Art Ludwig's Sound Page

[fas42]

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/ ...

Always worthwhile getting another point of view: this chap has a masters degree in Mathematics, a Ph.D. in engineering, at one stage considered a career as a pianist; and had a 35-year stint working at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab. So, he just might have acquired a reasonable understanding of what matters with sound from a "scientific" angle ...

I like his style, and he talks about the things that matter, like how the ears and brain interpret sound. With lots of mathematical stuff, for people who like that sort of thing ...

Yes, his site's been linked to before here a couple of times, but I thought it worthwhile to yet again point a finger at his take on audio matters.

Frank

 

[fas42]

Seem to be on a roll finding links ...

Not directly related, but I'm sure will be of interest to some -- from the Sound on Sound pro website: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm

The header paragraph is:

"Analogue warmth seems to be the Holy Grail in these digital days. But what is it, why does it hold such appeal, and how can you use it to enhance your recordings?"

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And here is why analog-philes usually don't like pro audio opinions:

That’s great in some circumstances, but it’s not always what we want: in many cases, the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems have become an integral part of the quality of the recorded sounds that we all grew up with — and the end result is perceived by many people as being more pleasing than we can easily achieve today with all-digital recording chains. Further than that, some of the sounds resulting from ‘abuse’ of analogue gear have become recognised effects in their own right (tube overdrive and tape saturation being obvious examples).

He won't be very popular around here.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

The header paragraph is:

"Analogue warmth seems to be the Holy Grail in these digital days. But what is it, why does it hold such appeal, and how can you use it to enhance your recordings?"

Frank

Frank,
The usual misleading association - associating warmth with audiophile sound ...
Then everything seems so logic!

Unhappily it is more complicated than that. Otherwise it would be very simple to get an excellent digital recording and process it to get exactly the equivalent to the best analog. Why is it not been done until now? I (and thousands more) would buy the recipe immediately.

 

[microstrip]

And here is why analog-philes usually don't like pro audio opinions: (...)

Tim

Tim,
I like and respect pro-audio opinions when they opine about matters of pro-audio. But when they try to extrapolate to consumer audio, I always remember that pro-audio and consumers have different objectives and requirements.
Although many educated consumers can be pleased and enjoy pro-audio sound and happily we have many pro-audio experts in WBF that share both perspectives.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Frank,
The usual misleading association - associating warmth with audiophile sound ...
Then everything seems so logic!

Unhappily it is more complicated than that. Otherwise it would be very simple to get an excellent digital recording and process it to get exactly the equivalent to the best analog. Why is it not been done until now? I (and thousands more) would buy the recipe immediately.

Yes and 30 yrs later, perfect sound has become almost perfect. And every year it's a different excuse why is wrong with digital. Kinda reminds me of someone with OCD who blames everyone but themselves for their problems.

Maybe they should ask why the recordings made in the 50s and 60s sound better than the dreck they foist on the public today?

 

[fas42]

I would suggest that the pro crowd have a somewhat better handle on the subtleties than the manufacturers of audiophile gear; how about this, from that article:

Fifty years of tape-machine design evolution reduced wow and flutter to extremely low levels by the 1980s, but it couldn’t be removed completely, and even the mighty Studer A820 two-track machine’s specifications quoted a wow and flutter figure of 0.04 percent when the tape was running at 15ips (inches per second). This is a tiny amount, certainly, but word-clock stability — which is the equivalent of wow and flutter in modern digital systems — can’t even be measured, as digital systems are orders of magnitude more stable in the time domain.

So what audible effect would such low levels of wow and flutter introduce? Well, the minute cyclical speed fluctuations of flutter, and particularly scrape-flutter, create subtle ‘side-bands’ (see ‘Technical Terms’ box) and noise modulation around the recorded audio. These add a perceptible low-level ‘grunge’ to the sound, and while better-designed and maintained tape machines suffered lower levels of this grunge, it was always there to some extent. Although technically flutter is a fault, many argue that its side-bands and noise-modulation effects are an intrinsic part of the sound character of all analogue tape recordings, and that we’ve come to accept (and expect) them as part of recorded sound — and as part of what we call analogue warmth.

So, what can you get?

Tape Emulation: Emulating tape is a harder task because of the sheer number of variables, and no-one has nailed every complexity, right down to convincing wow and flutter. However, there are plenty that offer control over things like tape drive, saturation and hysteresis, and they range from the subtle to the obvious, the almost free to the expensive. Two shareware plug-ins worth a try are the VST, PC-only Ferox by Jeroen Breebaart and Ferric by Bootsy. The former offers an impressive array of controls, and can yield a great deal of colour, wheareas the latter is simpler but much more subtle. Both have their uses, depending on the effect you seek. Moving up in price, there’s Massey’s Tape Head (for Pro Tools on the Mac only, also with a free version, Tape Head Medium), the aforementioned Nomad Factory Tube/Tape Warmer and URS Saturation, DUY’s DaD Tape and Digidesign’s Reel Tape. DUY’s offering includes models of four different tape machines, as well as different noise-reduction systems, while Reel Tape offers control over wow and flutter characteristics (not quite like the real thing, but a very useful addition). It might also be worth looking at some of the various tape delay plug-ins, particularly models of classic units such as Universal Audio’s emulation of the Roland RE201 tape echo.

