IGVENTURE

I agree that digital media does make the song distribution imbalanced. Back to Presence on the way home last night, it's pretty easy to skip the tracks after Achilles Last Stand, as they really do pale in comparison. But then I also seem to remember picking up the record needle or fast forwarding the cassette tape to try and get to the next song. So the desire to drop the crap didn't change, just our ability to do it.

I hear that Walter's stylus is actually made of ham.
 
Well it's not a short story unfortunately. Remember there is the actual recording of the actual instruments/ voices and then reproduction. Old vinyl that has been remade as a cd that some people say don't sound as good as the vinyl don't realize that it is likely not the medium that is making the major sound difference but the job that the remastering process did and the person actually performing that process. At this point you are victim to that person's idea as to what sounds "good". Of course it's more involved but to simplify anyone can F up the sound of something even if only have bass and treble controls to screw with. Now u can see why this world is perfect for me.
 
Last edited:
davidcarson48 said:
I have heard Matty's statement before. I don't doubt the statement, but my question is how? How is it possible that a vinyl record has better sound quality that a digital source? It seems to go against logic.
Click to expand...

Basically think of it like this. An analog wave form looks like a bunch of sine waves (think back to high school math/physics). It is smooth. A digital wave form is composed of a bunch of dots (1's and 0's) and if you zoom in really close, looks more like a staircase. The standard for CD's is 16bit 44.1khz. MP3's and generally over the air digital delivery is usually compressed and the wave form gets distorted even more.

Pro studios have a higher sampling rate maybe 96-192khz and maybe they will use 24 bit, and that will make things sound smoother, but it will still never ever be as smooth as the original analog wave form. Plus they have to down-sample it for the consumer otherwise you will have like 500MB+ files for each song and it would n't fit on a CD.

Whenever you record an analog source (let's say a guitar) into a computer, you are converting it to 1's and 0's and you lose the original wave form that is coming out of the guitar or someone's mouth. The wave form passes through a lot of electronics, esp the A/D converter (analog to digital) and all of this can effect how the digital signal is finally captured by the digital recorder (i.e. the computer). Furthermore, lots of producers like to use a mix of digital and analog equipment and will have to pass through A/D and D/A converters multiple times, further degrading the original signal. In the old days, they recorded to high quality tape directly from the original source and you would retain the smooth wave form which can then pressed to a record.

Also, during playback (i.e. iPod), you are at the mercy of the iPod's D/A converter (i.e. the chip that converts the digital MP3 to the signal you hear through headphones).

Another thing to consider is that digital processing done these days is "too perfect". What I mean by that is they have all these digital algorithms for compression, effects, eq, etc.. All of the older analog equipment have certain imperfections, and some will argue that this is what makes them sound the way they are. You can even make this argument for a record player vs iPod. For example, you may like the all the snap crackle and popping coming from a record player. That's why even a 12" record made these days that comes from a digitally mastered source will sound different (or argueablely "better") than on an iPod or CD. Because of the imperfections, analog circuity and also because it doesn't have to pass through the final D/A converter like on an iPod.

In the overall scheme of things, I don't think it really matters to most people. You can actually make a similar case for digital photography.
 
Last edited:
Great explanation Jimmy. Always wondered why people say this and now I know because The Hat said so.
 
That is a good explanation, sir Hat. Did you change your phone number again btw? You did not reply to my text.

The physical media - the sine wave - will also look like a staircase if you zoom in close enough. In theory, if you take enough data points the digital should (in theory) be able to replicate the physical. Granted, you may have to record a Tb per song to make it happen. But in theory it's possible.

It then begs a question, and an answer I suppose. The question being, is it just a matter of the physical media being much more cost effective in capturing that sine wave as accurately as possible? The answer being, yes it would seem so.

This is so much more of a productive direction for cold day discussions.
 
Norm said:
That is a good explanation, sir Hat. Did you change your phone number again btw? You did not reply to my text.
Click to expand...

Just replied .. hadn't looked at cell phone this morning.

Norm said:
The physical media - the sine wave - will also look like a staircase if you zoom in close enough. In theory, if you take enough data points the digital should (in theory) be able to replicate the physical. Granted, you may have to record a Tb per song to make it happen. But in theory it's possible.

It then begs a question, and an answer I suppose. The question being, is it just a matter of the physical media being much more cost effective in capturing that sine wave as accurately as possible? The answer being, yes it would seem so.

This is so much more of a productive direction for cold day discussions.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question .. physical media being more cost effective .. Do you mean recording to tape vs to a computer?

It's kind of apples to oranges. In the old days, you just record directly from an instrument to tape. At most, you pass through mixer pre-amp (EQ), maybe a effect or 2. That's why the stuff sounds so raw.

These days, there is so much processing done to a recorded sound. This is partly because it's so easy to do in the computer, and partially because that's what people like to listen to these days I guess. You could do it all with software and if you make a mistake all you have to do is press undo. There's no way you could make Britney Spears sound like Britney Spears with just analog equipment .. well maybe, but you would need a room full of equipment and it would take much more time to processes a song.

So in terms of a cost of tape recorder vs a computer, I guess a powerful computer can cost more, but in terms of convenience and time saved and cost of everything else, digital wins.
 
....and that original piano sample you mentioned is a science in itself from mic placement phasing issues and on and on...

Can we go back to talking about doody again?
 
...don't forget to consider the unique tonal qualities and capabilities of each individual mic...






.
 
Makes sense, Jimmy. Amy is blabbering now about our weekend plans and I just hear a bunch of zeroes and ones coming out of her mouth. Thanks!
 
davidcarson48 said:
Makes sense, Jimmy. Amy is blabbering now about our weekend plans and I just hear a bunch of zeroes and ones coming out of her mouth. Thanks!
Click to expand...

That would mean you are talking to her via cell phone? If she's in the room with you it will be sine waves. But a benefit of digital in This case is that you can make funny faces while she blabbers and she won't know. Unless of course you use that FaceTime thing. That happened to me when I was making faces at my wife on the phone. Technology ...
 
No that scientific approach only works in the pre marriage state. In the post marriage state, initiating tangents will only create numerous additional waves in the form of " you never hear me" and the like. It has much to do with the fact that sine waves travel much different on mars than Venus. There is a book about this
 
Jimmy what is some good software for blending music and mixing. I wanna be a DJ but don't want to spend lots of dough. This is just for personal use, not looking to work in da club. What ya got.
 
pooriggy said:
Jimmy what is some good software for blending music and mixing. I wanna be a DJ but don't want to spend lots of dough. This is just for personal use, not looking to work in da club. What ya got.
Click to expand...

I never really got into software based DJ mixing. I was more of a purist with vinyl and never accepted the alternatives that were coming out. I've never used any of them, but here are some stuff I've heard of. I will ask around as well.

http://www.virtualdj.com/ (free)

http://www.mixxx.org/ (free)

You can use either of these purely in software w/o any kind of scratch platter or external controller (knobs & faders). They will work with external hardware (platter/controller-fader) as well, so you don't have to use your mouse/keyboard for everything. You can even use it with a real old school record player, using a time-coded vinyl and some kind of audio interface:

http://mixxx.org/manual/latest/chapters/setup.html#common-configurations

I think the industry standard is Serato. Usually, I skip the beginner versions and go straight to pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom