|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
I found an article I thought would be of some interest to the people here at PHP. This is article is from pro-recording engineer Paul Abbott. Paul Abbott is ZenMastering's owner and chief mastering engineer. In addition Paul has appeared as a columnist in EQ, Tape Op and Sound on Sound magazines, was named among "six of the hottest mastering engineers working today" by Music Connection magazine and is a member of the prestigious Audio Engineering Society. Here's Paul's article on Analog vs Digital...Open any pro audio magazine and you're likely to read about the pros, cons and differences between analog and digital. In my mastering work I hear various comments on the topic. Some clients ask if I can apply analog processing. Others are very concerned that the entire signal chain remain digital. What are these people looking for, and why do they think it can only be delivered from one platform? As with many discussions, a lot of the opinions are fueled by misinformation. Claims of digital being "cold" or "sterile" are just as unfounded as analog being inherently "warm" or "life-like." To be sure, each platform has its unique capabilities and characteristics, but they're not what most people believe them to be. Let's take a closer look.
Analog -- It's All About Resolution. Analog has -- and always will have -- better resolution than digital, but it comes with the side-effect of sound coloration. When an audio signal is passed through physical elements such as tubes and capacitors it will be affected in some way. Even if the processing filers are on bypass, the act of routing a signal through these components changes the signal. This can be a benefit or a detriment, depending on your sonic perspective and preference. Many people want what they call a "fat, warm sound." This is certainly an attribute that analog equipment in mastering can impart, but there are two other factors even more important in achieving this sound: (1) the skill of the mastering engineer choosing the equipment/turning the knobs, and (2) how the music was recorded, as the mastering engineer can only work with what an artist or producer delivers. If the original recording has the production qualities of the Backstreet Boys, analog mastering cannot give it the sonic characteristics of early Steely Dan. Likewise, if a mastering engineer over-processes a good recording, even the best analog gear can sound harsh or muddy. The bottom line: Simply having a piece of analog gear in a signal chain is no guarantee of "analog" sound.
Digital -- It's All About Control. Digital -- with its ability to apply (and undo) unique changes to a virtually unlimited number of scenarios -- has greater control than analog, but it comes with the side-effect of lower resolution. However, keep in mind that "lower resolution" is a relative term. The 24/96 platform that many hi-fi enthusiasts proclaimed to be "as good as analog" has already been eclipsed by much better resolution rates and technological concepts (DSD, for example). What we're talking about is theoretical resolution. Much of what is criticized as missing in digital recording and processing falls into the "unheard, but felt" category: overtones and undertones that are beyond the scope of current sampling standards. In theory, digital will never have the resolution of analog. At a certain point, though, it becomes unnoticeable to the human ear, especially when utilized by a skilled and knowledgeable audio engineer.
So where does all this leave us? It depends on the application. In mastering, the ultimate goal is to apply changes to music that maximize its sound -- punchier drums, clearer bass...or whatever is desired -- without imparting unwanted coloration from the process itself, while at the same time maintaining the highest resolution. For this application, then, the perfect solution would probably contain the best elements of both analog and digital. Keep in mind, though, that either platform is just a means to accomplish work...not the work itself.
Thetubeguy1954"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Follow Ups:
The question is how to create an illusion of live music inside a home listening room.This illusion was easily created in 1960's ers High Fidelity shows where a string quartet pretended to play music in an auditorium while AR speakers played a good mastertape of the quartet.
What does analog versus digital have to do with that illusion?
Which is exactly why it worked. Auditory backed up by a visual. Where your eyes lead your ears follow.
except with the common MTV-style machine gun editing you are more likely to get a headache.
Hi Richard,I agree that the issue is to create an believable illusion of live music inside a home listening room.
Perhaps you believe this illusion was easily created in 1960's ers High Fidelity shows where a string quartet pretended to play music in an auditorium while AR speakers played a good mastertape of the quartet. I personally have my doubts with believing that. Given that today's equipment, especially speakers IMHO is so much better than the equipment of the 60's and knowing I've NEVER mistaken live music for recorded or visa versa, nor do I know anyone who has, I find it difficult any experienced music lovers were fooled at High Fidelitys display.
What does analog versus digital have to do with that illusion? You decide for yourself...
