Interesting Article on High Fidelity Audio Resurgence

[Rich]

So what we're really taking about here is a sound colouration device. Deliberately changing the sound with tape speed is another factor. Additionally, with time stamped samples everything can be synch'd nicely. It's quite a nice idea. Also, though the tape is "costlyish", it can presumably be re-used multiple times as the sound enters the digital (and presumably hard drive) domain almost instantaneously.

Rich - it is just another tool. Unlikely to surpass high speed digital sampling on accuracy grounds IMHO.

I'm not personally adverse to sound colouration devices. Actually, I'm all for them if they sound good. I use them - specifically tubes!

Totally agree, Justin. It really is a sound coloration device in the hands of a good engineer. And if they can use it to get more natural "analog" sound to the recording mix, then I say more power to them. Ultimately, it is why one would prefer tubes over digital amps, or vinyl over CD. While it may not be "technically perfect" it ultimately results in a better sound from a subjective perspective.

I think it also begs the question . . . what is the next step in digital recording techniques? What new technology will allow us to record music direct to digital that has a truer, more full, analog sound that is also technically accurate?

 

[tsv_1]

Actually, having worked for my college newspaper before, I understand where some of the issues come from. I don't think it is generally intentional. Think about being a reporter for a minute. You have to have multiple stories researched and written under tight deadlines. You have to be an expert on everything from government, to science to social issues, to whatever the next topic is that your editor assigns to you, even high end audio of all silly things, and you have to write an article of a certain word length (not too long or short, although the editor is going to hack it to bits anyway), also you must make the article informative, interesting, topical, poignant, technically accurate . . . oh, and you have to have it written yesterday. Along with the three other articles you were assigned last week. And you have to do all this for a pittance in salary.

Yeah, I just don't know why the media is so inaccurate? It is a complete mystery.

Sorry Rich... the pressures of journalism do not form an excuse for laziness (though that does seem to be the fall-back position these days, along with sensationalism... but I digress). There are such things as reputable sources that should be engaged as basic sanity checks for anyone writing anything outside their area of expertise.

To answer your question (even though your phraseolgy makes it feel more like swallowing bait) - one comment in the article I took exception to was: "Vinyl is the most faithful medium, with no compression or translation of music." Patently false. Not saying Vinyl is a bad medium, and pure analog records (mixed and mastered) can be breath-taking... but "no translation of music" sounds an awful lot like someone who can't tell the difference between RIAA and the IRS. If what they meant was that vinyl is not a digital-domain medium, they should have said that.

 

[Hocky]

one comment in the article I took exception to was: "Vinyl is the most faithful medium, with no compression or translation of music." Patently false.

This quote is what most of the article and its following "facts" were based on and it is false all the way through. Vinyl IS compressed in the dynamic range department. Is it space compressed? No, but CD music is not compressed, either. The bottom line is that digital music can easily have significantly higher dynamic range and be more accurate than that of vinyl. To claim anything else is ignorant.

 

[User211]

Yeah, I just don't know why the media is so inaccurate? It is a complete mystery.

Nice drop of sarcasm, but the points made are valid - obviously. Then again, the other side of the coin and the point I was making is equally valid - and equally true. Don't try to deny you don't see it now

 

[User211]

I think it also begs the question . . . what is the next step in digital recording techniques? What new technology will allow us to record music direct to digital that has a truer, more full, analog sound that is also technically accurate?

This is moving off topic - but I honestly think the real problem is how to control air better than we currently can. A way needs to be found to move air in such a manner that reflects the original instrument's dispersion characteristics. This would require a radically different approach to any existing transducer. To be practical, it would also need some sort of scaling functionality - you simply can't put a full sized band into a lot of people's listening rooms - at least European ones

The sound generating device needs to be able to initiate air movements that do not emit from it's current physical location - such that it can literally generate the same (or very close too) air movements as the instrument it is trying to emulate - if it were located there.

If we could do this then I believe current digital recording tech could probably capture enough information to control such devices convincingly. At least in a research lab with decent resources.

 

[tsv_1]

This is moving off topic - but I honestly think the real problem is how to control air better than we currently can. A way needs to be found to move air in such a manner that reflects the original instrument's dispersion characteristics. This would require a radically different approach to any existing transducer. To be practical, it would also need some sort of scaling functionality - you simply can't put a full sized band into a lot of people's listening rooms - at least European ones

The sound generating device needs to be able to initiate air movements that do not emit from it's current physical location - such that it can literally generate the same (or very close too) air movements as the instrument it is trying to emulate - if it were located there.

If we could do this then I believe current digital recording tech could probably capture enough information to control such devices convincingly. At least in a research lab with decent resources.

Next to an actual live performance, isn't this where we really want it to go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E11v3qmuKxk

 

[Rich]

This quote is what most of the article and its following "facts" were based on and it is false all the way through. Vinyl IS compressed in the dynamic range department. Is it space compressed? No, but CD music is not compressed, either. The bottom line is that digital music can easily have significantly higher dynamic range and be more accurate than that of vinyl. To claim anything else is ignorant.