I think the pro guys could fool a few of us if we weren't 100% on top of the game ...

Frank

 

[MylesBAstor]

I would suggest that the pro crowd have a somewhat better handle on the subtleties than the manufacturers of audiophile gear; how about this, from that article:

So, what can you get?

I think the pro guys could fool a few of us if we weren't 100% on top of the game ...

Frank

Instead of trying to emulate tape machines, why don't the idiots just use tape machines? BTW, the main reason digital won out in the studio was so these pro idiots can justify their existence, eg. they can be techno geeks with Pro Tools and ruin everything now. Before, there was only so much they could to ruin recordings.

BTW Frank, have you ever been in a studio? If not, I suggest visiting one. You might be surprised by how bad studio equipment is with a few exceptions. Basically, all their equipment and speakers are built to do is play loud, loud, and loud. It don't matter a damn that your ears are bleeding because the bass is missing and the treble is bumped up to hell. When a good recording comes up from a non-audiophile label nowadays, it's a mistake, not planned.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I like and respect pro-audio opinions when they opine about matters of pro-audio. But when they try to extrapolate to consumer audio, I always remember that pro-audio and consumers have different objectives and requirements.

This article is about pro recording/pro sound. There are artists/producers trying to get an "analogue sound" as well. My point was that analogphiles don't want to hear the professional observation that;

the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems have become an integral part of the quality of the recorded sounds that we all grew up with — and the end result is perceived by many people as being more pleasing than we can easily achieve today with all-digital recording chains.

They're not content to merely prefer it. So any observation of analog that doesn't declare it superior is unpopular and is not only rejected, but will usually result in attacks upon the messenger. Myles rushed in to prove my point. Regarding the different objectives of audiophiles and pros, yes, as long as the audiophile's objective is anything less than the most accurate reproduction of the recording that his budget and space can achieve, his objectives are different from the professional studio monitoring system.

But that doesn't apply to all audiophiles.

Tim

 

[CLEMENS]

There is different objectives.
Pros create sound so that they can sell the records, to many people with many opinion, many perception. Did Audiophiles bought their products ?
Not always they talk about a sound of music, but they talk about a single sound source. They use particular processor for particular track or sound source in recording session.
They try to please everyone or they try to bringing the sound within everyone's reach.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Instead of trying to emulate tape machines, why don't the idiots just use tape machines? BTW, the main reason digital won out in the studio was so these pro idiots can justify their existence, eg. they can be techno geeks with Pro Tools and ruin everything now. Before, there was only so much they could to ruin recordings.

OK, let's look past the fact that digital began taking over pro recording before programs like Pro Tools were invented. Let's look past the fact that they are merely tools, that good and bad recordings are made with them; that you're blaming the hammer for a crooked cabinet. Why are you so angry, Myles?

The article that you clearly haven't read explains why tape machines alone are not the answer, admits that no emulation is a complete solutioin, and explains why you would emulate instead of re-create the analog studios of the past. And the purpose of the whole thing is for this particular pro "idot" to teach other pro "idots" how to make recordings sound more like you want them to sound. He's not th enemy. He's not trying to slay your sacred cow, Myles, he's trying to resurrect it. But to do that, he had to take a realistic look into what creates that analog sound, into what really differentiates SOTA digital from the best analog recordings (and in some cases not the best, when he was talking about grunge build-up in multi-tracked recordings from the late 70s/80s).

He lifted your sacred cow's tail and saw that it was a bull. I know that probably disturbs your vision of the audio pecking order, but had he not done it, his digital emulations may have had some of the characteristics of great analog, but they would have lacked the balls.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is different objectives.
Pros create sound so that they can sell the records, to many people with many opinion, many perception. Did Audiophiles bought their products ?
Not always they talk about a sound of music, but they talk about a single sound source. They use particular processor for particular track or sound source in recording session.
They try to please everyone or they try to bringing the sound within everyone's reach.

You're confusing business objectives with the objectives of playback and monitoring systems. You're confusing manipulating the truth with knowing it.
Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frank,
The usual misleading association - associating warmth with audiophile sound ...
Then everything seems so logic!

Unhappily it is more complicated than that. Otherwise it would be very simple to get an excellent digital recording and process it to get exactly the equivalent to the best analog. Why is it not been done until now? I (and thousands more) would buy the recipe immediately.

PS -- Micro, he's not associating warmth with audiophile sound because he's neither talking about or to audiophiles. This article is about analogue recording and it speaks to recording engineers. Read it. He provides a whole lot of reasons why the analog studios of the 70s/80s sounded "warmer" (a subjective term, to be sure), and it is not a criticism.

