the metaphysics of analog vs digital & gramophones

[fossiltooth]

Easy: You just split the signal out to two separate recorders. For instance, you could send bus 1-2 to a tape machine and bus 3-4 to a digital recorder, and bus 5-6 out to a lathe, wax cylinder, or wire recorder.

You could also use a pre-recorded acoustic event. Something that you can play through a speaker and compare results to. What you're testing for here is the relative amount of change from this original recording.

Yes, but this is assuming a priori that your reference recording isn't losing anything from the original acoustic event, which is in fact the question, isn't it? I mean, you can certainly use this method to learn how two different technologies emphasize different things, but I fail to see how this helps with comparison to Real Life, unless you're able to assume that some reference format is Close Enough, in which case you've already won.

The way you're setting things up, there's no way to compare anything. Two listeners hearing the same "Real Life" sounds are going to perceive them differently. No "Real Life" sound can be repeated exactly the same, so this becomes a "tree falling in the forest" navel-gazing exercise.

Apparently you two guys didn't read the first part! : )

I'd be curious to hear about the procedure for measuring a recording's accuracy to the acoustic event being recorded. I'm sure there's an easy way to do this, but it's not occuring to me.

Easy: You just split the signal out to two separate recorders. For instance, you could send bus 1-2 to a tape machine and bus 3-4 to a digital recorder, and bus 5-6 out to a lathe, wax cylinder, or wire recorder.

That means you simply put up a microphone, feed it into a preamp, and send the output of that preamp to any number of capture devices. You can do this by using simple busses, and you can easily do it during an actual live event. This is audio engineering 101. All you need is one live source, one mic, and the ability to send that signal to more than one place. (You can then compare your recorders to eachother, as well as to the original analog voltage in the circuit before it even hits either recorder.)

After that, I went on to say that, yes, you can also do a similar kind of test with a pre-recorded source rather than a live source. And that kind of test is also valid. You can still compare how much change you have from your original source recording. If you prefer doing this test with a live source, then sure, that's even better.

But why not do both? Oh, wait: People have. Many, many times. The scientific method was not invented yesterday! It's how all the stuff you record with was invented -- from the wax cylinder to the laptop. You're welcome to try these kinds of tests as well! What's "navel-gazing" is making assumptions without testing them. Honest, rigorous experimentation is the exact opposite of that. : )

[Gregg Juke]

Nick said:

>>>>But, good luck finding it. It's been out of print for years. I'm hopeful that someone will finally make a digital version.<<<<

There is NO WAY that the digital version will read as well as the paper copy did!



GJ

[dfuruta]

I'd prefer papyrus scrolls.

[dfuruta]

After that, I went on to say that, yes, you can also do a similar kind of test with a pre-recorded source rather than a live source. And that kind of test is also valid. You can still compare how much change you have from your original source recording. If you prefer doing this test with a live source, then sure, that's even better.

I think you missed my point: this test shows the difference between two different recording mediums, and you can only take the results as showing the difference between your recording and live sound if you assume, a priori, that at least one of your recording mediums is losing nothing from the live event. This doesn't actually tell you anything about faithfulness to a live event.

For example, say you do your test with your CB mic feeding your Toys R Us karaoke machine into your two soundblaster cards. You do your null test, and the files are more or less the same. That doesn't mean that they're the same as the event you recorded.

Any recording will differ from its source, although to a hopefully lesser extent. So, you say, let's play a recording back through speakers as the source! But, I can say the damage has already been done, and you've already lost that something that makes real instruments special.

The deeper issue is that the common claims made about digital audio are not fundamentally ones over which science has any sway; that's not to say that they're wrong, just that they're not in the domain of scientifically evaluable statements. Once people start talking about quantum this or jitter that then you can say, "no, that's wrong, and I'll show you why." But, saying that digital strips some ineffable soul from the music isn't something you can really refute with the scientific method. It's a faith-based statement, and that's fine.


My apologies for starting this thread--I was trying to make a point that wasn't the normal digital vs analog one, but I suppose I should have seen how it would go.

[ubertar]

Apparently you two guys didn't read the first part! : )

My post was in response to dfuruta's response to you, not to your post.

[ubertar]

saying that digital strips some ineffable soul from the music isn't something you can really refute with the scientific method. It's a faith-based statement, and that's fine.

It's also kind of pointless, though, isn't it? But I don't think it has to stop there... like I said before, you could do listening surveys where a large number of parameters are changed, one at a time. The listener doesn't know what the parameters are or which is being changed. It may turn out that there is a fairly consistent consensus on what sonic aspects make up what people think of as "soul". Maybe it would be disappointing to some people to strip the magic out of it that way, but if the magic is an illusion to begin with, no harm done AFAIC. Then we could have "soul" plugins, and a soul knob to go along with the suck knob. Turn up the soul and turn down the suck, and make the world a better place.

[drumsound]

This took a pretty interesting and drastic turn from the original post. I find it quite interesting.

I'm going to comment a little on the "losing soul" aspects of electric versus mechanical issue (at least to start):

First off, I believe any recording can capture what we call "soul of the performance." This in a ono-scientific thing, of course. Any of us who have recorded multiple takes of something and get "that one" that makes us feel different compared to others takes knows what I'm talking about. When the keeper is laid down and we were smart enough to have hit the red button, everything is grand. Everybody feels the difference between that take and the others. We bob our heads, tap put toes and want to hear THAT one over and over. THAT ONE is the one we want to put out into the world for everyone to hear. Its the one we are willing to SHARE because we have deemed it special. If we're overdubbing other instruments, we are striving to match the "magic" that we have.

I believe the above is a level beyond medium. And its WAY WAY WAY beyond science.

To the original poster's question as to if Mechanical recordings have "more soul" than Electrical recordings (both analog and digital) I think two "forces" are in play.

First, there is the charm of those old recording, and the limitations of the media, coupled with the musical style and just plain sense of nostalgia. Just like any other good recording, it has "transported" your mind to another place.

Second, You are hearing a live performance by rehearsed and prepared players. They were all in the same physical space, not wearing headphones. There were no overdubs, and the performances were not "constructed" like a multitrack recording.

[dfuruta]

saying that digital strips some ineffable soul from the music isn't something you can really refute with the scientific method. It's a faith-based statement, and that's fine.

It's also kind of pointless, though, isn't it? But I don't think it has to stop there... like I said before, you could do listening surveys where a large number of parameters are changed, one at a time. The listener doesn't know what the parameters are or which is being changed. It may turn out that there is a fairly consistent consensus on what sonic aspects make up what people think of as "soul". Maybe it would be disappointing to some people to strip the magic out of it that way, but if the magic is an illusion to begin with, no harm done AFAIC. Then we could have "soul" plugins, and a soul knob to go along with the suck knob. Turn up the soul and turn down the suck, and make the world a better place.

Sure! I think this is a totally reasonable (and scientific) way to figure out what's what. I just don't think that it's something that can be scientifically address with tone generators and null tests, so to speak.

I think I'd probably turn the soul down, personally, but I suppose it's a matter of taste

[dfuruta]

There were no overdubs, and the performances were not "constructed" like a multitrack recording.

I suspect this is a lot of it, actually, beyond the wonderful sound quality. It's particularly nice to hear recordings from the top players of the time with little flubs and mistakes.

But, I do think there's something special about the sound, and it's kind of fun to explain it along these supernatural lines.

[Gregg Juke]

This reminds me of a discussion that I had with some guys a few years back. They insisted that they had arrived at the "_exact_ mathmatical formula" to reliably create "swing" in a programmed drum/rhythm performance. I'm not talking about the swing/shuffle nob on actual or virtual drum machines; I mean these guys were talking "Swing" with a capital "S," as if Art Blakey or Jack DeJohnette or Tony Williams or Gene Krupa (or their specific differing respective approaches, or the entire ethereal concept in general) could be mathmatically delineated in complete accuracy...

It still sounds like absolute poppycock to me, but I suppose it comes down to your worldview in the end. I like to think that there is a bit of a mystical, spiritual element to certain intangible aesthetic musical qualities like swing and soul, which would mean it probably can't be bottled and sold-- all you can get at SRLP is the snake-oil version...

GJ

[fossiltooth]

This reminds me of a discussion that I had with some guys a few years back. They insisted that they had arrived at the "_exact_ mathmatical formula" to reliably create "swing" in a programmed drum/rhythm performance. I'm not talking about the swing/shuffle nob on actual or virtual drum machines; I mean these guys were talking "Swing" with a capital "S," as if Art Blakey or Jack DeJohnette or Tony Williams or Gene Krupa (or their specific differing respective approaches, or the entire ethereal concept in general) could be mathmatically delineated in complete accuracy...

It still sounds like absolute poppycock to me, but I suppose it comes down to your worldview in the end. I like to think that there is a bit of a mystical, spiritual element to certain intangible aesthetic musical qualities like swing and soul, which would mean it probably can't be bottled and sold-- all you can get at SRLP is the snake-oil version...

GJ

This is a perfect example of what happens when people confuse the subjective with the objective. There are plenty of examples of bad behavior like this on both "sides" of the issue.

[Grinder]

I think we've mostly lost the ability in most humans to get together in one room with other humans and rock the fuck out.

This!

Gustav

[dfuruta]

I don't know where you guys live, but there are two or three punk shows a week round these parts, not to mention indie, metal, hip hop...

[Snarl 12/8]

I was careful to say "most." Clearly some humans still rock, but I think rockin' out together was much more prevelant before the advent of recording. I believe that music is primarily a social construct, not an artistic one. Once people could make music without other people, without any audience or for an audience of only one person, wearing earbuds, far removed in time and place the ability for musicians to really inter-react with one another began to atrophy. It has also created an expectation of "perfection" in the listener so now vocals that aren't auto-tuned sound unbearable to some people. Beats that aren't quantized (or at least flubs edited out) sound "wrong." Again, I know there are exceptions. Music is turning (has turned?) into something different from what it was for 100,000 years. I personally think this is a bad thing, but I'm sure there's people out there who think this is fine and dandy.

[kayagum]

I think the digital medium goes beyond the tonal... it's the ability of distribution and manipulation that has had such a huge impact on music, positive and negative.

Positive: sombody can post a recording to the entire planet, for practically no cost.
Negative: musicians are more interested in distributing self recorded music than playing in front of live audiences.
Musicians used to play live, then go to the recording studio; now it's more the reverse.



Positive: comping tracks, rerecording takes, automating controls is so much easier in the digital realm.
Negative: musicians are syncing up to artificial ticks, both audible (e.g. click tracks) and visual (being able to snap waveforms to a time frame).
Musicians used studios to document a composition- now they're using studio tools for creating compositions.


Whether it's beautiful or ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but no one can argue that digital tools have created something that sounds and feels different.