous uninterrupted process.......it's also what dithering means....youve probly heard that term before...the same thing applies to noise generation, as applies to resampling.....
people in the A?D debate on both sides, I think they both dont understand what theyre even arguing about......and there is also a common misconception that for some reason...a digital waveform, is some how stairway steps, and at the very bottom of it...there will always be these "missing links"..false. |
|
|
| DJRYAN™ |
| I can't believe this question is even being asked. Analog is but the purest of sounds. Its the building block of every other synth sound in the universe. It all started there. You can't have one w/ out the other. When's the obsession with Massive going to stop? |
|
|
| Teezdalien |
| quote: | Originally posted by inversoundzzz
but..it can.... |
For god's sake, buy a shovel and bury the ing thing will you. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by inversoundzzz
but..it can....and does.....it's called noise....completely random generated outcomes.....computers can generate completely random outcomes.....
this make the sampling/(waveform generating) a completely continuous uninterrupted process
|
In terms of things such as outboard dynamics there's a whole world of information digital cannot possibly capture. A fairly mid range real compressor is packed full of capacitors and other components each of which could be in a trillion different states relative to one another. |
|
|
| inversoundzzz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Teezdalien
For god's sake, buy a shovel and bury the ing thing will you. |
lmao... i know....i ve only been on this for the last 2 days or so....debating with the analog people...and yea ive realsized there is really no debate...they are like fundamental christians...whereas I am the word of logic and reason....tehy d just as soon burn us at the stake. |
|
|
|
|
