Analogue discussion

[plexuss]

I generally bounce mixes and master at 96/24. I track at 44/24. but I am working for myself and use 100% soft-synths so I can work at 44/24 and change the project rate to 96/24 for the mix bounce and master to give me a true 96/24 master. I can personally hear the difference between 44 and 96 (Lavry DAC, Stax Lambda headphones). but the main reason I work in 96/24 is because I want my masters to be at the highest res possible for future use. for example, selling HD versions of my tracks. I purchase audio from from HDTracks in 96/24 and its always sad to find out some old recording I wish would be released can't because the only masters were done at 44 on a DAT machine. there is no way to get 96 from that point on unless original analogue masters are available.

But, if you can't hear a difference or don't care if there is a difference, and/or you don't care about your masters being more high res, then work in whatever rate you choose. but please don't tell us as a defacto fact that "its bullsh--" or any all encompassing comment like "no one can hear a difference" etc. you are entitled to your opinion, as am I - I hear a difference and I want all my work to be available at 96/24 regardless of what you think.

[jmg8]

So if I uploaded two files, you would be able to identify which is which?

[plexuss]

So if I uploaded two files, you would be able to identify which is which?

No. I can hear the difference if I AB between them (also have done double blind AB) but I can not tell what sample rate a file is at just off the bat without a comparison.

[jmg8]

There WILL be a comparison. Two files exactly the same one at 44 one at 96.

[jmg8]

Don't worry, it's fine, forget it.
If you say you can hear the difference, ok.
I can't.

[Terrafractyl]

Interesting Discussion!
some cents from my end...

I do love my analog modular synth. but its has been relagated to nearly only audio rate modulation stuff that I can't do on my computer
In the Box, I can definitely tell the difference between 48k and 96k when audio rate modulation of any kind is involved.

I also believe that the incredible obsession with analog emulation is waaay out of hand and I wish more developers would think more like Melda!!

One thing though... from my recent readings about digital filters and EQs... I've been learning about the latest trend of zero delay feedback filters and this seems to me to be a relatively recent development in the digital world, that shows it is still learning in some way to be more like analog stuff.
Removing the z delay from the feedback loop of the previously used model of Filters and EQs, improved the response of the filters and allowed them to work in a much improved way (again especially with audio rate modulation).
But I suppose this is still just the removal of latency as Melda mentions at the begining of this thread.

But it seems to me that there is still 'some' room for analog-digital cross pollination.

Actually now I think about it the ONE thing I absolutely love in my modular that still has nothing close to it in digital world is the
wave folder. (esp the serge one)

I've tried just about every digital wave folder I can find and they all sound terrible!!
+ I havnt found one(!) that can do audio rate modulation of the folding... which is the BEST thing about the analog ones I have, instant evil robot sounds.
A melda Wave folder would rock my boat... just sayin hehe

[zerocrossing]

Interesting Discussion!
some cents from my end...

I do love my analog modular synth. but its has been relagated to nearly only audio rate modulation stuff that I can't do on my computer
In the Box, I can definitely tell the difference between 48k and 96k when audio rate modulation of any kind is involved.

I also believe that the incredible obsession with analog emulation is waaay out of hand and I wish more developers would think more like Melda!!

One thing though... from my recent readings about digital filters and EQs... I've been learning about the latest trend of zero delay feedback filters and this seems to me to be a relatively recent development in the digital world, that shows it is still learning in some way to be more like analog stuff.
Removing the z delay from the feedback loop of the previously used model of Filters and EQs, improved the response of the filters and allowed them to work in a much improved way (again especially with audio rate modulation).
But I suppose this is still just the removal of latency as Melda mentions at the begining of this thread.

But it seems to me that there is still 'some' room for analog-digital cross pollination.

Actually now I think about it the ONE thing I absolutely love in my modular that still has nothing close to it in digital world is the
wave folder. (esp the serge one)

I've tried just about every digital wave folder I can find and they all sound terrible!!
+ I havnt found one(!) that can do audio rate modulation of the folding... which is the BEST thing about the analog ones I have, instant evil robot sounds.
A melda Wave folder would rock my boat... just sayin hehe

This is more or less where I stand too, though from my standpoint I see a lot of development in the software world that doesn't really model any sort of analog behaviors, or if it does it's an option. Take Serum for instance. I'm not sure where it's filter models actually come from but many of the seem very digital and there's nothing analogous in the analog world. Go over to the 'French' or 'German' models, and they clearly seem to be modeled after something analog and, in my opinion, give the synth a lot of character that I like. There's also some great stuff coming out in the software world that emulates analog pretty well. I've been testing plug ins to see which ones handle audio rate filter mod with high resonance well and I had forgotten about XILS 3. Damn, I should upgrade that bad boy to 4 because it sounds fantastic... maybe the best software emulation of this I know of.

[Grizzellda]

As for warming up - why not!!! I never said we shouldn't saturate and stuff. That's what we learned from analog! But it doesn't mean we should spend our lives trying to recreate the ancient stuff (aka vintage ). I just want to take what I like from that .
And now I want a hug from you!

So, you want a hug from me...well that's gonna be kinda hard since you are in the Czech area and I am, well, wherever I'm from!

We may never meet in person, Vojtech, but I'm thinking about what kind of hug you would like, and I think I know...

Cold, distant, electronic perhaps, heh heh, . How about digital...oh yeah, digital...but no, that is not enough! Alright! Okay! I've got it...how about... cybernetic..........

Yeah, that's the one man! Let's say it now, heck, let's say it together...

"C Y B E R N E T I C "

Alright Vojtech, the hug is coming, but imagine this...cold, desolate northern Scandanavia...or maybe Canada? Cold winds howling across snow covered evergreens sculpting huge snowdrifts...no analogue warmth here, but emerging out of this frigid wasteland...



Digital, distant cybernetic hugs, and yeah, I suppose I mean it...

But I still stand by all my earlier posts!!!

****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************

P.S. Hey Vojtech, the above post is finished, but I just heard that Paul Kantner died. That means "Jefferson Airplane" if you are unsure...

If you wanna know something about me, well I will tell you, I have some deep, deep respect for this guy, not to mention the band in general. To keep with the spirit of our discussion, I could say that they recorded analogue, and I think that would be accurate!

But to go somewhat deeper,

Have you ever heard the old Sly & the Family Stone song, where Sly sings ...

"words (get) in the way" ...

See, with a band like Jefferson Airplane, (or Sly & the Family Stone, of course) it really does not matter how they were recorded, as long as it sounds good, because the music itself overshadows every other concern.

[mesaone]

This thread got real weird, real quick.

[steve2KVR]

...well, fwiw...im not sure it didn't start there ...to be honest about it ...at least it remained civil (for the most part)...ive learned more from this threat than a lot of some others ive been down , the depth of experience here is truly amazing.../s~

[kokotte]

"A melda Wave folder would rock my boat"
+1+1+1+1+1+1

[Tagirijus]

but please don't tell us as a defacto fact that "its bullsh--" or any all encompassing comment like "no one can hear a difference" etc.

First of all: no need to get mad!

Second thing: I am not sure if you are refering to my posts, but I will still answer. I actually wrote about a study, which prove with blind tests, that the human ear cannot hear a difference and again sorry that I do not have the source anymore. Maybe you could find it in the web.

Third: If you are doing tests on your own, there might be the possibility that you are just believing it, since it's subjective. I have to admit that even in this case it would be legit, if you can work better with it - no question.

And please don't get mad ... I am just quoting things, speaking out of personal (maybe to you not that important) experience and I am questioning things! In the end I am no technician and no physicist after all (regarding this topic)!

[MeldaProduction]

Terrafractyl: Modulation is a problem in digital indeed. Not that it wouldn't be possible, it's actually very simple, but unless hugely oversampled, it results in a lot of aliasing... But it's often survivable with just some oversampling. What is exactly the "wave folder"? I tried to search something about it, but found nothing useful, only analog circuits, but I want to know what it exactly does, especially since apparently it is just a waveshaper with cool name .

Grizzellda: Yeah, you know, eventually we will all live inside computers, so I'm getting prepared . Actually I recently saw a test of creating a virtual "being", that was just connected to some hardware, but powered by a slice of brain, and, well, it worked. So I'm already packing my digital kung fu, 'cos soon I'm gonna be purely digital . Who knows, maybe I'm already a computer!!
And yes! If the music is good, everything is good!

measone: Yeah, digital hugs and stuff . You see, digital is everywhere .

Tagirijus & plexus: You need a nice warm digital hug too . But to the point, Tagirijus indeed just meant the papers, that showed there is no difference. But NOTE again, I just repeating, but I need to do that - it means that if you have 96k audio, convert it to 48k, then you shouldn't hear any difference (unless your DA has a problem ), but it should only be the conversion! Processing in 96k, especially some nonlinear things such as distortion, could be very different.
For the record, I'd recommend NOT using 44k, and go for 48k. The difference may be small, but it's very important for aliasing reduction and makes especially big sense when converting to 96 for mastering, as it is 2x as much, which 44k to 96k is just something specific. 44k is a weird rate indeed and it is used just because of CD players... Well, that's one of the historical nonsenses .

[Batty]

Just to add one thing: (dunno if mentioned before) but analogue sounds expensive due to the fact that until now all digital plugins cost 'bout 10 to 10000 $ less compared to analog hardware.

And true it's a psychological thing (not talking about sound now) but if you feel expensive, it CAN help you producing (at least a little more) confident/expensive/creative (i.e. you work harder without knowing it).
But that'll wane, doing so already - when getting used to the digital analogue, and if one day most engineers with be in the box - we'll have to talk about classic digital vs current. :p

It's just another form of "you eat with your eyes first"...it's psychological, but whatever helps

[IncarnateX]

Do you guys remember Moran and Mayers double blind test from 2007 where they showed that people cannot tell CD quality from high res audio?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

The whole audiophile industry went ape-shit and though the test was well conducted and statistically significant, some turned to hostile rejections without even reading the article (no surprise really).
Others were very positive, see http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/ ... ate/365968

Since then it has been discussed and also contradicted by other studies, like this minor study where it says that trained subjects can distinguish CD res from high res.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398

You should take such results into account in your discussions IMO if you want to convince people about the importance or non-importance of sample rates.

From my point of view, it is neither a surprise if people cannot distinguish sound quality or though they believe they can nor if they actually can be trained to do it. Though I believe that it WILL require training because unless the sound quality of a piece of music is disturbingly bad, we will first and foremost attend to the actual music (tonal structure, rhythms) and sounds (instruments/patches) as a compositional whole and not be concerned with “the quality” of the overall sound in some quantifiable manner. Such things require a certain form of attention that you may have if you are a engineer or sound-designer, but would be pretty far from our standard reaction to music because you actually have to suppress the music to focus on sound quality only (whatever that is in the end).

Problem is of course, that given you think you can distinguish, is this an illusion or because you are trained? How will you know?

Whichever of the two, you shouldn’t be surprised that whatever is obvious to your brain isn’t obvious to others’.