Todd and Hocky, I understand your point and I agree this quote isn't the most accurate. But, taken in context, I would say it seems clear he is not talking about dynamic range compression here, but resolution, i.e.: data compression. Hocky, what do you mean by "CD music is not compressed, either." Of course CD's are data compressed. They have to be, and therefore suffer from a loss of resolution. Once bits are thrown away, you can't recreate them. Vinyl is not data compressed. It is a true analog signal, which is closest in resolution to the actual performance. The resolution on a CD can never equal that of the resolution on a Vinyl disc. I think that is what he is trying to say and I think it is absolutely correct. But I do agree that he does seem to confuse data compression with dynamic range compression -- two totally different aspects of sound recording quality. Do you guys disagree that, in terms of resolution of the performance, that vinyl is the most faithful medium? I have never heard a CD that had the absolute resolution of the same recording on vinyl. And from a purely technical perspective, a compressed algorithm of an analog signal will never have as much resolution as a true reproduction of the analog signal.

Most recording engineers understand the value of the resolution offered by analog tape. They just don't enjoy the process of working with it. I think this article pretty well sums up the reasons why they prefer analog and why such a machine as the CLASP is receiving the attention that it is.

BTW, here is an interesting article by Robert Harley regarding data compression in audio: Digital Data Compression: Music's Procrustean Bed

 

[User211]

Re Todd's You Tube post:

"What is a girl like you doing in a computer generated gin joint like this?"



This holographic app needs a bad line filter option

 

[Rich]

Nice drop of sarcasm, but the points made are valid - obviously. Then again, the other side of the coin and the point I was making is equally valid - and equally true. Don't try to deny you don't see it now

Oh, I do agree with you guys. I often get angry at the stupidity of reporters. But, at the same time, I think it is all too easy to be critical of the detail in others' writing from the comfort of your easy chair. I am sure that all of you have never made a mistake or misspoke when laboring under tight deadline on a difficult project while plodding through unfamiliar territory. In other words, In an article of this nature, I try to cut them a little slack over details, and just try to understand the gist of what they are trying to say.

 

[Rich]

Next to an actual live performance, isn't this where we really want it to go?

Don't worry, Todd. I have full faith that the porn industry will push our technological limits toward fulfillment (as it were) of all our holodeck wishes.

 

[Hocky]

Todd and Hocky, I understand your point and I agree this quote isn't the most accurate. But, taken in context, I would say it seems clear he is not talking about dynamic range compression here, but resolution, i.e.: data compression. Hocky, what do you mean by "CD music is not compressed, either." Of course CD's are data compressed. They have to be, and therefore suffer from a loss of resolution. Once bits are thrown away, you can't recreate them. Vinyl is not data compressed. It is a true analog signal, which is closest in resolution to the actual performance. The resolution on a CD can never equal that of the resolution on a Vinyl disc. I think that is what he is trying to say and I think it is absolutely correct.

CD music is absolutely not compressed - it is sampled, those are two very different things. And digital music can most certainly (and easily) have more resolution than vinyl. You realize that vinyl does have an effective resolution, right? It's effective resolution is marginally higher than that of a standard CD with a dynamic range subpar to that of a standard CD. I don't care to argue analog vs digital, but the bottom line is that the article and its terminologies are wrong. Vinyl is cool and can sound good, but it is more of a throw back, nostalgia thing than a dig for quality.

 

[tsv_1]

Re Todd's You Tube post:

"What is a girl like you doing in a computer generated gin joint like this?"



This holographic app needs a bad line filter option

NO way! Those horrific lines are half the virtual fun!

Seriously though... the science behind "projected matter" is in line with your musings of controlled air. Given enough computational power and atomic level manipulation... the holodeck would indeed be the end all in re-created musical entertainment (amongst other types of entertainment).

 

[Rich]

CD music is absolutely not compressed - it is sampled, those are two very different things.

Great point, Todd, and very true. My bad. I was in a hurry responding and I guess I was thinking about mp3 compression rather than CD sampling. Good thing I am not a news reporter, or you would have raked me over the coals.

The point I made is still somewhat valid, though. CDs are sampled at a particular frequency, which results in a loss of resolution of the music. Which is why we have SACD, DVD, and other formats with higher sampling rates, in order to give us more resolution. The higher the resolution, the more "analog-sounding" the audiophiles describe the sound (or at least that was my experience at the last audio show I attended -- I think it was Harley himself going on and on about how analog-sounding this particular digital recording process was). Which, of course, makes your point that high resolution digital blows analog away for accuracy and dynamic range. Yet, so many musicians and music lovers still prefer the sound of analog to straight digital. Which brings us back to Justin's point, and the real take-away point of this article, I suppose. That the use of the analog process in recording these days is really about sound coloration and enhancement. Ultimately, it may be the limitations of analog (inherent errors, distortion, and soft clipping, among others) that make it sound so pleasing to us. And make a process that uses analog tape still relevant in the digital recording world.

