What is lost in computer recording compared to original tape?

[She Changed Her Mind]

@ lemme guess.. lack of conceptual flexibility?

[aciddose]

Why are there artifacts when you slow down digital audio? even just a voice with no effects? what is that?

That is called aliasing. It isn't that you slow down the audio as that would produce the normal aliasing your digital audio always produces and by adjusting the anti-aliasing filter on the output of the soundcard or whatever you should get a reasonable signal.

The problem is that we're actually not "slowing down" a digital signal, we're "resampling" which means taking one signal and sampling it again using some method at a different rate.

If you "just slow down" the digital signal this is like nearest neighbor interpolation which has aliases falling off at only 1/n, in other words very slowly.

Instead you need to apply an anti-aliasing filter, also called an "interpolation" (it means the same thing) to eliminate the signal above the new nyquist frequency. The best interpolations are FIR filters based upon windowed sinc. They call this "sinc interpolation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker% ... on_formula

A BBD delay line will also alias, only the aliases aren't forced to reflect off nyquist but instead are generated at whatever rate the output is played at. That rate is the current rate of the sample pulses which control both input sampling and thus output rate. Often IIRC one pulse (positive) is used to sample odd (in->1, 2->3, 4->5) and the other (negative?) to sample even (1->2, 3->4, 5->6). So if that is correct, depending upon the number of stages (even or odd) you'll get the output sample on either the same clock edge as the input is sampled, or the opposite.

That is simply because the signal is never "resampled", the output of the sample and hold is immediately passed to another until it reaches the output.

If you were to run multiple S&H at different rates however you could create the same effect. In the BBD however only the frequencies above half the sampling rate are reflected initially, then those samples are output the same regardless of rate changes until you get above or below a certain frequency range.

[sjm]

Just finished watching the video. He does well on explaining the stair step myth. Now can we address my question? His video does not.

He does actually, albeit pretty briefly and in passing. Essentially he points out that there is only one possible curve that can go through the points if the signal is band-limited (around 6:50). The curve through the points thus has a single and unique solution, meaning the original signal can be recreated.

I also pointed this out previously when saying draw the discrete points (not steps) and then draw the line of best fit through your original graph. You'll get the original sine back.

Note that the information missing in the digital representation is information above the Nyquist frequency. So there are "gaps" in the digital representation, but they're not between the samples in the digital wave form per se. The missing frequencies are those that are more then half the sampling frequency. However, seeing as we can't hear those frequencies it doesn't actually matter.



Btw, sorry if I was a bit curt, but I had to leave home and it was frustrating that you wouldn't just read and watch the information provided that answered your questions.

[hibidy]

[Dean Aka Nekro]

The way you stated it definitely seems to be a contradiction.

Decent Monitor speakers are sought because of their clinical sound. That's what should happen with recording.

So you are saying recordings should be clinical, which rules out tape.

Anything else added or taken away is distortion, good or otherwise.

So you are saying that tape distortion can be good, so recoding on tape can be ok.

I don't see how you fail to understand UltraJV's point, It is as clear as crystal:

Recording via tape gives a person little control of the "warmth" plus whatever other bullshit audiohpile terminology anyone want's to attribute to it.

Recording to disk gives a person absolute control over the "warmth" plus whatever other bullshit audiohpile terminology anyone want's to attribute to it and at any point.

If you really want to test this out for yourself, Next time you're recording a multi-tracked project simply hire if you don't have enough mic/signal splitters after each mic/line signal, Record one to tape and the other ITB then rent an endless analog clasp to apply on your ITB mixes at the points/sections of your mix where 'tape warmth' will be beneficial...Endless control or use whatever selection of plug-ins you like and/or outboard processing.

It is impossible not to come to the conclusion that tape is the inferior medium. Whether or not YOU like it better on everything is up to you as an individual but in no way does make it "better"

Serenading a dead horse

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Well... true... but someone "needs" a proper sound to begin with...NOT... a better speaker monitor speaker system. It is truly sad nobody brings up the "obvious"..."digital recording is a "pathetic" "not even close" comparison to as good sounding tape recordings. What I'm saying and so many others agree that digital vs. tape...tape wins in the first round. It's not even close. Analog sounds better. Period... and what's sad is so much effort by so many people to dignify digital recording as something even whorth while.

naturally that's your opinion (and so many others), so let me ask you a question...why are you here on a forum that is dedicated to digital software for recording? Clearly one who has such a strong dislike for digital must be using tape and not digital...so what brought you here?

