The Difference Between "The Analog Sound" and "The Digital Sound"

[wideopenears]

When I see an album or song that has been "remixed" by someone, I do not immediately think, "Ah, I'll bet it sounds EXACTLY like the original release -- only cleaner."

Mostly true, but not necessarily always true. Re-mixes are about taking original multi-track recordings and potentially treating the indvidual tracks (i.e., maybe the bass guitar has been EQ'ed differently during the re-mix process, or the volume relative to the other tracks differs, or maybe someone used a "gate" or some other effects processing, even.....effects are often added to a "dry" track during a mixdown, etc). But Wilson, and others, aren't necessarily about making things "cleaner"--

To me, that's the goal of a remaster.

Well, possibly. Sound is analog when it reaches our ears.....recorded sound, whether it started out as a digital bitstream converted via a DAC, or as grooves on an LP, or via magnetic tape, etc., is subjected to various treatments in order for it to be played back....for instance, the RIAA Curve for LP's is a bit of trickery....but all remasters rely on combinations of EQ, Compression, limiting, etc., and, assuming we're talking about digital masters, sampling rate is also a factor.

One thing that should be obvious, though, is that every re-mix that is going to be released, including Steve Wilson's projects, must by necessity be re-mastered as well. And it's often the case that remastering is done by a party who is remote from the artist, and from the sound engineer who mixed or remixed the recording.

[rcarlberg]

Well I think this discussion has gotten off-track into an unintended side-issue. I'm sorry I ever brought it up.

[aith01]

Well I think this discussion has gotten off-track into an unintended side-issue.

Isn't that what we do here at PE?

I'm sorry I ever brought it up.

I wouldn't call it just yet. It's still a topic that could make for some interesting discussion.

[rcarlberg]

We're in a ditch. Call for a tow truck!

[Buddhabreath]

Sound is analog when it reaches our ears.....

Ah, yes but is it analog when it reaches our brains?

...tires squealing. Attempting to get outta da ditch...

[hFx]

Bottom line music is an analog medium IMO.

"Filtered through analog" would be a more down-to-earth slogan for the current technological backlash trend.

[viukkis]

Remixes that attempt to duplicate the original mix can sometimes be a bit wonky too - for instance the remixed version of Wigwam's Being has a very prominent electric piano track in Pedagogue out of sync by about a 16th note, which sounds really weird.

[3LockBox]

I'm not saying I prefer an analog sound and as I enjoy many modern recordings. I've heard plenty of live music albeit rarely in the most pristine of conditions. Is there such a thing as the optimal live venue? I'm sure there are many opinions on what is and isn't an optimal live venue, but I haven't heard one. Not to say I don't enjoy live music however. As far as live saxophone goes, I have yet to be in any venue where live saxophone was involved that it didn't peel paint off the walls and I have no aversion to recorded saxophone (many of my fave songs have generous amounts of sax).

Accuracy is as accuracy does. If I like a song I rarely nitpick nuances like accuracy. If the most accurate recording ever made didn't appeal to me I wouldn't listen to it nor would I own it for the sake of demonstration. I'd rather listen to music than gear anyway. I guess I'm not an audiophile.
As for Steve Wilson remixes, I enjoy them quite a bit as he's able to coax quite a bit of space out of his remixes. Some people complain that his remixes are a tad too dry but I rather like that as well. His approach to remixing also seems to bring out a lot of, ahem, nuances that I might have missed before. In my opinion he was able to inject a sense of space out of the cacophony of noise that was Gates of Delirium, a minor miracle in my book.

[rcarlberg]

Is there such a thing as the optimal live venue? I'm sure there are many opinions on what is and isn't an optimal live venue, but I haven't heard one.

A couple years ago I was invited to dinner at a friend’s house. After dinner, he pulled out his standup bass — which I knew he played — and his wife stood next to him and sang — which I did not know she did. She had a gorgeous, very professional, smoky alto voice. Just the four of us, as close as dinner guests.

THAT was a pretty good concert.

[Steve F.]

Re: optimal live venue

This is the best sounding room I have ever been in. For acoustic groups and only lightly electric ensembles, I have never heard better

This room is what people spend $100k on their stereo trying to duplicate!

http://www.andiemusiklive.com

[wideopenears]

A couple years ago I was invited to dinner at a friend’s house. After dinner, he pulled out his standup bass — which I knew he played — and his wife stood next to him and sang — which I did not know she did. She had a gorgeous, very professional, smoky alto voice. Just the four of us, as close as dinner guests.

THAT was a pretty good concert.

My personal favorite musical experiences tend to this direction--intimate, personal live situations with minimal baggage. But seeing Jaga Jazzist in a club in SF, and seeing Snarky Puppy or Hermeto Pascoal live at SF Jazz, are also treasured experiences, and they would have been impossible in someone's living room, I think. Environment or setting must match the needs or proclivities of the performer, I'd say. Pink Floyd in the early 90's at the Oakland Coliseum, complete with airborne pig, would not have been the same in my living room. In general, though, I avoid large venues like the plague.

There are no absolutes, I'd say. BTW I know we've strayed far off-topic, and I was partially responsible for that, but circling back--I assume the analog/digital divide is not merely about the media we're using, but some sort of indefinable quality. People talk about warmth vs. sterility......this whole 10 levels of tube processing thing is funny, if you understand what tubes do to soundwaves--depending on how they're pushed they basically mess with the waveforms....."desirable" or "Musical" distortion (Square waves, or "squarer waves") is perceived by some as "Warmth," but it is frankly less "High fidelity" to the original signal, if you're processing recording tracks this way, IMO. I'm not saying it's "bad." Of course, even without that processing, the RIAA curve used to master LP's is a radical EQ curve as well. And digitally recorded sound may be more "high fidelity" depending on sampling rate, etc., but the question is how tiny do we have to dice a waveform in order to obtain maximum audio value? I recall playing a Flim and the BB's CD for a friend, back in the late 80's, and he found it cold--a charge often leveled at so-called "digital sound." I personally think it has not much to do with the sound, and more to do with the listener's prior experiences and expectations. I think there's a reason why so-called "lo-fi alt rock" became so popular in the 90's.

[rcarlberg]

-I assume the analog/digital divide is not merely about the media we're using, but some sort of indefinable quality. People talk about warmth vs. sterility......this whole 10 levels of tube processing thing is funny, if you understand what tubes do to soundwaves--depending on how they're pushed they basically mess with the waveforms....."desirable" or "Musical" distortion (Square waves, or "squarer waves") is perceived by some as "Warmth," but it is frankly less "High fidelity" to the original signal, if you're processing recording tracks this way, IMO. I'm not saying it's "bad." Of course, even without that processing, the RIAA curve used to master LP's is a radical EQ curve as well. And digitally recorded sound may be more "high fidelity" depending on sampling rate, etc., but the question is how tiny do we have to dice a waveform in order to obtain maximum audio value? I recall playing a Flim and the BB's CD for a friend, back in the late 80's, and he found it cold--a charge often leveled at so-called "digital sound."

1. Tubes do not create square waves. Quite the opposite - they turn square waves into elaborate sine waves with lots of even-order harmonics. This is “the tube sound” and some listeners equate it with “warmth.” It’s still a distortion from what was recorded however.

2. Flim and the BBs “Tricycle” is not an example of the coldness or sterility or accuracy (choose the word you like best) of digital recording. It’s a nice clear recording but nothing special. What it *IS* is an example of is the full dynamic range capability of digital recording. It has a jump of about 60dB in level, which is simply not possible on vinyl. Now, it might have seemed “cold”or “clinical” because the band are all seasoned studio musicians, and play in a very controlled and precise manner. There are no wild solos or sloppy timing or “close enough for jazz” playing.

3. The RIAA curve is, like Dolby, a pre-equalization curve that limits the frequency response* during recording (or in this case mastering a record) which is then boosted again on playback. Theoretically the end result of the pre- and post-equalizations is that they cancel each other out, and the result is flat again. It’s not fair to say that the RIAA curve “is a pretty radical equalization.”

4. “How small do we have to dice a waveform to achieve maximum audio value?” What do you mean by “maximum audio value”? We know from the Nyquist formulae that sampling at 2x an audio frequency gives one and only one reconstructed wave and that wave exactly matches the input — up to the Nyquist frequency. Therefore the 44kHz sample rate of CDs gives 100% accurate playback up to 22,000 cycles per second. Some people claim that’s not high enough, but the science behind their claims is unsubstantiated.


* - Dolby’s actually the opposite. It BOOSTS the highs during recording and cuts them again during playback, to limit the amount of tape hiss. But the principle is the same.

[wideopenears]

No instruments, to my knowledge, produce "square waves." But tube distortion, used often with electric guitars, does modify the sine waves produced by an electric guitar so that they become "more square." Much depends on how they are "pushed," and yes, tthe harmonics produced by tubes are said to be "pleasant" even-order harmonics. We agree though, that tubes modify a signal.

I understand and agree with your points about "Tricycle," but I think words like "cold" or "Sterile" are subjective. "Accurate," maybe less so.

The RIAA curve is radical, in that it is "extreme." But yes, the idea is that what has been taken out is added back in during playback and it's allegedly supposed to be a zero sum game in the end.

But what does "digital sound" vs. "Analog sound," mean? Is it something that can be objectively quantified, or is it subjective? Or both?

[wideopenears]

*edit" synths can produce square waves......as can electronic tone generators, which are primative synths in essence.

[philsunset]

Re: optimal live venue

This is the best sounding room I have ever been in. For acoustic groups and only lightly electric ensembles, I have never heard better

This room is what people spend $100k on their stereo trying to duplicate!

http://www.andiemusiklive.com

Where the Cuneifest Jazz Day was held. (Looking at my Cuneifest T-shirt)

[Steve F.]

