Tape Emulation roundup

[bbtr]

I agree with you about the tape. But you said 'digital tools', not only tape. And they are oversimplifying. And sound inferiour to analog. Just read your statement again - this is what you said.

We're playing broken telephone, or something.

[cthonophonic]

I agree with you about the tape. But you said 'digital tools', not only tape. And they are oversimplifying. And sound inferiour to analog. Just read your statement again - this is what you said.

We're playing broken telephone, or something.

Or mayyybe you read it like this:

It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour to analog, not the domain per se.

but Sascha intended it like this:

It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour to analog, not the domain per se.

[bbtr]

Hmmm, you know, I used to work as a translator for quite a few years, so such cases of double/triple options for interpretation of a sentence are a familiar thing to me. Also ambiguity, word fuzziness, foreign speakers imparting their native grammar on another language...

Let's say that both options are correct because his statement is too general. And he's talking about phenomena that shouldn't have been there at all, but were unavoidable because of HW restrictions. So the point that it's exactly the unwanted artifacts that make analog sound better than the digital is some kind of upside down logic. At least to me...

Also the point of what is objectively better sounding...

[bbtr]

I have been reading a lot of ancient Greek philosophy lately, and have become obsessed with original meaning of old Greek words and how that meaning got distorted or was changed to something else altogether when those words were adopted by Romance languages.

Phenomenon is one such word. It means 'an appearance'. How something appears to you. 100% subjective. No reference to a thing located outside your mind. While in contemporary science phenomenon has a veeery different meaning. Hence my question about the objectivity.

Another such word is epoche. So I suspend judgement who is right and who is wrong, and move on to more digital topics. This is the signature of the epoch we live in. Tape was the one before.

[s28]

..

[sascha]

Well, since I'm not into philosophy, anal interpretation of what I thought was common sense, and since I'm not here to have my non-mother-tongue dissected and twisted, I'm out.

[Gamma-UT]

Hmmm, you know, I used to work as a translator for quite a few years, so such cases of double/triple options for interpretation of a sentence are a familiar thing to me. Also ambiguity, word fuzziness, foreign speakers imparting their native grammar on another language...

And this is why we can’t have nice things. You say you’re aware of ambiguity and then ram your own definitions down everyone’s throats to the point where you drive users away. Well done. Great job.

I’d much rather read suggestions for audio treatments than your word-wanking.

[HoRNet]

Sascha it’s right, modeling tape is very complex, that’s why we decided to set some fixed params in the simulation to simplify the user experience and give you a “tape deck” experience while using you daw.
After all in the “real world” there are technicians that calibrate tape machines so you can think about recording.

Saverio
HoRNet

[Russell Grand]

Hmmm, you know, I used to work as a translator for quite a few years, so such cases of double/triple options for interpretation of a sentence are a familiar thing to me. Also ambiguity, word fuzziness, foreign speakers imparting their native grammar on another language...

Let's say that both options are correct because his statement is too general. And he's talking about phenomena that shouldn't have been there at all, but were unavoidable because of HW restrictions. So the point that it's exactly the unwanted artifacts that make analog sound better than the digital is some kind of upside down logic. At least to me...

Also the point of what is objectively better sounding...

[Burillo]

I agree with you about the tape. But you said 'digital tools', not only tape. And they are oversimplifying. And sound inferiour to analog. Just read your statement again - this is what you said.

We're playing broken telephone, or something.

Or mayyybe you read it like this:

It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour to analog, not the domain per se.

but Sascha intended it like this:

It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour to analog, not the domain per se.

that's exactly how i understood it as well. it's very surprising to see a "used to be a translator" person to completely miss the point of sasha's post and to latch on "digital is inferior" disregarding the entire context in which it was said (said context being, digital being inferior is contingent upon there being oversimplifications of complex processes, not upon the fact that digital is digital - in other words, the statement means precisely the opposite of "digital is always inferior"). that's a basic reading comprehension fail.

@bbtr and no, "both options" are not correct, you clearly misunderstood what sascha meant (because in order for your interpretation to be correct, you'd have to disregard pretty much the entirety of sascha's post and focus on just a few words - that's the definition of "taking out of context").

[jens]

I don't agree with what he said about digital instruments being 'inferiour'.

You've misunderstood. Digital is not inferiour by design. It's only inferiour to analog if you leave out important aspects.

And nonetheless that is still only your personal opinion and not a fact at all.

If these important aspects are left out, it makes an emulation of a tape-machine inferior only as an emulation of a tape-machine, but not as a tool per se. That, as I said, is just a matter of opinion, personal taste and individual requirements and artistic vision.

[jens]

I agree with you about the tape. But you said 'digital tools', not only tape. And they are oversimplifying. And sound inferiour to analog. Just read your statement again - this is what you said.

We're playing broken telephone, or something.

Or mayyybe you read it like this:

It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour to analog, not the domain per se.

but Sascha intended it like this:

It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour to analog, not the domain per se.

that's exactly how i understood it as well. it's very surprising to see a "used to be a translator" person to completely miss the point of sasha's post and to latch on "digital is inferior" disregarding the entire context in which it was said (said context being, digital being inferior is contingent upon there being oversimplifications of complex processes, not upon the fact that digital is digital - in other words, the statement means precisely the opposite of "digital is always inferior"). that's a basic reading comprehension fail.

@bbtr and no, "both options" are not correct, you clearly misunderstood what sascha meant (because in order for your interpretation to be correct, you'd have to disregard pretty much the entirety of sascha's post and focus on just a few words - that's the definition of "taking out of context").

I basically disagree with everything you write here.

The way I interpreted what Sascha wrote is that he thinks digital is perfectly capable of emulating analog if the programmer is doing a proper job and only then digital is not inferior to analog, i.e. in order to not be inferior to analog digital would have to
sufficiently mimic analog - which would be quite a claim (if stated as a matter of fact rather than a personal taste/opinion).

Now I can not be sure if that is really what Sascha meant, but reading his posts within the given context, this interpretation is perfectly reasonable.

[jens]

And I will give a very simple (on topic) example as well:

Ozone's tape emulation completely leaves out wow&flutter - now how is that for oversimplification? Can you now really claim this plugin is inferior to a plugin that would perfectly nail wow&flutter? You can certainly say if both were attempting to emulate a certain analog device, the Izotope plugin would fall short, but you can not say as a generic digital tool it is inferior because of that, as wow&flutter is obviously a matter of taste - some love it, some hate it, for many it depends on the context (so, yes, of course having a plugin that gives the user the choice would be superior in regards to this aspect because of the increased versatility).

[Burillo]

I basically disagree with everything you write here.

The way I interpreted what Sascha wrote is that he thinks digital is perfectly capable of emulating analog if the programmer is doing a proper job and only then digital is not inferior to analog, i.e. in order to not be inferior to analog digital would have to
sufficiently mimic analog - which would be quite a claim (if stated as a matter of fact rather than a personal taste/opinion).

Now I can not be sure if that is really what Sascha meant, but reading his posts within the given context, this interpretation is perfectly reasonable.

you may disagree all you want, but you're incorrect, because you clearly didn't read Sascha's post, because what you've just raised as an objection is exactly what Sascha said in the first place: he said that he's perfectly fine with plugins simplifying things, he just would prefer that people wouldn't call such plugins "tape" if they don't attempt to do what tape actually does. it is quite clear from this context that the word "inferior" is intended to mean "inferior at reproducing a particular sound" (the "sound of tape" being an example), not inferior in general.

[jens]

you may disagree all you want, but you're incorrect, because you clearly didn't read Sascha's post, because what you've just raised as an objection is exactly what Sascha said in the first place: he said that he's perfectly fine with plugins simplifying things, he just would prefer that people wouldn't call such plugins "tape" if they don't attempt to do what tape actually does. it is quite clear from this context that the word "inferior" is intended to mean "inferior at reproducing a particular sound" (the "sound of tape" being an example), not inferior in general.

I just re-read his posts twice and could not find what you claim he wrote - can you provide an actual quote?