 

[User211]

NO way! Those horrific lines are half the virtual fun!

Seriously though... the science behind "projected matter" is in line with your musings of controlled air. Given enough computational power and atomic level manipulation... the holodeck would indeed be the end all in re-created musical entertainment (amongst other types of entertainment).

Well, I did smile when I heard it - I remembered it quite vividly, too. God Riker looks young!

I think we're not too far away from being able to do a dodgy holodeck. Voice recognition? Check. AI impersonation of humans? Check. And a recent program on TV showed a technology projecting 3D images into room space. That tech also tracks viewers retinas to calculate viewing angles and work out a minimum required data set for the displayed image. A working colour version is supposed to be on sale this year. Seriously!

 

[User211]

Great point, Todd, and very true. My bad.

x2!!! Oh well...

 

[Rich]

I just want to give kudos to Neil Young for his efforts in bringing digital forward and trying to make higher resolution digital playback the de facto standard. Ultimately, that is what is going to result in better quality audio for all of us moving forward, and I appreciate his efforts in that area. Here is a quick article on it: Why Neil Young hates MP3s -- and what you can do about it

CDs are sampled at a particular frequency, which results in a loss of resolution of the music.

According to Neil Young in his recent interview: CD's contain "only 15 percent of the recording information contained on the master tracks." Do you guys agree with that? If not, why? And how does it compare to Vinyl? I am not talking about "equivalent effective resolution" or some such . . . I am talking about how much of the actual original analog waveform is captured on the disc. I suspect that there are limitations to digital as compared to analog (vinyl or tape) that have to do with more than just lower effective resolution -- I think some of the limitations have to do with faults in our assumptions of how the ear/brain actually responds to sampling playback vs. analog playback. Curious on your thoughts on that subject. Of course, I also recognize that analog has its own limitations as compared to digital which can reduce the sound quality, with noise floor being a key factor. Ultimately though, I am thinking that in some ways and to some people, the analog vs. digital debate rages because the limitations of analog are less offensive to our ears than the limitations of CDs. Again, I think higher resolution digital begins to weigh much in favor of digital for sound quality, which is why I am encouraged by Young's endeavors in this area.

That the use of the analog process in recording these days is really about sound coloration and enhancement.

This may also be another reason why so many people prefer vinyl over digital -- because you can alter the color of the sound depending on which cartridge you buy, just as Justin does with his tubes. Can't really do that so easily with digital.

 

[Rich]

I asked a friend of mine who is a successful recording engineer what he thought about CLASP. He said he thought it was quite interesting, but way too costly. Not an expense he could ever justify in his own studio. "That's more than I spent on my tape machine" were his exact words. He said that when he uses tape, he has always recorded to tape first, and then transferred to digital to finish. But he has recently heard of another engineer that has had good results by recording directly to digital, getting everything edited and recorded just like he wants it, then transferring to tape to mix. He thought that was an interesting concept and was planning on experimenting with it.

 

[Hocky]

Great point, Todd, and very true. My bad. I was in a hurry responding and I guess I was thinking about mp3 compression rather than CD sampling. Good thing I am not a news reporter, or you would have raked me over the coals.

The point I made is still somewhat valid, though. CDs are sampled at a particular frequency, which results in a loss of resolution of the music. Which is why we have SACD, DVD, and other formats with higher sampling rates, in order to give us more resolution. The higher the resolution, the more "analog-sounding" the audiophiles describe the sound (or at least that was my experience at the last audio show I attended -- I think it was Harley himself going on and on about how analog-sounding this particular digital recording process was). Which, of course, makes your point that high resolution digital blows analog away for accuracy and dynamic range. Yet, so many musicians and music lovers still prefer the sound of analog to straight digital. Which brings us back to Justin's point, and the real take-away point of this article, I suppose. That the use of the analog process in recording these days is really about sound coloration and enhancement. Ultimately, it may be the limitations of analog (inherent errors, distortion, and soft clipping, among others) that make it sound so pleasing to us. And make a process that uses analog tape still relevant in the digital recording world.

Hocky != Todd. ;-)

I think that you're right, though. The analog sound probably is a bit different, regardless of whether that is due to errors on its end or the digital end, and it may be preferable to some. This is the same reason why tube amps are still popular. It is just a game of preferences.

 

[tsv_1]

Hocky != Todd. ;-)

I think that you're right, though. The analog sound probably is a bit different, regardless of whether that is due to errors on its end or the digital end, and it may be preferable to some. This is the same reason why tube amps are still popular. It is just a game of preferences.

I also wonder how much of the CLASP-grasping is generational. How many Gen Y recordinging artists/engineers care about tape given their general lack of exposure (except by those at least a generation or two older than they are). Just a thought.

Cheers,

Hockey-not

 

[Rich]

Hocky != Todd. ;-)

Yep, you too Hocky. Sorry, didn't mean to snub you there.