Analog and Digital - The Psychic Method - Tutorial Series

[wolverine6]

I'm going to write up tutorials for what I call the "psychic method".

I call it "psychic" merely because I base the way I make music not neccessarily on my own initiative - But what people want.

But the balance and the way in which it is recieved is very tricky - Ergo I will make html example pages, no video until i get a screen reader - sorry.

[wolverine6]

I thought I would ellaborate.

I've been trying to get the hype up for some of the music I make - So I might take a little bit more time than expected;

However, in my tutorials I will point out that there are many conceptions of analog - That it has a noise to it, That it was "grainy" and that it was too loud.

Albeit, in this day and age - Trying to master a 40 k signal is less than mundane -

And "transience" for those that di not know, once referred to sound even byond the 40k limitation of analog.
Keep in mind; The ONLY reason that it was beyond analog was due to memory limitations.

That is to say, the amount of data running through the filmreel - or tape.

And it became quite popular to use government class backup tapes for music in the 70's to increase the amount of transience.

You see, in the olden days - there was a device called a ballast - or a buffer, it was like a rather large transistor; or capacitor - and it buffered this excess data - beyond the range of the machine's memory retention.

Now drive, it meant the pressure against the tape or spool, or sometimes - Contact with the reader against the tape/reel causing friction/ ergo:drive. It was also the result of the motor pulling and pushing too hard.

Analog hardware used to have controls to work out all of these details that seem like mysteries today.

But what about warmth? That was usually when you had a second buffer and combined the oversampled result with the original.

When you conceive analog in this light - You come to understand - The terms regarding analog are in direct correlation with these tape machines.

But what about psychic? And why 40k ?

Was it the goivernment that limited us to 20k?

You see, during ww2, there had been talk abou the neccesity for limiters due to war propoganda and emotion being spread. Ah, propoganda you say - Which is the point it is an emission, which is psychicly guaged by the listener.

Transients in this light can filter out huge errors in sound which only the subconcious mind can guage; So employing the tactic of first mastering in twenty then 30 - and finally 40 become prudent.

Has anyone ever tested the difference in fruity loops? Try the channel settings and change stretching from resample to pro transience.

Pro transience is nearly analog - built right into fruity loops - for you

Pro default is a bit less; so with these maxims in mind - You have some idea of the quality, and where the lack of quality (in tandem) can mean a better, more articulate sound.

Frankly, analog music ushers in the end of viable piracy. A true analogsong would be 10 gigabytes. Only a blue ray disc could hope to manage.

If you're in the electronics business, act on this suggestion of mine and assist hobby artists like myself - who in days gone by could have made a decent living.

40-50k will save the music industry.

I hope you found this brief preview illustrative, and I can assure you that my methodologies and instruction can assist in both analog and digital formation of professional result.

Regards,
King

[BertKoor]

'k' what?? Be specific about what unit and what's measured please. Right now you're not sounding coherent at all.
And that talk about the government, that was certainly not my government. Dunno what you're on about, sorry...

[fmr]

I didn't understand the majority of what the guy wrote, but what I understood sounded like utter bullshit. WTF? Seems like he is after some kind of monetary compensation for something he thinks he is entitled for.

[Acid Mitch]

The tutorials should be a great laugh. Can't wait to read them.

[VariKusBrainZ]

What was that all about, is this the David Icke of audio tech or something?

Your Daw was coded by lizard men

[Acid Mitch]

So, do we have to address you as "King Elazor" or will Wolverine6 do ?
And where was it you were incarcerated,again ? The name of the place seems to have slipped my mind.

[VariKusBrainZ]

I think hes talking about 44.1khz CD quality and why commercial releases don't go higher

Human hearing stops around the 22khz range so keeping frequencies above that would use extra data space not required ie CDs would need double the capacity for very little audible quality gain, especially when you factor in the shit ears and playback equipment of the average jo who just loves those Dre headphones lol

All audio data storage has bandwidth limitations, even tape and especially vinyl

[whyterabbyt]

Username needs OPY suffix. I suggest WOLVERTOPY.

[trimph1]

Maybe a OBYONETAOPY sock?

[jancivil]

You see, in the olden days - there was a device called a ballast - or a buffer, it was like a rather large transistor; or capacitor - and it buffered this excess data - beyond the range of the machine's memory retention.

Now drive, it meant the pressure against the tape or spool, or sometimes - Contact with the reader against the tape/reel causing friction/ ergo:drive. It was also the result of the motor pulling and pushing too hard.

Analog hardware used to have controls to work out all of these details that seem like mysteries today.

But what about warmth? That was usually when you had a second buffer and combined the oversampled result with the original.

This is one of the nuttier things I've seen regarding audio. The limitation of magnetic tape capturing, particularly the highs belongs to the non-linearity of (and the granularity of) the medium. Technically, the non-linearity is illustrated by the Transfer Characteristic Curve.

Here's how tape works: magnetizable tape stores electrical signal captured by pressure on the receptive transducer, ie., a microphone/pickups or simply by current communicated onto the magnetic field on the tape, eg., electric organ or synthesizer. The magnetization is an analog of the signal. As the magnetizing force increases (greater record head output in terms of magnetic flux field intensity) the resulting tape magnetization also increases. Where there is a linear and proportional analogy of input to output, no problem, we can get a clean recording. But there is a point (positive saturation, or below threshold of magnetization, resulting in a dead-band region) where the non-linearity is a problem; eg., saturated, there is effectively no additional magnetization possible despite increased magnetizing force. *

This non-linear characteristic, if not corrected, will result in distortion. So there is a very high (beyond audible) frequency current (bias) applied to the record head, to help the signal back into the linear area.

"In the case of the standard tape, frequency (short and long wavelength) output peaks do not coincide at maximum output. The bias setting could be at either output peak or at the mid point. In normal recorder adjustment however, the bias setting most often used is at the output peak of the longer wavelengths."
*: With a low bias condition, the low level input signals may fall into the “zero-point” region and either may be severely distorted or not be reproduced.
In a high bias condition, the high frequency response will decrease. The high frequencies will distort sooner or go into saturation because of a phenomenon called “self-erasure”
http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/3mtape/so ... lkv1n2.pdf

Then there is the granular nature of the magnetic particles, imparting hiss to compete with and obscure the highs. The tape manufacturer that lists response 'up to 20khz' has probably tested that at lower signal levels.

But if you're saying 'the ONLY reason 40khz was beyond analog was due to memory limitations', I have no idea what "memory limitations" means. Magnetization retains alignment of particles even as the field is removed; this is known as remanence. That shouldn't be confused with the properties of the medium I indicated, if that's the bit you picked up somewhere. Tape gets to be saturated, no further magnetization can happen, as a 'limit'; but that isn't about memory.

[wolverine6]

Hi jancivil - I was meaning the amount of data and bit stream which it could possibly handle outputting, and ultimately what could be output -

Which were not always the same.

It's surprising though - How analog got a bad rap. Graininess was only a limitation of hardware afterall. Analog emulation seems like a pretty bright future for music artists and distributors.

And to the others, "King" is just a name, not a post or title. Like elvis - A stage name. Egg me if you wish, lol. And wolverine6 is fine. It does seem bizzare that there could be an old technology that handles and outputs more bandwidth - But not so surprising when you consider that 35mm cameras and movies still have better resolution - and also It did not end at 35 mm.

Film could get as thick as a grown man's wrist.

In the sense of government btw. In the old days - Music was the only medium distributed as a form of sharing ideas. And ideas in wartime might be seen as propoganda - especially if they had been pro-hitler.

The idea was to narrow the amount of data produced by audio so that the medium was on a neutral stance. But the technology took of course - Like most things do.

[wolverine6]

I was thinking about this -

I'd gotten all these tales of analog and even 8 track from old men and women living in a retirement home I used to visit. Anyways, as they had described:

Tape ran faster then we could play it, because there was a latency; That is to say there was a differentiation between the tape playing and it being translated into being data or audio.

With this in mind - Where did this residual data go?

Transience: Originally a term deriven from the explanation of this "data" lost in the "buffer". "Oversampling" meant you were running the tape real hot. And of course that lead to the buffer spitting out random data.

That is to say - Unlike the digital era, where it is assured what we would conceivably hear; Analog sound depended solely on the machine - And the hotter (faster) you ran the tape - The more transience.

I remember there was an older gentleman who suggested to me that there was an unparalleled audio quality in 8 track.

Frankly, I reminesce of the width of the tape - And maybe there was something to it.

Afterall, with this convention in mind; Why had dolby been so viable in a mere audio cassete and less so in a cd-rom.
Ultimately, what hekd or holds more data - And how was that data organized on the tape ?

Very interesting.

However, This psychic style of mine - I merely point to these terms of transience and days of tape, 8 track because they are terms that I make reference to.

This way of making music has more to do with avoiding elements and style in which music and the understanding of its content is impeded.
Like, for instance - the lack of limiters, the lack of compressors. The lack of effects which seem warm, or saturated - Or "bright".

Here is a good example, when a shovel hits a stone when we are digging - It's a nice sound, a sharp sound.

I think about these things being a singer. I've heard smooth singers; And I think that they will probably not be popular - For they are too smooth.

And I suppose this is indicative of a psychic response. That I feel the singer should know what I want to hear.

Translated into a music sense; You can use a parametric eq with a nice smooth spline - And then break the sound with a classic style eq - Like the kjaerhaus class eq - which is free. Instead of a nice and uniform trimline - Mess with it (and trun off warming, saturation, and link [afterall - 'link' means you are telling the listener what to hear; quite rude if you consider this is such a manner.]);

Make it oblong. You'd be surprised that the resulting distortion is pleasing. So very pleasing that you'll probably use this idea throughout your days of editing music. Like a synth and its many knobs and our love for "lofi"
But is it lo fi- or is it a sharp change in amplitude and frequency ?

And again this is a psychic response. And in analog there is a vaster amount of frequency to handle. Furthermore; The deviance between lo and hi-fi needs to be planned - But never too controlled.

Again - A psychic response. Afterall, who wants to listen to someone talk, or sing, or create music who's trying to control the way that you see things - Or HEAR? Psychic understanding of what is popular and enticing is a matter of politics.

Many who master (Like Myself) will create a mix that is too perfect - and then purposefully break it so that it does not sound too controlled. It is the chaos that we love sometimes and sometimes, the conformity.

Like in rap - We like to hear the words, and a simplistic riff and chorus (even a re-iterating loop) helps us listen. But people think "is there more to rap?" The balance between knowing what the listener wants, originality - And the lack of overbearing methodology to dampen the mood and receptiveness of the listener.

The psychic method.

I will be sure to place this in an html format so as to illustrate this and its implementation. Thanks for all the comments, even the negative ones. Maybe Wolvertopy is my nickname now, lol.

[jancivil]

Why had dolby been so viable in a mere audio cassete and less so in a cd-rom.
Ultimately, what holds more data - And how was that data organized on the tape ?

Dolby is primarily about coping with tape hiss. CDs do not hiss. Besides that, that cassette rolls off highs through the self-erasure phenomenon inherent in the medium of magnetic tape. Somewhat worse than regular tape*. For a master tape in the studio, Dolby A is supposed to improve the dynamic range a bit.

The frequency response of digital is superior, and the dynamic range more or less ideal, the tape medium as I indicated has to be helped.

I guess you're referring to the fact that *the more tape is available, via width and via high speeds, the better?

[wolverine6]

Well, I meant merely from a physical, a memory stance. Hard to say what tapes were because as I understand it, there were gb tape backups since the 80's. I have no facts available to me in that regard - so I re-iterate that I wonder.

I wonder.

But moving on, to see a larger medium similiar to a blu-ray disc with over 50 gb to house an album surely would be ideal. Imagine all that additional sound listeners are being cheated of - by means of opera or concerto - or of entire symphonies.

It boggles the imagination that which we are missiong out on though admittedly, some of that is superfluous; Albeit what is more relevant is defeating piracy.

As they say, Go big - Or go home.