Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
Gino Robair posted a link to a news story (an excerpt of which appears
below) about a scientist using MRI to further explain/understand the results of the old-school "Pepsi Challenge" ad campaign. i know what you're thinking: "It's about time!!! Thank god SOMEONE is doing this fine work!" anyway, the results are actually pretty interesting and cause me to ponder a few things that have been propsed in the analog vs. digital debates over the years...but first the excerpt: "When he isn't pondering the inner workings of the mind, Read Montague, a 43-year-old neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, has been known to contemplate the other mysteries of life: for instance, the Pepsi Challenge. In the series of TV commercials from the 70's and 80's that pitted Coke against Pepsi in a blind taste test, Pepsi was usually the winner. So why, Montague asked himself not long ago, did Coke appeal so strongly to so many people if it didn't taste any better? Over several months this past summer, Montague set to work looking for a scientifically convincing answer. He assembled a group of test subjects and, while monitoring their brain activity with an M.R.I. machine, recreated the Pepsi Challenge. His results confirmed those of the TV campaign: Pepsi tended to produce a stronger response than Coke in the brain's ventral putamen, a region thought to process feelings of reward. (Monkeys, for instance, exhibit activity in the ventral putamen when they receive food for completing a task.) Indeed, in people who preferred Pepsi, the ventral putamen was five times as active when drinking Pepsi than that of Coke fans when drinking Coke. In the real world, of course, taste is not everything. So Montague tried to gauge the appeal of Coke's image, its ''brand influence,'' by repeating the experiment with a small variation: this time, he announced which of the sample tastes were Coke. The outcome was remarkable: almost all the subjects said they preferred Coke. What's more, the brain activity of the subjects was now different. There was also activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain that scientists say governs high-level cognitive powers. Apparently, the subjects were meditating in a more sophisticated way on the taste of Coke, allowing memories and other impressions of the drink -- in a word, its brand -- to shape their preference. Pepsi, crucially, couldn't achieve the same effect. When Montague reversed the situation, announcing which tastes were of Pepsi, far fewer of the subjects said they preferred Pepsi. Montague was impressed: he had demonstrated, with a fair degree of neuroscientific precision, the special power of Coke's brand to override our taste buds." maybe it's just because i'm a nerd, but it just sparked the idea of some of the parallels of the great analog/digital debacle: some claim one is favored because people associate it with fond memories, some say one's just plain better than the other, even though their flavors are distinct some people can't tell the two apart, some don't care and just have whatever's available, some say one's a classic and the other is the choice of a new generation...etc... it would be very interesting to do similar tests with both recording mediums and see what the results would be. especially with different age groups. younger kids who've grown up on CD and MP3 vs. people who grew up on vinyl, cassetes, reel-to-reel and so on...at AES Bob Ludwig gave a great impromptu talk going through the history of digital tape machines and as an aside at one point delivered an anecdote about an artist whose record he was mastering who had been listening to the final mixes on MP3 before mastering and when Mr. Ludwig played the mastered record for him, he wanted to know why the high-end sounded so "weird"...he wanted it to sound more like the MP3s he'd become accustomed to...i guess for many people it's not really what's "better" it's more what you're used to or have an emotional/intellectual bias towards... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
Coke is analog. It's smoother, sweeter, emphasizes caramel and vanilla
extract flavors. Pepsi is digital. It's tart, emphasizes citrus and spice flavors. Pepsi's flavor might win spontaneous taste tests with a majority (maybe), but after living with both, I always come back to Coke. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
I took the Pepsi Challenge and preferred the Coke. It was detailed, punchy,
and transparent. But not warm... ....Paul -- ************************************************** ******** "In the analog realm, it ain't "OVER" 'til it's over." "transducr" wrote in message om... Gino Robair posted a link to a news story (an excerpt of which appears below) about a scientist using MRI to further explain/understand the results of the old-school "Pepsi Challenge" ad campaign. i know what you're thinking: "It's about time!!! Thank god SOMEONE is doing this fine work!" anyway, the results are actually pretty interesting and cause me to ponder a few things that have been propsed in the analog vs. digital debates over the years...but first the excerpt: "When he isn't pondering the inner workings of the mind, Read Montague, a 43-year-old neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, has been known to contemplate the other mysteries of life: for instance, the Pepsi Challenge. In the series of TV commercials from the 70's and 80's that pitted Coke against Pepsi in a blind taste test, Pepsi was usually the winner. So why, Montague asked himself not long ago, did Coke appeal so strongly to so many people if it didn't taste any better? Over several months this past summer, Montague set to work looking for a scientifically convincing answer. He assembled a group of test subjects and, while monitoring their brain activity with an M.R.I. machine, recreated the Pepsi Challenge. His results confirmed those of the TV campaign: Pepsi tended to produce a stronger response than Coke in the brain's ventral putamen, a region thought to process feelings of reward. (Monkeys, for instance, exhibit activity in the ventral putamen when they receive food for completing a task.) Indeed, in people who preferred Pepsi, the ventral putamen was five times as active when drinking Pepsi than that of Coke fans when drinking Coke. In the real world, of course, taste is not everything. So Montague tried to gauge the appeal of Coke's image, its ''brand influence,'' by repeating the experiment with a small variation: this time, he announced which of the sample tastes were Coke. The outcome was remarkable: almost all the subjects said they preferred Coke. What's more, the brain activity of the subjects was now different. There was also activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain that scientists say governs high-level cognitive powers. Apparently, the subjects were meditating in a more sophisticated way on the taste of Coke, allowing memories and other impressions of the drink -- in a word, its brand -- to shape their preference. Pepsi, crucially, couldn't achieve the same effect. When Montague reversed the situation, announcing which tastes were of Pepsi, far fewer of the subjects said they preferred Pepsi. Montague was impressed: he had demonstrated, with a fair degree of neuroscientific precision, the special power of Coke's brand to override our taste buds." maybe it's just because i'm a nerd, but it just sparked the idea of some of the parallels of the great analog/digital debacle: some claim one is favored because people associate it with fond memories, some say one's just plain better than the other, even though their flavors are distinct some people can't tell the two apart, some don't care and just have whatever's available, some say one's a classic and the other is the choice of a new generation...etc... it would be very interesting to do similar tests with both recording mediums and see what the results would be. especially with different age groups. younger kids who've grown up on CD and MP3 vs. people who grew up on vinyl, cassetes, reel-to-reel and so on...at AES Bob Ludwig gave a great impromptu talk going through the history of digital tape machines and as an aside at one point delivered an anecdote about an artist whose record he was mastering who had been listening to the final mixes on MP3 before mastering and when Mr. Ludwig played the mastered record for him, he wanted to know why the high-end sounded so "weird"...he wanted it to sound more like the MP3s he'd become accustomed to...i guess for many people it's not really what's "better" it's more what you're used to or have an emotional/intellectual bias towards... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"ignatz" nobody@home wrote
Coke is analog. It's smoother, sweeter, emphasizes caramel and vanilla extract flavors. Pepsi is digital. It's tart, emphasizes citrus and spice flavors. Pepsi's flavor might win spontaneous taste tests with a majority (maybe), but after living with both, I always come back to Coke. AFAIC, the homogenization of flavour produced by the global dominance of these two soft drinks manufacturers has left the world a poorer place. Expand the taste test by looking for colas that are not produced by these two monster corporations. Cuba's Tu Cola (with a large measure of Havana Club) is of course de rigeur for an authentic Cuba Libre, though for some strange reason it seems a bit difficult to lay hands on at the moment.... JC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"transducr" wrote in message
om it would be very interesting to do similar tests with both recording mediums and see what the results would be. especially with different age groups. younger kids who've grown up on CD and MP3 vs. people who grew up on vinyl, cassetes, reel-to-reel and so on...at AES Bob Ludwig gave a great impromptu talk going through the history of digital tape machines and as an aside at one point delivered an anecdote about an artist whose record he was mastering who had been listening to the final mixes on MP3 before mastering and when Mr. Ludwig played the mastered record for him, he wanted to know why the high-end sounded so "weird"...he wanted it to sound more like the MP3s he'd become accustomed to...i guess for many people it's not really what's "better" it's more what you're used to or have an emotional/intellectual bias towards... A good digital recorder can make a recording of the output of an analog device and play it back in such a way that the difference can't be detected. This has been done many times, and finesses all of the issues related to mastering and the like. In contrast, it's generally impossible to make an analog recording of the output of a clean wide-range digital source whose playback can't be distinguished from the original. You don't need a MRI or a PhD to do this. A level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled test can be set up by *any* reasonably competent audio production person, with an assistant. The *real* problem is getting some competent people who like to pontificate and posture about things like this off their lazy chicken butts to actually do something. People who are nominally lazy, but want to try a little something can visit www.pcabx.com . |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
A good digital recorder can make a recording of the output of an analog device and play it back in such a way that the difference can't be detected. This has been done many times, and finesses all of the issues related to mastering and the like. In contrast, it's generally impossible to make an analog recording of the output of a clean wide-range digital source whose playback can't be distinguished from the original. You don't need a MRI or a PhD to do this. A level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled test can be set up by *any* reasonably competent audio production person, with an assistant. The *real* problem is getting some competent people who like to pontificate and posture about things like this off their lazy chicken butts to actually do something. well, my point wasn't really can we make them indistinguishable from each other. my point was more to the effect of: it would be interesting to see how people's brains reacted to all analog and all digital recordings...furthermore, it would be of interest to see the differences between the responses of older and younger subjects to account for the sort of "branding" factor ecountered by the "pepsi challenge" researcher. i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of both worlds at our end in the chain... i was really more curious to see if there was any particular way we respond to hearing these different mediums...perhaps something inherent across the board in the way we would react, regardless of our generational ties to format. maybe it would be simply a case of liking what we grow up with...or what we're most familiar with, etc. i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated, negative...etc. it would be interesting to see some science being applied to see what does go on between the two, if anything different at all... really, though, i just wanted make a few funny comparisons between the pepsi vs. coke thing as applied to analog/digital and get the ball rolling for a usenet pun and double-entendre-fest!!! (off to a good start!) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"transducr" wrote in message
om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... A good digital recorder can make a recording of the output of an analog device and play it back in such a way that the difference can't be detected. This has been done many times, and finesses all of the issues related to mastering and the like. In contrast, it's generally impossible to make an analog recording of the output of a clean wide-range digital source whose playback can't be distinguished from the original. You don't need a MRI or a PhD to do this. A level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled test can be set up by *any* reasonably competent audio production person, with an assistant. The *real* problem is getting some competent people who like to pontificate and posture about things like this off their lazy chicken butts to actually do something. well, my point wasn't really can we make them indistinguishable from each other. my point was more to the effect of: it would be interesting to see how people's brains reacted to all analog and all digital recordings... I suspect it would take a very long time to listen to all analog and all digital recordings. That would have to be approached if you wanted to say something cogent. furthermore, it would be of interest to see the differences between the responses of older and younger subjects to account for the sort of "branding" factor ecountered by the "pepsi challenge" researcher. The age thing can probably be addressed by inspection. Lots of old dudes who were brought up on analog, like digital best. It's a digital audio world, and has been for about 20 years. back in 1983-1993 people who are now near retirement age jumped off the analog ship like there was no tomorrow. Digital phobia is vary much a minority thing in *any* age group. i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of both worlds at our end in the chain... It's a digital world in the 21st century. When accuracy is the criteria digital wins hands down. When people are looking for a *certain sound* digital now does a fairly credible job of simulating the colorations of analog, and it's only going to get better. Put a digital screen showing a glowing 12AX7 or three on the front panel, and lots more people will be fooled. i was really more curious to see if there was any particular way we respond to hearing these different mediums...perhaps something inherent across the board in the way we would react, regardless of our generational ties to format. maybe it would be simply a case of liking what we grow up with...or what we're most familiar with, etc. What can't change is that when people know for sure they're listening to analog, they are going to have some preconceived notions. As long as people do sloppy tests where people can know the ID of what's playing by means other than listening, preconceptions are going to be part of the test results. In the end you're doing a public opinion survey and the equipment playing is just window dressing. i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated, negative...etc. it would be interesting to see some science being applied to see what does go on between the two, if anything different at all... Rupert Neve says lots of amazing things. If it helps him sleep at night or push consoles, I guess that's a good thing for him. really, though, i just wanted make a few funny comparisons between the pepsi vs. coke thing as applied to analog/digital and get the ball rolling for a usenet pun and double-entendre-fest!!! (off to a good start!) Oh boy, yet another analog versus digital troll thread. God help me to stay out of posting to it any more. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"I'm an analog man in a digital world,
Looking for an analog girl." - Orleans Don |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
There is a problem using MRI (or fMRI) with audio cues: you cannot use dynamic
headphones in or near an MRI machine. Having done some fMRI experiments using audio stimuli, it is not possible currently to deliver high quality audio to a subject in an MRI machine. It was thought that electrostatic headphones might work, but to my knowledge no one has yet succeeded. (Heaphones are necessary because the MRI machine itself is very loud.) We used the plastic-tube type headphones and verified that our sine-wave test tones were not altered by the resonances of the tubing (quite by chance). Full-spectrum audio stimuli are still not available. We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or music areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Wonder why? -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
