Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...t=42196&page=1


WVK

"WVK" wrote in message
om
Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...t=42196&page=1


Just another pathetic example of how the author doesn't know squat about
setting up a fair experiment involving analog and digital.

It's not news to anybody in the know, that analog tape has audible
colorations and noise. If you like noise with your music, its the way to go.

But for the record, in a time-synched ABX test I can score 16/16 with the
first song. The low level passage at the beginning is the easiest part to
score on.

The second sample has less audible hiss. Measurements show that it has a
couple dB less noise. Unless someone was playing games, it's the digital
one. Ironically, there is a trace of what appears to be dither shaping in
both samples.

I think I trimmed the two samples pretty well, but there appears to be a 16
millisecond discrepancy, probably due to tape slippage on the analog side.
The analog sample seems to be about 0.1 dB louder, overall.

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:25:21 GMT, WVK wrote:

Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:

Huh? Recording in 24/48 digital, then converting to analog, mixing,
getting an analog master on one side, a 24/96 oversampled master on
the other, then converting the analog master to 16/44 and
downsampling the digital version to 16/44, then eventually asking for
a comparison after transferring both to MP3 at 160 kb/s is what you
call an interesting experiment? In psychology, maybe. Not in audio.

All very well-taken points. I don't know what the author was trying to
prove, except that he's clueless about experimental design.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 11/2/2004 6:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"WVK" wrote in message
. com
Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...t=42196&page=1


Just another pathetic example of how the author doesn't know squat about
setting up a fair experiment involving analog and digital.

It's not news to anybody in the know, that analog tape has audible
colorations and noise. If you like noise with your music, its the way to go.

But for the record, in a time-synched ABX test I can score 16/16 with the
first song. The low level passage at the beginning is the easiest part to
score on.

The second sample has less audible hiss. Measurements show that it has a
couple dB less noise. Unless someone was playing games, it's the digital
one. Ironically, there is a trace of what appears to be dither shaping in
both samples.

I think I trimmed the two samples pretty well, but there appears to be a 16
millisecond discrepancy, probably due to tape slippage on the analog side.
The analog sample seems to be about 0.1 dB louder, overall.









The second one was the analog.

End of mystery:

"BTW, the first clip is the digital and the second is the analog. What I
hear is the digital has more low end, the kick drum sticks out a little
from the bass and the top end is brighter. The analog sounds a bit more
compressed (it was more apparent before I lowered the alignment 6dB),
the top end is softer, the vocal sounds a bit further back in the mix
and the kick drum is sunk into the bass better.

I think the producer is leaning towards the digital because the vocal
sounds louder and the snare is more up front. I'll let you know what we
decided after the mastering session, but that'll be in a few months."


WVK wrote:

Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...t=42196&page=1


WVK

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



The second one was the analog.

In fact both were 44/24 digital. Also, in the second set of samples, there
were two different mixdowns.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 11/2/2004 5:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



The second one was the analog.

In fact both were 44/24 digital.


I never said otherwise.
You didn't understand what I meant when I said the second one was the "analog"
one? Here was your comment.
"The second sample has less audible hiss. Measurements show that it has a
couple dB less noise. Unless someone was playing games, it's the digital
one." What did you mean by "the digital one" if you are now raising the issue
that they are both digital?


Also, in the second set of samples, there
were two different mixdowns.

"WVK" wrote in message
om...
Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...t=42196&page=1


WVK

Seemed pretty obvious to me that the first part was the digital part, much
cleaner transients and better bass.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:25:21 GMT, WVK wrote:

Here's an interesting experiment happening right now:

Huh? Recording in 24/48 digital, then converting to analog, mixing,
getting an analog master on one side, a 24/96 oversampled master on
the other, then converting the analog master to 16/44 and
downsampling the digital version to 16/44, then eventually asking for
a comparison after transferring both to MP3 at 160 kb/s is what you
call an interesting experiment? In psychology, maybe. Not in audio.

All very well-taken points. I don't know what the author was trying to
prove, except that he's clueless about experimental design.
Bad experiment but the outcome was obvious, the first section was the
digital one.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 11/2/2004 5:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



The second one was the analog.

In fact both were 44/24 digital.


I never said otherwise.

I never said otherwise.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 11/2/2004 6:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 11/2/2004 5:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



The second one was the analog.

In fact both were 44/24 digital.


I never said otherwise.

I never said otherwise.


It seemed odd that you would raise such an obvious and irrelevant point.