Thetubeguy1954
I was, however, involved with large speakers in a large auditorium where the audience could not tell if behind the screen there was a live small group playing live or merely speakers. I knew that it was reproduced but could not believe how many said they thought it was live music. I too am amazed at how many here claim their music reproduction sound real to them, including Richard, if I recall correctly.Obviously, the quality of the illusion is what motivates audiophiles. Who can take issue with that. As to whether analog or digital do the best in this illusion, I think at their best I can hear differences but not give the nod to one rather than the other. I still prefer vinyl whether it is because of old ears or the superiority of analog reproduction I would not claim to know. It doesn't really matter to one not influenced by the measurement of the wrong things in audio.
x
The reflections in the room have lot to do with the illusion of live music.Almost all home listening rooms are too small to sound like we are hearing live music in a nightclub or auditorium {we almost always hear live music in large venues}.
That problem has nothing to do with the analog vs. digital debate because even live music played in typical hi-fi rooms at home (few people have tried this) doesn't sound like a typical live concert! There are too many early reflections and bass is very uneven in most home audio rooms.
Of course with two-channel audio we have any room ambience in the recording coming at our ears from in front of us ... versus coming mainly from the sides and rear at a concert in a real auditorium.
Even more amusing is that most acoustic concerts are mono or near-mono unless you sit quite close to the performers. With amplified instruments (are there any other kind outside of classical music these days?) the music is mixed to mono for the PA speakers.
The real issues are:
-Room reflections in small rooms at home versus in an auditorium-Visual cues of people playing instruments (live or on video)
-Mono or near-mono heard in concerts from most seats versus the artificial "stereo soundstage" created in a recording studio
-The ability of home speakers to play at concert levels with low distortion
- When we solve all the above problems, then the issue of analog versus digital deserves some debate:
Digital is a superior low-noise low-distortion format
Analog is for old geezers who can't hear noise and distortion.Both formats are easy to attack because they so rarely meet their potential -- the real enemy is recording and mastering engineers who do not try to give us high quality sound, not the formats themselves.
.
.
.
zz
nt
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
z
nt
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
> Both formats are easy to attack because they so rarely meet their potential -- the real enemy is recording and mastering engineers who do not try to give us high quality sound, not the formats themselves. <So true.
On another audio site I was checking out, PHP's own Dan Banquer writes that he used to be an audiophile until he found out what was happening in the recording studio.
What a huge disappointment!None of your classic jokes? (1%)
Not even a veiled character attack?
Or a bad joke? (99%)
What has become of this place?
.
.
.
.
How many objectivists does it take to change a lightbulb?Four. Two to test the house wiring (after 6 hours of arguing whether to use 75 or 100 watt bulbs), one to change the bulb and one to bitch that the newfound light invalidates the DBT protocol.
Sorry - forgot the veil... or did you mean a "personal" character attack? Hmmm... let me think... oh, yeah. Yer deaf!
I'm off to audition speakers... with a subwoofer... and a solid state amp... and equalization...and generic cables. I'll be an objectivist yet!
Nice to hear you're finally thinking about UPGRADING your system.Wear a hat -- subwoofers, solid state amps, equalizers and generic cables will make your hair fall out. Happened to me (that's what I use at home).
Hope the EQ is parametric and is used for the subwoofer where it can do the most good and is much less likely to make the sound worse. Always try listening with the EQ bypass switch on too.
When youi finally buy a decent system, please do not donate your current Blose Acoustimess Shreikers to charity.
Just burn them.
.
.
.
.
> Nice to hear you're finally thinking about UPGRADING your system. <It would be an upgrade for sure.
> Hope the EQ is parametric <
The owner of the speakers is better than a parametric - he's a full fledged M.D!
> When youi finally buy a decent system, please do not donate your current Blose Acoustimess Shreikers to charity.
Just burn them. <I'm an analog guy, remember? I have a Sears Close-N-Play. Evil Digital!
You'd sure have my vote for Dog Catcher's AssistantR. BassNut Greene
Executive Washroom Attendant
in chrge of even-numbered stalls -- retired
(formerly Village Idiot
until I accidentally
burned down the village)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
> You'd sure have my vote for Dog Catcher's Assistant <I'm already Dog Catcher's Assistant. We supply strays to most of the Greek restaurants in town. But thanks for your support.
Yes, I saw your Greek comments on General but I didn't think you'd set me up this well! :)
The food is not fit for dogsBa Da Boom
R. BassNut Greene
Coming to you with a belly full of Spinach pie, souvlacki
and Greek Easter bread. According to my calculations the amount
of walking to work off these calories is 148.7 miles.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
> Coming to you with a belly full of Spinach pie, souvlacki
and Greek Easter bread. According to my calculations the amount
of walking to work off these calories is 148.7 miles. <Spinach Pie sounds interesting. It's a combination of something bad with something good in an effort to lend culinary credibility to the former. Other varietals include Puke Mignon, Liver Cake and Snot Brulee. Yummy. But if you walk over this way, stop by and wash that stuff down with a few cold ones and some tunes. I'll even substitute the good cables for zipcord - just for YOU!