Jay Kadis wrote:
There is a problem using MRI (or fMRI) with audio cues: you cannot use dynamic headphones in or near an MRI machine. Having done some fMRI experiments using audio stimuli, it is not possible currently to deliver high quality audio to a subject in an MRI machine. It was thought that electrostatic headphones might work, but to my knowledge no one has yet succeeded. (Heaphones are necessary because the MRI machine itself is very loud.) Hmm... how about ceramic element headphones, like the old Astatic headphones for crystal sets? Electrostatic types would be a lot flatter, though, since the ceramic things tend to have a lot of narrow resonances. We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or music areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Wonder why? That would be very interesting. You want to borrow some electrostatic phones? You'll have to remove the steel frames and make some replacement for them, but I think they are otherwise mostly nonmagnetic. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
In article (Scott Dorsey)
writes: Jay Kadis wrote: There is a problem using MRI (or fMRI) with audio cues: you cannot use dynamic headphones in or near an MRI machine. Having done some fMRI experiments using audio stimuli, it is not possible currently to deliver high quality audio to a subject in an MRI machine. It was thought that electrostatic headphones might work, but to my knowledge no one has yet succeeded. (Heaphones are necessary because the MRI machine itself is very loud.) Hmm... how about ceramic element headphones, like the old Astatic headphones for crystal sets? Electrostatic types would be a lot flatter, though, since the ceramic things tend to have a lot of narrow resonances. I doubt we'd be able to settle the analog/digital debate using crystal headphones. We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or music areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Wonder why? That would be very interesting. You want to borrow some electrostatic phones? You'll have to remove the steel frames and make some replacement for them, but I think they are otherwise mostly nonmagnetic. --scott There were some other labs trying the electrostatics but they haven't managed to get them to work. I'm not sure why. I should follow up on it, but my involvement in the experiments has been on hold lately. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
Jay Kadis wrote:
I doubt we'd be able to settle the analog/digital debate using crystal headphones. I think it should be possible to make decent sounding crystal headphones, with a little engineering. Not wonderful sounding, but at least reasonably flat. If GenRad could make measurement grade ceramic mikes, I don't see why not, and taking the GenRad mike assemblies and running them in reverse might be a good first step. That would be very interesting. You want to borrow some electrostatic phones? You'll have to remove the steel frames and make some replacement for them, but I think they are otherwise mostly nonmagnetic. There were some other labs trying the electrostatics but they haven't managed to get them to work. I'm not sure why. I should follow up on it, but my involvement in the experiments has been on hold lately. They won't get really really loud, if that is an issue. And most of them do not seal. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
In article ,
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC), (Jay Kadis) wrote: We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or music areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Very cool idea. There were some other labs trying the electrostatics but they haven't managed to get them to work. I'm not sure why. Do the headphones interfere with the MRI or vice-versa? The 3 Tesla field in the fMRI machine means no ferro-magnetic materials can be in the room, like iron and, of course, magnets. Even other metals can distort the image, but the magnetic field is strong enough to yank anything magnetically susceptible into the guts of the machine and destroy it. It's real fun every time you go into the room, as you basically have to strip down to hospital scrubs to be sure you aren't bringing in anything. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
Jay Kadis wrote: The 3 Tesla field in the fMRI machine means no ferro-magnetic materials can be in the room, like iron and, of course, magnets. Even other metals can distort the image, but the magnetic field is strong enough to yank anything magnetically susceptible into the guts of the machine and destroy it. Better keep this guy out of there.. http://www.universalexports.net/Movies/Graphics/11-images/jaws.jpg |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"transducr" wrote in message om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... well, my point wasn't really can we make them indistinguishable from each other. my point was more to the effect of: it would be interesting to see how people's brains reacted to all analog and all digital recordings... I suspect it would take a very long time to listen to all analog and all digital recordings. That would have to be approached if you wanted to say something cogent. come on now. the pepsi challenge wasn't about all the different sodas that coca-cola and pepsi make...even the formulas of the two specific beverages change within certain tolerances day-by-day, but you can still identify them or get the idea of what the comparison is about. although it would also be an interesting test to see how many recordings (starting with the first that can be readily accessed) of each format one can listen to in absolute, uninterrupted succession before going insane. ;-p furthermore, it would be of interest to see the differences between the responses of older and younger subjects to account for the sort of "branding" factor ecountered by the "pepsi challenge" researcher. The age thing can probably be addressed by inspection. Lots of old dudes who were brought up on analog, like digital best. It's a digital audio world, and has been for about 20 years. back in 1983-1993 people who are now near retirement age jumped off the analog ship like there was no tomorrow. Digital phobia is vary much a minority thing in *any* age group. once again, my object of curiosity is not whether an older person who grew up on analog recordings can *tolerate* a digital recording without vomiting or storming out of lab where the tests are being conducted...merely if their (people across a wide age spectrum) brains would react differently to one or the other with a blind test and if they'd prefer one over the other, consistently, or not...then compare the results between age groups to account for exposure to either and furthermore if those results (the response from their brains) become skewed once they know one from the other. i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of both worlds at our end in the chain... It's a digital world in the 21st century. When accuracy is the criteria digital wins hands down. When people are looking for a *certain sound* digital now does a fairly credible job of simulating the colorations of analog, and it's only going to get better. Put a digital screen showing a glowing 12AX7 or three on the front panel, and lots more people will be fooled. once again, it isn't about fooling anyone, just observing natural and then sort-of placebo brain reactions. it's not about proving which is technologically superior to the other, just to see if anyone does truly react differently to the different formats. it's not about winning or one vanquishing the other, just seeing if people respond to one differently than the other or if that's just a bunch of hype or placebo studio voo-doo. i was really more curious to see if there was any particular way we respond to hearing these different mediums...perhaps something inherent across the board in the way we would react, regardless of our generational ties to format. maybe it would be simply a case of liking what we grow up with...or what we're most familiar with, etc. What can't change is that when people know for sure they're listening to analog, they are going to have some preconceived notions. As long as people you may be right about a bias associated with analog, but don't forget that a test inclusive of laymen of various ages would likely provide bias for as well as against, not to mention many people who are just plain intellectually ignorant of the difference. do sloppy tests where people can know the ID of what's playing by means other than listening, preconceptions are going to be part of the test results. In the end you're doing a public opinion survey and the equipment playing is just window dressing. did you read the excerpt of the article in the original post? the second part of the test dealt exclusively with how bias and preconception (notably marketing bias) affected how the brain of the subject reacted to the expereince of using the product...that was the point. nothing sloppy about that. i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated, negative...etc. it would be interesting to see some science being applied to see what does go on between the two, if anything different at all... Rupert Neve says lots of amazing things. If it helps him sleep at night or push consoles, I guess that's a good thing for him. well, that's what causes my interest in the subject. frankly there have been a great deal of fantastic, absurd, ridiculous as well as reasonable and well-founded assertions about the compatiblity of the two formats with us as human beings (you know what i mean)...i think the more reaching and seemingly absurd theories have generally come from the analog side of the argument...but who knows, maybe a test of this type might prove there's something to them or prove once and for all that there's essentialy no difference when it comes to how our brains perceive the delivery medium itself...who knows. i just thought it would be interesting. really, though, i just wanted make a few funny comparisons between the pepsi vs. coke thing as applied to analog/digital and get the ball rolling for a usenet pun and double-entendre-fest!!! (off to a good start!) Oh boy, yet another analog versus digital troll thread. God help me to stay out of posting to it any more. hey man, lighten up. so far you're the only one in the thread trying to make this about digital vs. analog as a competition between the two to prove superiority. that was not my point and i am not trolling. rather discussing, with a little levity, a hypothetical test that might shed some scientific light on the all-too-hyped and almost mystical (by now) debate in which some fairly hard-to-prove claims have been made. like i said before, at this point we can all use whatever turns us on. we can record to 2-inch, we can record to pro tools, or we can record to 2-inch then dump it into PT (or whatever analog/digital system you prefer to use), we can press our releases on vinyl as well as or instead of CD if we are so inclined, etc... i'm just curious if there is any legitimate scientific basis for many of the assertions that have flown around surrounding the debate. i quote myself from the message you just responded to: i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of both worlds at our end in the chain... stick that in yer womb and birth it! ;-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