Where the Cuneifest Jazz Day was held. (Looking at my Cuneifest T-shirt)

No. It was moved, because An Die Musik had temporarily closed (LONG story). We were unbelievably fortunate in being able to move it on very, very short notice to the very fine and fun Metro Gallery less than a mile away.

[rcarlberg]

Re: optimal live venue

It depends a lot on the type of music. Most modern symphony halls (like Seattle’s) are amazing for orchestras of 80 musicians and audiences of a couple thousand. But the Hall is shit for a jazz or rock band.

The Moore Theatre and the Paramount get a lot of traveling shows, but they’re terrible venues without a lot of work from the in-house audio engineers. With huge EQ and amplification they can be made acceptable (but no better).

Kane Hall on the campus of the University of Washington is purpose-built as a lecture and small-concert venue, and for a couple hundred spectators it makes an excellent venue. But it’s not usually open to for-profit concerts.

Never heard an outdoor venue which was better than crap. Not Seattle’s Mural amphitheater, not the Greenlake Aqua Theater, not The Gorge at George, not Pasadena’s Hollywood Bowl.

All the clubs I’ve been to have had terrible acoustics. You try to ignore that.

[rcarlberg]

No instruments, to my knowledge, produce "square waves." But tube distortion, used often with electric guitars, does modify the sine waves produced by an electric guitar so that they become "more square." Much depends on how they are "pushed,"

Okay, you were talking about fuzzboxes and overdriven tubes. That’s not what I thought you meant by “the tube sound.” Yes, intentional distortion creates very complex waveforms which are full of more spikes and peaks than the original signal.

But Steven Hoffman doesn’t run his productions through fuzz boxes to harshen them up, he runs them through tube filters to soften them. And that turns spiky waveforms into sines.

A bassoon recorded close-up is pretty darn close to a square wave.

But what does "digital sound" vs. "Analog sound," mean? Is it something that can be objectively quantified, or is it subjective? Or both?

That’s what I’d like somebody to explain to me.

[philsunset]

No. It was moved, because An Die Musik had temporarily closed (LONG story). We were unbelievably fortunate in being able to move it on very, very short notice to the very fine and fun Metro Gallery less than a mile away.

So I have an "error" T-Shirt, which makes it even more valuable!!

[Steve F.]

So I have an "error" T-Shirt, which makes it even more valuable!!

They’re ALL ‘error’ t-shirts and they are all equally valuable.......

[rcarlberg]

But what does "digital sound" vs. "Analog sound," mean? Is it something that can be objectively quantified, or is it subjective? Or both?

That’s what I’d like somebody to explain to me.

For instance:

In the interview with engineer Andy Jackson linked elsewhere, talking about mixing "The Endless River," he has this to say:

I said, “Well, let me see if I can get it on the board.” While referring to the digital mix, I did an analog mix. There’s no point if the drums are at a different level or the reverberation is different; I was just trying to basically match it. So we had a digi mix and an analog mix, and then David and I did a blind A/B. One of us worked the machine and the other was sitting there going, “Ok, this is State 1 and this is State 2, and which one is which?” And it was just like chalk and cheese. It was a huge difference with the analog. Everything was digital up to that point. There was a lot of DAT source material, which is relatively low-grade. Then we got into Pro Tools and mixing in the box with some nice-sounding plug-ins.

What a great storage medium, DAT. Coming back to 20-year-old DATs, and fortunately, they all did play. They were SRC’ed [sample-rate converted] into Pro Tools—which doesn’t make them any better, put it that way. But getting it into analog—God, that was so much better. It just felt like we’d gained so much air. Just the way the bottom end sounded, it was so much more satisfying. And the sense of openness was hugely different.

So porting these 20-year old DATs [digital] over to a Neve console [analog] somehow imparted a "sense of openness" and "air" to the recordings. Something that wasn't present on the original DATs.

I'd like someone to explain to me a) what that means and b) how it is possible.

[wideopenears]

I have no idea. Maybe if they ran those DAT files through tubes 13 times in a row.....


I kid.

The last time I recorded in a studio (other than my home) we used tape to track, so it was analog....but ProTools was used to edit and mix.

[rcarlberg]

In another thread somebody suggested mixing out the ‘center channel,’ the shared information between the left and right channels. This results in the L & R channels seemingly being farther apart.

Is this what is meant by “a sense of openness” and “air”?

[moecurlythanu]

Imo, space, soundstage, and open, uncramped sound is possibly the biggest advantage of analog vinyl. I presume that's what he's talking about. Couldn't break down the technical specifics for you though.

[Plasmatopia]

One can buy all sorts of plug-ins these days that emulate well known mixing consoles. They all have their own character so they are altering the signal in some way. So I'm sure some aspects of the sound are lost and others added just by going through an analog console.