Mama, Don't Take My Kodachrome Away

[Sean]

Dales. he has made it so and it is already fixed!

This is the power of the Quad...

[quaddriver]

Hey quaddie.....

My Nakamichi receiver is on the fritz.

Can you get out your meter, scope, and a schematic and fix it for me?

Jus' asking..................

probably. but there is a good shop in santa clara....

[dales]

Santa Clara?

I don't live anywhere near there!

Oh well, prolly a place in SF (which is closer).

[Joe Guy]

Santa Clara?

I don't live anywhere near there!

If quad says that you live near Santa Clara, then you live near Santa Clara.

That's how it works in the lying-sack-of-shit world of quad's mind.

[dales]

I did a search and found a place in RWC right of the 101!

I'll dump the pos off and pay you a qwick visit, Joe.

We can talk about Cafe Dartre

[Joe Guy]

I did a search and found a place in RWC right of the 101!

I'll dump the pos off and pay you a qwick visit, Joe.

We can talk about Cafe Dartre

Sounds good to me, Dales.

But I'm only about 20 miles closer to you than Santa Clara.

Anyway, I can probably fix it for you. I have a stethoscope and I hang out a lot at AK.

[loCAtek]

You guys up for a threesome?



Wait, that didn't come out right...

[Joe Guy]

You guys up for a threesome?



Wait, that didn't come out right...

Sure.

You bring the turntable, I'll bring a stethoscope and I'm sure Dales will bring weed.

Then we can report back here on the results.

[loCAtek]

Woo-Hoo! Party at Joe Guy's!!!

We should invite Lord Jim, he sings a mean rendition of 'Secret Agent Man'

[Jarlaxle]

I have nothing to prove to you and it's pissing you off that I won't.
You'll start stamping your feet in a minute.

um no, you are just becoming a "viper owner" is all.

that, actually is YOUR problem.

Are you on fucking LSD?

[thestoat]

Pretty much everything I have seen on the web recently states that analogue is NOT better than digital (and vice versa) with statements such as

"But which is better? It usually comes down to what you are used to."
"Excellent, expensive analog systems may outperform digital systems, and vice versa; in theory any system of either type may be surpassed by a better, more elaborate and costly system of the other type,[citation needed] but in general it tends to be less expensive to achieve any given standard of technical signal quality with a digital system, except when the standard is very low." (wiki)
"It is a subject of debate whether analog audio is superior to digital audio or vice versa."

I am sure some ultra nerds will be able to opine that analogue is better because <insert highly subjective and geeky response here>

But from what I can see, for the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of environments (few enjoy their music in sound recording studios), any difference noticed will be highly limited and subjective. Added to the clear and completely obvious fact that digital is much more convenient than analogue, for me digital wins by a large margin.

[Sean]

Interestingly, Quad specifically mentioned three names from the music production/mastering side of the industry (none of which I know personally to my eternal shame (Note to self: Idea for a Bangles parody...)). I wonder how much of the equipment they use day to day in their working lives is digital and how much of it is analog. If ol' Quaddy is to believed they are still probably recording on 1" tape and mastering on to wax cylinders...

[thestoat]

[quaddriver]

Pretty much everything I have seen on the web recently states that analogue is NOT better than digital (and vice versa) with statements such as

"But which is better? It usually comes down to what you are used to."
"Excellent, expensive analog systems may outperform digital systems, and vice versa; in theory any system of either type may be surpassed by a better, more elaborate and costly system of the other type,[citation needed] but in general it tends to be less expensive to achieve any given standard of technical signal quality with a digital system, except when the standard is very low." (wiki)
"It is a subject of debate whether analog audio is superior to digital audio or vice versa."

I am sure some ultra nerds will be able to opine that analogue is better because <insert highly subjective and geeky response here>

But from what I can see, for the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of environments (few enjoy their music in sound recording studios), any difference noticed will be highly limited and subjective. Added to the clear and completely obvious fact that digital is much more convenient than analogue, for me digital wins by a large margin.

well there are two issues here, first in the form of the video....I dont think that anyone is in disagreement that the number of pixels and the speed at which they are processed is a limiting factor. as well as once again, digital compression.

for audio there is no more perfect media and an exact copy of the sinsoidal waves. vinyl records. the limiting factor is/was the effect of dirt on the playback. as I alluded to, the phono sections of preamps were 'cd quality' (whatever that is) by 1980 the amplifier sections by 1980 were better than just about anything the average block can buy today. It only takes a little bit of reading to go over the specs of say a run of the mill SX780 vs the best from the same company today - or any company save the TOTL yamahas. we could get into a 90 page debate on the performances of 200 different units, but the reality is, the qualify, performance and longevity of the silver age is unmatched.

As for CDs, it would be nice to have a completely noise free storage device, but there are limitations of the technology chosen. I alluded to the 'loudness/volume wars' and you will encounter the phrase 'wall of noise' when dealing with CD recordings.

the limitations are thus: cds are 16 bit at 44.1khz which according to nyquist will capture a 20-20K signal with little loss. the problem is at the upper end ranges of the signal, it can be fragmented almost 50% of the time. the cd player must output an analog signal. some output a digital signal (pure bit stream) and it gets decoded elsewhere. during signal processing if too much of the connecting information is missing that it cannot be smoothed into the stream you are hearing, its gets translated into an oscilating base tone - an artifact. As pointed out before, digital compression makes thsi far far worse. I have some prime examples I can email you if you can accept large mb files.

some equipment is moving to 24bit and 98khz, but it only shines on material captured in that format. The base problem still exists: it is pixellated audio.

now in the recording studio is where the material is being screwed up, which is why we are seeing re-re-remastered albums now. the loudest signal that can be seen on the vu meters is unity. no more no less. magtape got real good in the 90's. you can overbias the tape, and overload the signal. only the upper ranges of the frequency would clip, but out of human hearing. you see wonderful headroom. On a 16bit cd, it may be hissless but there is not enuf bandwidth in 16 bits to capture low volume parts and high volume parts, so the engineers bring all the parts into the same volume range. If the entire portion of the performance is low volume fine, but if it is mixed, not so fine. (listen to john bohnams foot pedal on 'when the levee breaks on vinyl, then the first cd recording, then either of the remasters and see what I mean. A sqeaky pedal was NOT meant to be an instrument in the take) as such, the finished product has each portion, each instrument, each vocal at nearly the same volume. I could look up the quote, but people like Bob dylan call the cd versions of his works unlistenable.

will they fix this? unlikely. cds are on the same path as albums. everyone wants compressed digital on an ipod thru earbuds. it sounds like ass.
so we are gravitating towards perfectly preservable 'recordings', full of artifacts and limited ranges, on noisy junk players, thru junk piezo speakers. the people buying this stuff have no concept of what it is supposed to sound like. and unless you can find an SA CD, never will.

[thestoat]

Thanks for the considered reply Quad. Clearly you know more about this sort of stuff than I do.

Interesting your quote from Bob Dylan. I feel that a lot of his stuff is sung out of tune and his timing is often awful, so I am not sure he is a good one to comment. (Don't get me wrong - I really love his stuff - but listen to his duet with Johnny Cash to see what I mean - most of the time I suspect he was high as a kite when he was recording. Of course - you could argue his songs were supposed to be out of tune, etc). CDs are pretty much yesterday's news now - most new stuff is downloaded as files on the PC (or is certainly moving that way) with a bit rate of 320 Mbps. Three things to consider, in my view:

1. People listen to audio in the car, walking down a busy street, on the train, etc. The background noise is going to be WAY more than any audio abberations there. Even for those listening to their music in a perfectly quiet room with no background distractions (certainly that room doesn't exist in my house), people would be hard pressed to notice any distortions in even half way decent quality digital kit.
2. You maintain analogue is better than digital. The internet is divided on this - many people (who also know what they are talking about) don't think such a statement is valid.
3. Digital is still WAY more convenient than analogue.

[quaddriver]

Thanks for the considered reply Quad. Clearly you know more about this sort of stuff than I do.

Interesting your quote from Bob Dylan. I feel that a lot of his stuff is sung out of tune and his timing is often awful, so I am not sure he is a good one to comment. (Don't get me wrong - I really love his stuff - but listen to his duet with Johnny Cash to see what I mean - most of the time I suspect he was high as a kite when he was recording. Of course - you could argue his songs were supposed to be out of tune, etc). CDs are pretty much yesterday's news now - most new stuff is downloaded as files on the PC (or is certainly moving that way) with a bit rate of 320 Mbps. Three things to consider, in my view:

1. People listen to audio in the car, walking down a busy street, on the train, etc. The background noise is going to be WAY more than any audio abberations there. Even for those listening to their music in a perfectly quiet room with no background distractions (certainly that room doesn't exist in my house), people would be hard pressed to notice any distortions in even half way decent quality digital kit.
2. You maintain analogue is better than digital. The internet is divided on this - many people (who also know what they are talking about) don't think such a statement is valid.
3. Digital is still WAY more convenient than analogue.

In case i was not clear, let me state, digital could be better than analog (for noise purposes) if it was implemented better. It would always be fractured in some degree, but that can be minimised. at .05% distortion we start to call it distortion free. up the cds to 32 bit and a 180khz sampling rate and it would be there. that would take care of the dynamic range/volume problem.

But I hoped it was apparent that at least half of my objection is based on the available equipment to enjoy EITHER media. On junk, (walmart, bestbuy etc) perhaps the difference cannot be heard. But on perfectly tuned amps in good actual speakers, its night and day....

[BoSoxGal]

I have a Canon EOS Rebel 35mm outfit that I bought in law school. I still like shooting film. I especially like shooting black & white.

Digital is convenient and the stuff you can do in Photoshop makes for lots of fun/creativity, but film is best.

[Rick]

Digital audio has been around for a very long time.

Mainstream with the advent of Dolby.

Having said that Analog favors Bass, even now many digital recordings are turn analog to achive this mix.

"Warmer" sound seems to be the term used although I have yet to find a real definition...

[dales]

I have a Canon EOS Rebel 35mm outfit that I bought in law school. I still like shooting film. I especially like shooting black & white.

Digital is convenient and the stuff you can do in Photoshop makes for lots of fun/creativity, but film is best.

Black & White film?

That brings back memories.

Tri-X, anyone?

[quaddriver]

Digital audio has been around for a very long time.

Mainstream with the advent of Dolby.

Having said that Analog favors Bass, even now many digital recordings are turn analog to achive this mix.

"Warmer" sound seems to be the term used although I have yet to find a real definition...

Warmer seems to indicate formats that are fuller well under 1khz. I do a lot of sansuis from the 70's and even tho they are not as clean as say sonys or pioneers, people tend to think they emulate the lost tube sound better.