Slate digital tape machine!

[andygabrys]

so are you actually putting two NLS plugs on every track? one at the top, and one after the other processing?

I haven't tried that yet...but I've been toying with the idea especially with virtual instruments (I mean: tracks that originate "in the box").

At the moment I go in through my Behringer analogue desk which I quite like. Then, I've been doing all my summing "in the box" using the Waves NLS. However, long term, I'm seriously considering doing my summing through the analogue desk again (like the old days).

Believe me, I've got a vested interest (these days) in Digital being superior to Analogue. However, it's simply not the case (to my ears).

Have you seen this experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48&feature=g-wl

Stuart

gotta love hooked on classics. I think I had that as a kid. any tune with a disco beat makes you move it. What about the remix of Also sprach Zarathustra? classic. I think the drums are too midi. return!!!!

so here's a question for ya:

I am with you that an analog system can preserve information way beyond 22khz as there is no reliance on sampling rate. So let's say mic > console > tape. and some internal noise related to the system. great.

and we likely agree that a digital capture system is going to be limited to the sample rate of capture.

so for the hybrid system, where you are using an analogue mixer or summing device to mix through, but you are capturing on digital (especially at lower res 44.1 or 48k), and playing back off digital and then through the analogue chain, and then back to digital at 44.1 k - are you really capturing any of that information above 22 khz? its cut off in digital. twice.

seems like we should all be recording at 192 k if you are going to use analogue summing. upsampling to go though the analogue chain probably isn't really working (although some swear by it) as you can't fabricate something that isn't there by resampling (although you can going through a unit that creates distortion and adds harmonics).

I do get that the harmonics above 22khz is a slightly different issue that the "glue" and other effects by going through analogue........

thoughts?

[mojobone]

so are you actually putting two NLS plugs on every track? one at the top, and one after the other processing?

I haven't tried that yet...but I've been toying with the idea especially with virtual instruments (I mean: tracks that originate "in the box").

At the moment I go in through my Behringer analogue desk which I quite like. Then, I've been doing all my summing "in the box" using the Waves NLS. However, long term, I'm seriously considering doing my summing through the analogue desk again (like the old days).

Believe me, I've got a vested interest (these days) in Digital being superior to Analogue. However, it's simply not the case (to my ears).

Have you seen this experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48&feature=g-wl

Stuart

I found the 'experiment' singularly unimpressive; yes, vinyl LPs are capable of reproducing material up to 60kHz, maybe more, but your headphones won't, your speakers most likely won't, (did you spend more than $8k?) and if they did, you still can't hear it. The best evidence I've seen/heard suggests that those who prefer vinyl are hearing what're best described as beneficial distortions; the main reason digital sounds subjectively 'bad' is that it's accurate, and we don't really like accurate. Analog enthusiasts willfully ignore all kinds of nonlinearities, beginning with tape hiss from the multitrack and master tape, continuing with second and third-order harmonic and intermodulation distortion (not to mention crosstalk) from the signal's multiple trips through consoles and transformers, and finishing with a series of positive and negative molds used to make stampers, each of which introduces another layer of generation loss of fine detail in those all-important trebles.

Because of the anticipated loss of trebles throughout the process, analog culture developed a habit of pre-emphasis of those trebles, secure in the knowledge that they'd be reduced at every step of the process, all the way to the listener's ear. (and in fact, most consumer speakers didn't even have tweeters in 'em prior to the mid-seventies) AKG mics were prized for their extra sizzle, helping to preserve presence and detail, but if you look around at the hot studio mics today, ribbon mics, the former darlings of live radio and television, are making a huge comeback. I'm willing to bet it's precisely because they don't pick up the kind of sibilance and sizzle that the MP3 encoding process will later mangle.

The transition from analog audio to digital was bound to hit a rough patch, given this culture of pre-emphasis, as many cheap/lazy record label bean counters authorized cutting digital transfers of legacy audio flat, with no compensation for all the extra treble formerly built into the process, resulting in "tinny" CD "remasters" that hadn't actually been adjusted to suit the new format, hence digital's 'harsh' reputation. There is zero doubt that digital audio, done right, is far superior to nearly all 100% analog record/playback systems, at least in an empirical sense. Of course there are many factors involved in getting digital audio right, from designing a proper Nyquist filter to using the right flavor of dither, but to really beat vanilla modern digital, you gotta cut a live performance direct to disc with no console and play it back on a system that'll set you back at least thirty grand. (at the end of the day, analog really IS better, if money's no object)

Subjectively, what I think is going on with analog (as experienced by 99% of its listeners) is the experience of actively listening past all those distortions to hear the music engages the mind and the senses in ways that digital and even live music do not. I believe we value the experience more, precisely because we have to work harder at it, both physically and mentally.

[Len911]

Here is a wiki of the comparisons of analog and digital. Keeping in mind that analog is a mature medium and that digital in some of the studies was still in it's infancy. The studies never confirmed that anyone could perceive a difference above 20khz. The wiki contains a lot about the variables also. And then of course there is the use of both digital and analog components.
A couple of interesting points under early digital recordings, was how cds were more revealing of the ambience and background noise, and also the problems when remastering from analog to a digital format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... _recording

The only definitive conclusion imo is double blind tests in a controlled environment with the variables in consideration. But an "old" study done in 1980 sort of leads me to agree with the conclusion:
"Work done in 1980 by Muraoka et al. (J.Audio Eng. Soc., Vol 29, pp2–9) showed that music signals with frequency components above 20 kHz were only distinguished from those without by a few of the 176 test subjects "

[gtrmann]

Dang, and I thought it was because we were so used to the tones imparted on music by analog gear, kinda like the old guitar player that still swears by his old tube amp..... He is familiar with the sounds he can get out of it and is used to and can work with it....... Dang it, I resemble that remark....

[Len911]

I suppose technically everything is analog because theoretically ones and zeros don't make any sound