Nah, all tape is intrinsically superior. That's why all the big studios ditched ProTools and RADAR rigs for proper analog... tape 'just wins'...

Here is that infamous Music Producer's Guild video where RADAR seemed to get the most votes and alot of most likely self-professed 'golden ear' types felt daft as they picked a random DAW they've never used before, I love it/the reactions anyway:
http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-eve ... ideo1.html

Maybe the golden ear's were having a night off? I dunno Sean mate

All the best dude

Dean

Edit: It's the guy in the loud orange shirt, TOTAL DENIAL! Brilliant in it's own sad pathetic way

[whyterabbyt]

Here is that infamous Music Producer's Guild video where RADAR seemed to get the most votes and alot of most likely self-professed 'golden ear' types felt daft as they picked a random DAW they've never used before, I love it/the reactions anyway:
http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-eve ... ideo1.html

Maybe the golden ear's were having a night off? I dunno Sean mate

All the best dude

Dean

Edit: It's the guy in the loud orange shirt, TOTAL DENIAL! Brilliant in it's own sad pathetic way

Interesting that. Of course, in the decade since that test, digital gear has continued to advance somewhat (particularly the ADC chain), so it'd be interesting to see something similar with a modern set of gear, and also native PT versus PT HD.
But, at the end of the day; If you compiled a list of stuff that all 'name' producers and engineers agreed was 'best,' there'd be nothing on it except maybe the Sennheiser SM57.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Agreed and yes indeed the advancements made since then have certainly been anything but insignificant, It really would be interesting for them or another group to take that one up in todays climate for sure. I suspect the main reason it hasn't been done is that the case is pretty much open and shut for most people. The few that cling to tape and are happy to pay through the nose for it will do so regardless

SM57's haha yeah never a truer sentence spoken/written most likely in context!

Cheers

[herodotus]

<pedant>I am pretty sure that Shure makes the SM57. The Sennheiser equivalent would be the MD421.</pedant>

And for the record, Steve Albini hates sm57s.

[whyterabbyt]

<pedant>I am pretty sure that Shure makes the SM57. The Sennheiser equivalent would be the MD421.</pedant>

Doh! Not enough frigging coffee.

And for the record, Steve Albini hates sm57s.

Dang, there goes the consensus.

edit : loved this : "Beyer M201 . . . . If the SM57 were a microphone, it would sound like this."

[Chopper]

funnily enough, i agree about the sm57 being not that great. it comes back to the same debate: what we are used to hear on countless tracks becomes ''good'' or ''the norm''...

[herodotus]

<pedant>I am pretty sure that Shure makes the SM57. The Sennheiser equivalent would be the MD421.</pedant>

Doh! Not enough frigging coffee.

Hey, you provided me with a story to tell the children when I grow up.

Oh yeah, young whippersnapper? You think you're smart? Did you ever issue a correction to the likes of WHYTERABBYT!?!? Huh? Did you? DID YOU?????

And for the record, Steve Albini hates sm57s.

Dang, there goes the consensus.

edit : loved this : "Beyer M201 . . . . If the SM57 were a microphone, it would sound like this."

Yeah, say what you will about Mr. Albini, he is pretty articulate for a Chicago punk.

[herodotus]

funnily enough, i agree about the sm57 being not that great. it comes back to the same debate: what we are used to hear on countless tracks becomes ''good'' or ''the norm''...

This is true. I don't think that it succeeded because it is great, but rather because it is good enough for live use, while being 50% to 70% cheaper than the competition. If your music club barely makes money, you aren't going to be micing the drums and guitar cabs with microphones that cost $300 to $500 apiece if you don't have to.

And once people get used to seeing sm57s at every venue they play, it is only natural that they should consider these mics to be the standard. Not to mention that their widespread use has resulted in a huge second hand market.

[whyterabbyt]

Hey, you provided me with a story to tell the children when I grow up.

Oh yeah, young whippersnapper? You think you're smart? Did you ever issue a correction to the likes of WHYTERABBYT!?!? Huh? Did you? DID YOU?????

good sir, if there's anyone here Im happy to be corrected by, its yourself...

[herodotus]

Hey, you provided me with a story to tell the children when I grow up.

Oh yeah, young whippersnapper? You think you're smart? Did you ever issue a correction to the likes of WHYTERABBYT!?!? Huh? Did you? DID YOU?????

good sir, if there's anyone here Im happy to be corrected by, its yourself...

aaawwwww....

Happy Holidays Sean.