Tim

 

[Soundproof]

Must tip my hat to Phelonius' limitless patience here. Sound on Sound has an article that should be right down any serious audiophiles' alley, and an editor from Positive Feedback attacks it vehemently. A most curious world this is.

 

[microstrip]

PS -- Micro, he's not associating warmth with audiophile sound because he's neither talking about or to audiophiles. This article is about analogue recording and it speaks to recording engineers. Read it. He provides a whole lot of reasons why the analog studios of the 70s/80s sounded "warmer" (a subjective term, to be sure), and it is not a criticism.

Tim

He is not talking to audiophiles, but audiophiles can read it ... And I read it all before posting and meant exactly what I posted. Perhaps we do not agree on what is audiophile sound, but it is life.

When the author identifies warmth as the reason why predigital seems sometimes preferred when we talk about analogue warmth, we’re usually referring to the character that the analogue processing/recording equipment and the recording medium add to the sound., he is ignoring all the characteristics the members who have sown preference for RtoR have enhanced in other threads - like real dynamics, power , presence .

 

[MylesBAstor]

OK, let's look past the fact that digital began taking over pro recording before programs like Pro Tools were invented. Let's look past the fact that they are merely tools, that good and bad recordings are made with them; that you're blaming the hammer for a crooked cabinet. Why are you so angry, Myles?

Hint. Hint. Perhaps because we've lost a decade or more of recordings done with digital, the sound of which is so atrocious as to be unlistenable? Now all of a sudden, after killing analog, they're hearing what most audiophiles have screamed about since 1980.

You're also twisting what I said. I was referring to today; the reason engineers initially liked digital is that it made editing far easier. Also, the digital machines were more portable and probably after a time, more reliable. No more splicing tape and trying to match time codes.

The article that you clearly haven't read explains why tape machines alone are not the answer, admits that no emulation is a complete solutioin, and explains why you would emulate instead of re-create the analog studios of the past. And the purpose of the whole thing is for this particular pro "idot" to teach other pro "idots" how to make recordings sound more like you want them to sound. He's not th enemy. He's not trying to slay your sacred cow, Myles, he's trying to resurrect it. But to do that, he had to take a realistic look into what creates that analog sound, into what really differentiates SOTA digital from the best analog recordings (and in some cases not the best, when he was talking about grunge build-up in multi-tracked recordings from the late 70s/80s).

He lifted your sacred cow's tail and saw that it was a bull. I know that probably disturbs your vision of the audio pecking order, but had he not done it, his digital emulations may have had some of the characteristics of great analog, but they would have lacked the balls.

Tim

Realism belongs in the eyes of the producer/engineer and to a lesser extent the musicians. The best try to produce a disc or LP whose sound most closely matches what they heard live. All recordings have defects and one tries to clean that up post-production.

As far as the multi-track recordings, who cares? They are not representative of what anyone is talking about when referring to great recordings in general.

And pray tell me Tim how you've become The Great Karnak and can read my thoughts?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Must tip my hat to Phelonius' limitless patience here. Sound on Sound has an article that should be right down any serious audiophiles' alley, and an editor from Positive Feedback attacks it vehemently. A most curious world this is.

Excuse me but I'm entitled under this country's first amendment to speak my mind. Sorry if you disagree but facts are facts. So now to cure bad digital sound, we have to resort to trickery. Why? I thought digital was a mirror copy and every generation is a perfect copy (if you believe this, I have as we say in NYC, a bridge for sale).

As I said to Tim, Sony and a magazines like Stereo Review jumped on board the digital bandwagon and destroyed analog. Now that analog isn't any threat, the majors now admit that digital was flawed from the get go. Moreso, the music labels from the top down don't give a rat's ass about sound any more. It's all about how almighty dollar and how much it costs to make the recording as well as how much profit they can make mass marketing music to the masses.It's this type of thinking that has spawned the worst of the worst: Autotune. Talent be damned and now you know why Taylor Swift can't sing her way out of a paper bag live. I still remember Stevie Nicks staring at her onstage at the Grammys and wondering in amazement at how badly Swift was singing.

It's just like the rest of society where quantity trumps quality. Why should I buy an IWC when my little digital watch for $50 keeps as good time?

 

[fas42]

It's just like the rest of society where quantity trumps quality. Why should I buy an IWC when my little digital watch for $50 keeps as good time?

Unfortunately, Myles, I would suggest you've just kneecapped your whole argument right there. A lesser analogue watch than the IWC often won't keep as good time as the cheap digital, when accuracy is the key reason for having a watch in the first place. Once you have the fundamentals correct -- timekeeping is done right -- then you can add the extra functionality, ornamentation and exclusivity as required, as the market requests.

So is it for digital recording, and sound ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

(...) any serious audiophiles' alley (...)

Sorry, this species extinguished sometime ago. Audiophiles can not be serious since they listen for pleasure ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I still remember Stevie Nicks staring at her onstage at the Grammys and wondering in amazement at how badly Swift was singing.

Now, I don't care who you are, that's funny right there. Stevie Nicks amazed at how badly someone else was singing...

Tim