"-Visual cues of people playing instruments (live or on video)"Silly of me to think that music would be an assemblage of auditory cues.
"-Mono or near-mono heard in concerts from most seats versus the artificial "stereo soundstage" created in a recording studio"
I'll agree with that
-"The ability of home speakers to play at concert levels with low distortion"
Who the hell wants anything that loud in their living room? Who the hell wants to have the air in the room go totally non linear with those kind of SPL's? I can't imagine the neighbors appreciating it either. Count me out Bass Nut.
d.b.
Of course if you wanted to duplicate the sound of live rock concerts you should use huge PA speakers mixed to mono, wear earplugs, smoke dope, and use some digital vocals processing device that makes the recorded vocals sound 'off key' as you listen.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
You would be amazed just how much SPL an orchestra can generate, and yet it doesn't sound that loud live does it? Or maybe that's why it takes a 120 db dynamic range to reproduce an orchestra.
d.b.
> The reflections in the room have lot to do with the illusion of live music.well yeah, they can destroy it.
> Almost all home listening rooms are too small to sound like we are hearing live music in a nightclub or auditorium {we almost always hear live music in large venues}.i don't think it is size as much as the reflectivity of the boundaries.
> That problem has nothing to do with the analog vs. digital debate
True.
> because even live music played in typical hi-fi rooms at home (few people have tried this) doesn't sound like a typical live concert!
That is true.> There are too many early reflections and bass is very uneven in most home audio rooms.
or the room is too damped. Either way it is futile. But then if the playback room had similar acoustics to a concert hall it would be a bad playback room. they serve very different purposes and what is good for one is bad for the other.
> Of course with two-channel audio we have any room ambience in the recording coming at our ears from in front of us ... versus coming mainly from the sides and rear at a concert in a real auditorium.
That is true but it is low level information and is not as obviously directional as the acoustic information coming to us straight from the instruments. so while not perfect it can still go a long way towards creating an illusion of a large space in one's listening room. the bigger problem usually is the cues one gets from the sound of their listening room imposing itself over the ambient information on the recording. the ambient information on a recording, for it to be effective has to be at the right level which is ultimately a very low level. to get the sound of the listening room to not interfere with that, it has to be at a substantially lower level. that is hard to do in what is usually a reletively small space.
> Even more amusing is that most acoustic concerts are mono or near-mono unless you sit quite close to the performers.
No. Not even close.
> With amplified instruments (are there any other kind outside of classical music these days?)Yes.
> the music is mixed to mono for the PA speakers.
Sometimes but so what? I don't think any of us are using concert PA systems as a reference.
> The real issues are:
-Room reflections in small rooms at home versus in an auditorium
Almost. the real issue is listening room reflections v. the *recorded* reflections of the original venue.
> -Visual cues of people playing instruments (live or on video)
Live sure, they actually corelate with the aural information. Not so with video playback.
> -Mono or near-mono heard in concerts from most seats versus the artificial "stereo soundstage" created in a recording studio
Not so sure it is "artificial." It may or may not be *accurate* to the original event from a particular position within the venue but it certainly can come quite close with the right recording techniques.
> -The ability of home speakers to play at concert levels with low distortion
It is not about playing at concert levels but about playing at the levels heard from the intended perspective of the recording. This certainly is an issue with much jazz.
> - When we solve all the above problems, then the issue of analog versus digital deserves some debate:
It always deserves debate but not in such broad terms.
> Digital is a superior low-noise low-distortion format
Analog is for old geezers who can't hear noise and distortion.There is a fine example of such broad terms. thank you.
> Both formats are easy to attack because they so rarely meet their potential -- the real enemy is recording and mastering engineers who do not try to give us high quality sound, not the formats themselves.
I agree with this whole heartedly.
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
... the trombone slide will hit you in the nose!This can be proven with science however why bother -- just look at the dent in my nose and my lawsuit against the trombone player now winding its way through the judicial system.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Humph! Humph! I say. I get that already with cheap wires! See my bandaged nose? That's why I don't play trombone music very often--except for concertos, where they're placed farther back.http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/camel.htm
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
The difference is that digital IMO actually alters how people perceive of the performance itself. Usually in the form the performance being worse than how they would have otherwise perceived it.Or in other words, where one listening to good analog and then bad analog of the same performance (without knowing so) will think he heard the same performance, the same person listening to good digital and then bad digital of the same performance (without knowing so) will think he heard two distinctly different performances.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: