Why do we tube lovers love tubes?

[gbarchus]

I went to an Apogee Duet on my MacBook Pro with Logic. Things were SO clean it bothered me. I just purchased an Allen & Heath ZED-R16 knowing it's NOT as clean. On another note, if there's hardly a difference, I prefer to twist knobs and use the outboard processors I already own.

tape emulation: http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5042/

You could buy a Revox A77 for that price.

Gale

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

That was what they said when CD's first came out. Along with much more scratchproof than records! I dont really hear it on my classical CDs.
I 've got Stravinsky on CD and on LP. (not the same conductor/symphony unfortunately) The quiet passages of "Le Sacre du Printemps" are almost indecipherable. (this is through an Adcom 535 and JBL control 10's) Now of course I think the mastering engineer should've cheated and shortened up the scale on that a bit. Maybe a 2:1 or 1.5:1 compressor? On an LP you do have compression, both as part of the transfer function, and as needed to make sure the needle stays in the groove. So the LP will sound like it retains more body to the music in the softer movements.
The classical CDs I only listen to the parts that sound good, the loud parts, this is not me being a snob. I just couldnt tolerate it after a while. I guess I have trained my ears to hear into stuff more than your average joe. hundreds of hours at a DAW will make you sensitive to the subtle difference between 88.2k and 44.1k. 16 and 24 bits.
To me, the LP sounds like 24 bits, but with some intermittent noises.


As far as double blind tests, at my studio, or with my AKG240s on, no problem. Asking people to identify the format of mixed program material in an unfamiliar acoustic environment is silly. Much less at an AES con! I used to try out mics and pres on the floor, but you really cant make an informed decision unless your day job is recording crowd reactions for a game show.

If an LP could match 16 bits, let alone 24, that would be a revelation. It could well be, as you've noted, that a particular CD recording could sound worse than an LP. A better medium does not guarantee a better utilization by the engineer who uses it.

 

[Bluesbob]

If an LP could match 16 bits, let alone 24, that would be a revelation.

That doesn't make any sense. An LP is analog. It is not limited by word length. The limiting factor between the master tape and the LP is the quality of the equipment used for LP playback. Technics LP12 need not apply. But 24 bits at a sampling rate of 88kHz or 96 kHz gets pretty close to analog.

It could well be, as you've noted, that a particular CD recording could sound worse than an LP. A better medium does not guarantee a better utilization by the engineer who uses it.

That does make sense. If it sounds better, it is better!

 

[johnk_10]

this link will explain everything:

 

[seamonkey]

so how does that make anything that he stated valid?

Until someone publishes something contrary to his findings, it's what it is.

i have both pro tools and nuendo and IMO, they have their place and own set of benefits, but do not sound like analog no matter what you do with them. and, IMO, there is a very good reason that they are cheaper than their analog counterparts.

I doubt it matters much what you own.
If you had a Steinway grand it wouldn't automatically make you a piano virtuoso.
Price has little to do with quality. Everywhere you look digital counterparts are far superior to analog old gear. Or do you still carry around a 20lb cell phone?

maybe it can sound like analog to you, but not to me. what i'd like to know is, do you have any actual hands on experience with anything that you continuously spread misinformation about? because it sounds like you just read about it on the internet, and reply with alot of wishful thinking.

maybe it's just me, but your entire reply just doesn't really say, mean, or contribute anything......

now back to something with meaning :

http://johnkvintageguitars.homestead.com/jaguarbass/bikini_girls-1.jpg

Sounds like you didn't take the digidesign test. Afraid to?
I have plenty of hands on experience, but non with old tin gramophones. And by your reasoning, I would have no rights to say tin gramaphones lack the fidelity of digital systems today. You seem to spread misinformation about things you think your hands on experience qualifies you more than scientific study conflicts with.

Doesn't really matter. Popularity might win short term battles, science wins the long term ones. Digital is here to stay and making more money than any of the old analog gear cumulatively made.

 

[seamonkey]

That doesn't make any sense. An LP is analog. It is not limited by word length. The limiting factor between the master tape and the LP is the quality of the equipment used for LP playback. Technics LP12 need not apply. But 24 bits at a sampling rate of 88kHz or 96 kHz gets pretty close to analog.

LP's have bandwidth. LP need special EQ, and the response on the outside groves is different than the inside groves due to different velocities. LP's were pressed from "masters" that could only be used so many times.

CD's have 90db dynamic range and way beyond human hearing frequency response. And a noise floor lower than human hearing.
Comparing bandwidth to an LP is night and day.

Another example, for those who have a hobby of playing with older computers (Apple II, Commodore 64) Early home computers used cassette tapes to store data - encoded like that of a "modem". You can easily record and store these same old encoded programs on a computer today using an mic input, and never wear out the number of accurate copies you can make.

 

[scotch]

LP's have bandwidth. LP need special EQ, and the response on the outside groves is different than the inside groves due to different velocities. LP's were pressed from "masters" that could only be used so many times.

CD's have 90db dynamic range and way beyond human hearing frequency response. And a noise floor lower than human hearing.
Comparing bandwidth to an LP is night and day.

Another example, for those who have a hobby of playing with older computers (Apple II, Commodore 64) Early home computers used cassette tapes to store data - encoded like that of a "modem". You can easily record and store these same old encoded programs on a computer today using an mic input, and never wear out the number of accurate copies you can make.

"...Were..." I've got a fast-breaking news-flash for ya': LP Records are still being made!

 

[johnk_10]

Until someone publishes something contrary to his findings, it's what it is.

you just don't have a clue do you? and reading about gear certainly doesn't make you an expert.

Everywhere you look digital counterparts are far superior to analog old gear. Or do you still carry around a 20lb cell phone?

in alot of cases digital is far superior, but i'm not aware of anyone making a recording with a cell phone.

Sounds like you didn't take the digidesign test. Afraid to?
I have plenty of hands on experience.............

and what 'plenty of experience' is that specifically? i'd be more than happy to list mine.

You seem to spread misinformation about things you think your hands on experience qualifies you more than scientific study conflicts with.

just what specific scientific study are you referring to? i'd be more than happy to challenge you to ANY type of recording test. and it wouldn't take a 'scientific study' to prove that you're full of BS.

Doesn't really matter. Popularity might win short term battles, science wins the long term ones. Digital is here to stay and making more money than any of the old analog gear cumulatively made.

so now you're talking about money and not audio? if that's the case, there's a reason why a single vintage neve 1073 module sells for more than a complete set of pro tools software, complete with plug-ins. like i said, i own pro tools and nuendo digital software, as well as pro vintage analog gear, and when it comes to having 'balls', IMO, there is no comparison, but you're certainly welcome to continuing kidding yourself.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

you just don't have a clue do you? and reading about gear certainly doesn't make you an expert.

Why do you claim that he doesn't have a clue? He has a good deal of knowledge about audio technology going for him.

but i'm not aware of anyone making a recording with a cell phone.

Mel Gibson is.

 

[JimmyM]

Why do you claim that he doesn't have a clue? He has a good deal of knowledge about audio technology going for him.

Mel Gibson is.

ya, mel...lol! howard stern's been killing mel for a week now! man, he hates mel ever since he got busted for drunk driving and insulted the jewish cop! funny stuff!

anyway, sorry bob, but i'm with john on this one. seamonkey has clearly demonstrated the ability to memorize a lot of what he's read. he has not demonstrated one shred of evidence that he has any experience with the gear he so clearly loves to trash day after day. i have point blank asked him what his experience was with tube amps, and he dodged the question entirely. john has point blank asked him what experience he's had recording in major studios with analog equipment, and he dodged that question, too. i think if you're going to trash gear and technologies, you should at least have a little bit of experience with it. he has spouted tons of info on here like a big expert and is always being corrected, and most of the time he ignores it and just says, "well this is what i read so there it is." well i've read that little green monkeys take us to a faraway planet when we die, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Experience does not equal knowledge except among good learners. Some people have 40+ years experience and manage to glean less knowledge than a sharp individual, free of superstitions and willing to learn, does in six months.

Seamonkey may be brash and abrasive but he's taken the time to learn from what he's read and done. I don't agree with him all the time but he's got a good technical background.

 

[johnk_10]

Why do you claim that he doesn't have a clue? He has a good deal of knowledge about audio technology going for him.

of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when i read his posts/replies, there is no evidence that he has any experience with professional amplifiers, or pro recording equipment, unless you consider 'experience' reading about it on the internet.

but i'm not aware of anyone making a recording with a cell phone.

Mel Gibson is.

now that's a good one!

Experience does not equal knowledge except among good learners. Some people have 40+ years experience and manage to glean less knowledge than a sharp individual, free of superstitions and willing to learn, does in six months.

yes, i've certainly seen alot of people like that, but i don't think that i fall into the former category. and nor do the people that i've worked with in the studio for the last 35 years.

Seamonkey may be brash and abrasive but he's taken the time to learn from what he's read and done. I don't agree with him all the time but he's got a good technical background.

i completely disagree with you on that one. i don't really find him to be brash or abrasive, but i do not believe that he has any technical background other than what he reads.

 

[manwiththedogs]

Mel Gibson is.

My head just exploded.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

but i do not believe that he has any technical background other than what he reads.

He does seem to read a lot, and good on him for that. That's an essential for keeping up on things. He seems to have played around with circuitry a lot, too.

Maybe it takes a technical background to recognize another's technical background?

 

[JimmyM]

Experience does not equal knowledge except among good learners. Some people have 40+ years experience and manage to glean less knowledge than a sharp individual, free of superstitions and willing to learn, does in six months.

that would mean that seamonkey's knowledge would be through the roof if he did have experience. but without that experience, it's all conjecture.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

He might not have 40+ years, but I'd say he's one of the more knowledgeable ones here on TB. Maybe in the top eight or so.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Wow did you ever pick the wrong guy to reference.

He made similar claims over at Gearslutz. After every single person there with a professional monitoring chain picked out the cheap soundcard correctly he engaged in a legendary incoherent mess of a flame war, digging himself a deeper and deeper hole as it became clear that he had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

I think they ended up deleting the thread.

I don't think I've ever been to Gearslutz, but if the discussion was about audio, then Ethan Winer probably did know what he was talking about. It might be that others didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[johnk_10]

He might not have 40+ years, but I'd say he's one of the more knowledgeable ones here on TB. Maybe in the top eight or so.

wow. no offense, but after that statement, you just lost alot of credibility with me Bob.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

That's okay.

 

[johnk_10]

Maybe it takes a technical background to recognize another's technical background?

IME, i've found that alot of people with mostly technical background are of very little help in a pro recording studio and often don't have very good ears.

IMO, seamonkey has never really presented any first hand technical information, just his opinion based on reading what other's have said.