Beck's Sea Change sounds good to me. I don't really understand why Dylan hates modern age recordings.

Speaking of recordings has anyone noticed that in recent SY releases the drums sound stiff ?

Comparing how the drums sounded on Sister and how they know sound on rather ripped, or murray street, it seems to me that the way they record produces a flat and muffled sound. Does this have anything to do with their studio or something?

I do find it fascinating that there is so much variation in the "sound" of a recording--from album to album, engineer to engineer, studio to studio.

If anything i think that digital recording has opened the doors to a whole set of new possibilities for musicians and producers alike.As i posted earlier,it's all about the talent and creativity.The actual technology has very little to do with anything.

Another severe case of blaming the format but not the musician.If the music is that good,trust me,you wont fucking care about the format it's played in.Bob Dylan didnt make a good record in years therefore he should know better.

The warmth and crispness of an early Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin record is hard to beat, even with modern technology. It's quite a well-known fact, that modern hip-hop and electronic music producers are trying hard to emulate the warm tone of John Bonham's drums on his Led Zeppelin recordings; unfortunately, none has succeded.

I wonder whether the "warmth" of analogue recordings is actually a (fortunate) side effect of a shortcoming in the recording process, though, and that the digital process actually creates a more accurate, but less appealing, representation of the true sound in the studio?

That could very well be the case, but then Mr Dylan would be right, and no music made in the past 20 years has been worth paying for... :(

Don't think so.

I do think the actual process of recording in the studio nowadays has somewhat diminished the passion of playing music. This could very well be the reason for the 'coldness' of digital recording. Having to record each instrument seperately and having the vocals and everything else layered on after the fact, doesn't really lend itself to spontaneity or bursts of creative impulse...

But,sorry,what sort of experience are we talking from here?

I understand that recording techniques today call for precision and accuracy in the actual process, therefore a band would, most of the time, be called on to record tracks seperately with a click track as a metronome... This is quite common from what I understand and though there are still bands who record live, this is mostly a privilege.

So you are basically saying that recording digitally doesn't leave space for experimentation?That is rather inaccurate,i'm afraid,and i would know as i record digitally a lot.

I'm saying that within the traditional bounds of playing live with a rock band or any type of band music, especially where improvisation is a big part of the music, the recording studio can sometimes be a tad bit stifling. There are constraints and limits to the process as there are with anything, but I agree it is up to the indiviual and the artist to transcend this barrier and move forward with the music. Like how Sonic Youth reinvented rock music.

Bizzarely enough,noone has mentioned yet that different recording processes can be used at once.What would you make of that?Lunchtime now,i'll be back in a bit 'cause Thurston Moore said something really interesting a few years ago about the way SY record their records and i want to quote him.

Right,i can't remember exactly where i've read it but Thurston once said that when SY recorded an album,if a song felt like it required a stereo sound it would be given that type of sound whereas if a song felt like it needed some mono sound that's the way it'd be recorded.

Yeah, that's the luxury of having your own studio and being creatively independent, as entailed in their contract with DGC... ;)

Ok i'll answer to that kchris style,alyasa:
But i think that he said that before they signed for Geffen!!I'M NOT STRESSED OUT!I'M NOT STRESSED OUT!I'M NOT STRESSED OUT!!

I'm not stressed out
Analog sound vs. digital sound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.
Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.
Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable.
Please check for any inaccuracies, modify and cite sources as needed.

An analog recording is one where the original sound signal is modulated onto another physical signal carried on some media or substrate such as the groove of a gramophone disc or the magnetic field of a magnetic tape. A physical quantity in the medium (e.g., the intensity of the magnetic field) is directly related to the physical properties of the sound (e.g, the amplitude, phase and possibly direction of the sound wave.) The reproduction of the sound will in part reflect the nature of the substrate and any imperfections on its surface.
A digital recording is produced by first encoding the physical properties of the original sound as digital information which can then be decoded for reproduction. While it is subject to noise and imperfections in capturing the original sound, as long as the individual bits can be recovered, the nature of the physical medium is immaterial in recovery of the encoded information. A damaged digital medium, such as a scratched compact disc may also yield degraded reproduction of the original sound, due to the loss of some digital information in the damaged area (but not due directly to the physical damage of the disc).


Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Advantages of analog sound <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Disadvantages of analog sound <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Advantages of digital sound <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Disadvantages of digital sound <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Shape of the waveforms <LI class=toclevel-1>6 Quantization and very low signal levels <LI class=toclevel-1>7 Problems with early digital recording technology <LI class=toclevel-1>8 Was it ever entirely analog or digital? <LI class=toclevel-1>9 See also
• 10 External links

//
[edit]

Advantages of analog sound

• Analog recording is a linear representation of a linear waveform, and therefore more accurate
• Shape of the waveforms: analog sound appears "warmer", "smoother" more "three dimensional"
• Lower distortion for low signal levels
• Absence of quantization noise
• Absence of aliasing
• Not subject to jitter
• Euphonic characteristics

[edit]

Disadvantages of analog sound

• Linear access
• Subject to electrical and mechanical hiss and noise
• Subject to wow and flutter
• Tape is expensive to buy and maintain
• Regenerations are inferior quality

[edit]

Advantages of digital sound

• Non-linear access
• Lower noise floor
• Regenerations are exact clones
• Resistance to media deterioration
• Ability to apply redundancy like error-correcting codes, to prevent data loss
• Data channels allow digitally encoded information about the owner, track titles, and other information

[edit]

Disadvantages of digital sound

• Digital recording is data which represents measurements of voltage amplitude which have undergone quantisation
• Sound reconstructed from digital signals is claimed to be "harsher" and "unnatural" compared to analog signals
• Quantisation errors
• Aliasing noise
• Subject to jitter
• Some formats are subject to data compression causing frequency loss and distortion
• Due to regenerations being exact copies, piracy across the internet and via duplication is easily carried out and is of the same quality as the original media

Shape of the waveforms

Proponents of analog recordings argue that it is superior to digital for the reason that digital recordings are an approximation of a waveform. That is, a sampling rate and resolution must be taken into account. For example, in a CD, digital sound is encoded as 44.1 kHz, 16 bit audio. This means that the original wave is sampled 44,100 times a second - and an average amplitude level is applied to each sample. The variety of different amplitude values available is dependent on the resolution. 16 bit means that a total of 65,536 different values can be assigned, or quantized to each sample. Therefore, the higher the sample rate and resolution, the higher the quality of the audio, because a wave closer to that of the original audio can be stored. For comparison, DAT can store audio at up to 48 kHz, whilst DVD-Audio can be 96 or 192 kHz and up to 24 bits resolution. This affords a significant increase in sound quality. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem showed that a sampled signal can be reproduced exactly, as long as it is sampled at a frequency greater than twice the bandwidth of the signal. Quantization, however, is not included in this theorem, and adds quantization noise, decreasing in level as the bit resolution increases. Also, in some cheaper systems, aliasing can become a problem, though this can be remedied by using steeper filters and oversampling.
Many people claim that the analog sound is "truer" because it is not reconstructed. They claim that digital sound simply does not sound as natural to them. Others claim that digital is more natural because it is not subject to the same imperfections and non-linear distortion as an analog medium. And some suggest that analog is technically of lower quality than digital but sounds subjectively better. For the general listener, however, there appears at present to be no simple way of demonstrating or proving the difference in fidelity. Higher quality systems will probably sound better than cheap ones, regardless of type. One simple listening test is to play a vocal track; the 's' sounds will hiss on a CD player with a bad DAC and they will be barely audible on a record player with a bad pickup.
Similar claims have been made about the sound of analog synthesizers compared with the sound of digital synthesizers and about analog video and digital video.
[edit]

Quantization and very low signal levels

Some sustainers of analog sound claim that there is no hard "floor" (lowest sound level) beneath which recording is not possible. Instead, the desired signal simply slips farther and farther into the noise floor as its amplitude is reduced.
This statement is suspicious and could only be true for analog signals that are strong enough to be above the (unavoidable) mechanical, electrical and thermal noise level in the recording and playback cycle (mechanical transducers (microphones, loudspeakers), amplifiers, recording equipement, mastering process, reproduction equipment, etc) .
It makes in fact little sense claiming that an analog signal can "use" all the available physical resolution of a medium and be accurately recorded, when that same signal can be weaker, at low levels, than the sum of all external noise, interference, and unwanted signals that are recorded at the same time. This applies of course to both analog and digital systems.
Mathematically, this can be expressed by means of the signal to noise ratio. On an 8-bit digital system, there are only 2^8= 256 possible signal amplitudes, of which there are 256 discrete amplitudes relative to the minimum signal level, which results in a dynamic range of just 48.165 dB, which is inferior to most cassette tape systems, so in fact 8-bit recordings tend to sound noisy and scratchy, and miss low-level signals.

• Note that a decibel is one-tenth of a Bel. It is a somewhat strange concept that characterizes the logarithmic nature of human senses. Now to make it more complex, the amplitudes discussed in this article are voltage levels. To convert a voltage level ratio to a Bel, simply divide them and calculate the logarithm to base 10. Then multiply by 10 to get decibels. Unfortunately, Ohm's Law comes into play; the power of the sound is approximately the square of the voltage level. Summary: The human hearing range is around 120 dB. A digital recording has, at best, a range of 20 * log10 (2 ^ number of bits).

On the other hand, a system with a 16-bit quantization has a dynamic range of 96.33 dB, which is generally considered Hi-Fi and way beyond the signal to noise ratio of most consumer audio systems, and it's difficult, in practice, to find an analog sound recording system that can offer a better sensitivity at a reasonable price and implementation complexity.
In practice, each additional quantization bit adds a notable 6 dB in signal to noise ratio, e.g. 144 dB for 24 bit quantization (24 x 6 = 144), which is however very rarely (if ever) achieved in practice, with 21-bit (126 dB) and 20-bit (120.4 dB) being more practical, see DAC and ADC for more details.
To make a comparison, cassette tapes are generally below 70 or even 60 dB; FM broadcasts are more or less the same; an average vinyl record, if in good condition, can sometimes surpass 85 or 90 dB and a properly mastered CD can approach or even exceed 90 dB.
For example, a 0.5 V peak to peak input line signal, quantized at 16-bits, would require an equivalent minimum input sensitivity of just 7.629 microvolts, or an equivalent 15.3 ppm sensitivity by part of the whole recording system and medium, which is only achievable with studio-grade equipment, perfectly crafted and preserved medium, and cannot be achieved during reproduction by the majority of consumer audio systems, at a physical-electrical level.

Problems with early digital recording technology

Many of the criticisms levied against digital sound reproduction stem from the early days of the technology, where limitations in real-world implementations meant actual digital recording and playback sometimes fell short of the theoretical performance possible, but the situation has improved since. Analog sound reproduction was already a mature technology when digital recording and compact discs first appeared. First-generation digital recording and reproduction equipment suffered from the inevitable teething troubles of a relatively immature technology. Audio professionals also needed some time to build a body of knowledge, as analog techniques could not always be directly transposed to the new digital medium.
Much progress has been made since. Progress in electronics and economies of scale from mass production of CD platers led to improvements in Digital to analog converter technology. Professional digital recording equipment correspondingly improved.
[edit]

Was it ever entirely analog or digital?

Complicating the discussion is that recording professionals often mix and match analog and digital techniques in the process of producing a recording. Analog signals can be subjected to digital signal processing or effects, and inversely digital signals are converted back to analog in equipment that can include analog steps such as vacuum tube amplification.
For modern recordings, the controversy between analog recording and digital recording is becoming moot. No matter what format the user uses, the recording probably was digital at several stages in its life. In case of video recordings it is moot for one other reason; whether the format is analog or digital, digital signal processing is likely to have been used in some stages of its life, such as digital timebase correction on playback.
[edit]

See also

• Audiophile

Hmm... Some artists are more confident in their approach to music making then others... SY, are, as is commonly known now, rather legendary in their confidence and ability in music... But not every artist has the ability or know-how to use the recording studio effectively... And when that happens, it becomes not much more than a white elephant. Granted, technology has much to offer the world of music; but as long as it is under-utilised and improperly used, it will only hold back progress. No progress is being made in Fall Out Boy's records... Despite all the sheen and inherent professionalism in the production values... They might as well have used a dicking tape recorder...

Is a "dicking tape recorder" a specialised piece of machinery to get a certain kind of sound?

So we all agree(Sonic Youth included) that it isn't about the technology but it is about the talent,right?

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT!I'M NOT STRESSED OUT!

Are you okay there, Pork? You seem a little stressed.

Well, the veins in your temples are throbbing quite a bit.

"dicking tape recorder"

Okay, Pork. (Backs away nervously)

Thank you Alyasa.

I think i'm calm now.

Have you received that CD yet porky?

I haven't checked my mail yet.Thanks again.