(transducr) wrote: i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated, negative...etc. Well, I've been running all digital sound for several years now and statements like this really **** me off. All the people who think that digital sound isn't great should simply be taken out and shot. I'm really upset that the current gun laws don't cover this situation. Nobody should be allowed to use analog equipment anymore, which would at least silence that camp. 16/44.1 is more than good enough for everything; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the standard, would it? All those "nattering nabobs" make me feel like quitting recording. Analog, analog; that's all I hear, and I'm sick of it. I think I'll start carrying a baseball bat to silence anybody who isn't in the digital camp with me, permanently. Screw analog, screw them, screw you, screw everybody. So much for Rupert's theory. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ HA! nice. seriously though, maybe we could the NRA to fund the study? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
In article ,
(transducr) wrote: Harvey Gerst wrote in message . .. (transducr) wrote: i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated, negative...etc. Well, I've been running all digital sound for several years now and statements like this really **** me off. All the people who think that digital sound isn't great should simply be taken out and shot. I'm really upset that the current gun laws don't cover this situation. Nobody should be allowed to use analog equipment anymore, which would at least silence that camp. 16/44.1 is more than good enough for everything; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the standard, would it? All those "nattering nabobs" make me feel like quitting recording. Analog, analog; that's all I hear, and I'm sick of it. I think I'll start carrying a baseball bat to silence anybody who isn't in the digital camp with me, permanently. Screw analog, screw them, screw you, screw everybody. So much for Rupert's theory. HA! nice. seriously though, maybe we could the NRA to fund the study? *g* Seriously, though, I suspect there are things that can be learned. I think I have some clues to what's happening, but I'm no academic scientist. I've always been strongly analog-biased in spite of the obvious faults, and when I took Arny's bait and ABXed away on various files from his site, I got some pretty unusual results. There was a 'background noise' test. I flunked. I struggled to perceive even the loudest level of background noise in the test file (granted, I wasn't monitoring at very high volume). My brain tricked me, refusing to hear the noise as noise. I had to AB very quickly to figure out what was happening at all. In the very same test sessions under the same conditions, I was able to distinguish every last 'articulation' test, which was castanets encoded with mp3 encoders and other lossy coding, up to what was it, 256K? 320K? The weird part is, the alteration of the sounds on that lossy-coder test is WAY less than that of the loud-background-noise test. Curious... That's me, I'm the analog fan. I'd be curious to know if some digital guys turned out to be very sensitive to stuff like flutter or noise, and very insensitive to the sort of low-level inharmonic content generated by lossy coding... Chris Johnson |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
ROTFL
Harry "Harvey Gerst" wrote in message ... (transducr) wrote: i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated, negative...etc. Well, I've been running all digital sound for several years now and statements like this really **** me off. All the people who think that digital sound isn't great should simply be taken out and shot. I'm really upset that the current gun laws don't cover this situation. Nobody should be allowed to use analog equipment anymore, which would at least silence that camp. 16/44.1 is more than good enough for everything; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the standard, would it? All those "nattering nabobs" make me feel like quitting recording. Analog, analog; that's all I hear, and I'm sick of it. I think I'll start carrying a baseball bat to silence anybody who isn't in the digital camp with me, permanently. Screw analog, screw them, screw you, screw everybody. So much for Rupert's theory. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
"Paul Bawol" wrote in message ...
I took the Pepsi Challenge and preferred the Coke. It was detailed, punchy, and transparent. But not warm... ...Paul I took the pepsi challenge and thought pepsi was a bit tart...oops I did it again William |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
In article m,
Chris Johnson wrote: Shnipppp! That's me, I'm the analog fan. I'd be curious to know if some digital guys turned out to be very sensitive to stuff like flutter or noise, and very insensitive to the sort of low-level inharmonic content generated by lossy coding... Chris Johnson Very interesting. I heard an MP3 a few days back that had obviously been dubbed from a not so good analog source and the flutter just about drove me around the bend. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)
The "pepsi challenge" speaks to the problems of many such tests. Were people
allowed to try either one first and pick at random? Was each beverage served at the same temp.? Was there a reasonable control on whether they had let the coke go flat? I actually have heard they srved the coke slightly warmer than the Pepsi to skew results. P h i l i p ______________________________ "I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa" - Dorothy Parker |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
long ground back to battery | Car Audio | |||
Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
AES Show Report (LONG!!!!) | Pro Audio | |||
Short term - Long term listening | High End Audio | |||
wrap test | Pro Audio |