-

 

Last edited: Jun 4, 2024

His statement was about a

 

I think some very smart people have discussed the topic of hardware vs emulation versions of things before. This is always a question of people's fundamental understanding of the Nyquist Theorem. (and whatever the influencers have newly updated their books to talk about and still not get)

It is a question of Highest Frequency. What can we hear, versus what moves AIR around so it hits your ears at a certain speed. And then accurate representation by data recorded at exactly +1 kHz higher than exactly double that number.

And then the bitrate and session depth (matching or not now, for REAPER!!! users), being 2x that frequency. It will then be captured accurately at that bitrate. The reason the plugins "floating point" mathematics behind them is always just higher than the session depth? It's because it is all it needs to be so that additional math and bitrate conversion is not even performed inside, and again between plugins and the DAW host to pass the data along. It cannot be streamed and downsampled unless the processors are specifically told to do this. Like a handshake between some people who are missing parts, they don't bother.

I made it to dither, because I wanted to skip around and see the errors in this video because I can almost guarantee you that either there are things in his video, or things in peoples projects who do not get it either. It is complicated material.

Like I said, who is this guy? Do you want to look at the work or attack his credentials? If you can simply browse thru this one once and know wether or not it is premised upon bullshit, you are smarter than me. Good for you. This video is about 6 full semester classes for someone starting out. It is very well and thoughtfully put together video to put somewhere for altruism. my sorta thing worth a little respect and admiration for out of anyone post Virus. ;)

 

Last edited: Nov 13, 2022

-

 

Last edited: Jun 4, 2024

Why on earth would anyone want to have something sound "analog" (means: deteriorate the sound quality) other than for FX sake? If "digital" sounds wrong to anyone by any means, it's prove that the one operating the whole sound-thing is incompetent. "Digital" is 100% percent perfect. If it doesn't sound good, it's your fault. And that is not the problem of "digital" and even not a solvable problem by doing something "analog".

So getting a tape machine and run something through it is the worst idea soundwise anyone could have. As said, except for giggles and wanting to have a shitty sound. But that can be achieved digitally very easily.

 

Now that even I understood it, it makes absolutely sense.

 

If you've still got, or can get hold of a cheap Niacam Digital Stereo Video Recorder, copy everything on to tape and then back again. It'll do the same job only much cheaper (tapes are still floating about too)

 

I used to design analogue magnetic recorder circuitry back in the 70s. We struggled to get the machines to perform as perfectly as possible, with sales to the BBC in mind. Now people are wanting to duplicate everything we tried to get rid of! Wow and flutter, distortion, hum, noise...

One of our circuits used silicon diodes to bend the transfer characteristic in the opposite direction to the tape saturation, to lower the distortion. But nowadays tape saturation is thought to be a desirable part of the "analogue sound"! I have to laugh, or I'd cry.

When CDs came in we audio engineers couldn't wait to go digital. It made everything sound so much better!

The reason old recordings sound good has nothing to do with tape recorders. No, they sound better because the musicians could actually sing and play for real (or used session musicians who could); all the studio technicians had to do is make sure they got it all down on tape, nice and clean.

 

Analogue players & analogue playing, in analogue room ambiences with analogue instruments and voices.
Using analogue equipment that sped up and slowed down (as did the performers) and would go out of tune or randomly malfunction in an analogue amount of idiosyncratic ways!

The Golden age wasn't perfect by any means, but is condiered "warmer".

Top tip if your music sounds too "sterile"
Switch off quantize, play instruments & sing live. (or learn)

My point (and the point of the post quoted) is people are thinking, ah we just need to buy this bit of analogue equipment to make my tunes sound less sterile and more like these "warm" classic tracks .... completely ignoring the fact there were made by real performers (who aren't playing like robots) using equipment that was far from perfect.

It's not a dig at anyone btw! ....

 

I'm not sure how we go from recording tactics to discussions about musicianship. they are two wildly different skillsets for anyone.
The only real common factor is the building they may simultaneously happen in.

 

it's not a discussion about musicianship!

it's a heads up on what makes humans perceive analogue sounds "warm" and less sterile (which is commonly said about digital) & more human!

That it's maybe not just a simple matter of purchasing some old gear to make your latest psytrance or techno banger sound warmer and human.

The point is, music is made differently nowadays! You can't compare how it was done then and how it's done now!

The most valuable solutions in life usually don't involve having to buy something.

Also, have you considered this is posted as helpful advice or something to think about, and not point scoring or pointing fingers?

Perfection is most often found in imperfection.

 

Often when people find themselves in a discussion which they are not in control of the material enough to have it, they move goalposts and when that does not work, they change the topic entirely.

It's not point scoring, it's off the original topic so far that I'm not disagreeing with anything you discuss. Because it is valuable info and it is your personal perspective. But it has literally nothing to do with Nyquist, distortion, truncation, dither, or the basics of this discussion topic.

Either the thread has the wrong title, or you are off-topic. Your DAW probably has most of the things the experiment video uses. He says some of those devices cost less than shipping. That looks pricey on its own. They are bulky heavy things. I'll pass and get Freak0scope for free and call it5 a day.

Maybe you just know this stuff so well, it's already just boring to you. Fair play on that. I think this is actually less fundamentally understood by more people than Compression.

 

Last edited: Nov 14, 2022

I'm a musician who also graduated in Electronics and followed the digital side of that to do my postgraduate studies!
As such, I'm more than aware of what digital is and how it works thank you.

What is more important?
Focussing your time and effort on graphs,equations and technicalities?
OR
Realising that ultimately none of that stuff matters. What matters is what the listener perceives and why.

Very abstract I know, but hey ho.

 

Being an excellent fishing angler and catching is great, but it does not also make one a cook. Or then determine that the person who eats it, and their level of enjoyment and culinary fulfillment.

Life is about you want. Some people do not care about listeners. Or money. I'm here to learn.

You are just maybe too Ramones for me and less Stephen King. Ho Hey, is more Bowery than either of us, right? This is like Pet Semetary. Nice to read, really bad to watch. Audience loved it, but it's a truly horrible film.

 

Last edited: Nov 14, 2022

Ah, apparently I went full retard. I apologize

 

Hi, sorry for my late answer.
It all depends of your Audio Interface's possibilities. The best would be to add it as an insert, like an effect loop if you can.
What's you Audio Interface?