About noise and de-noizing... from Eroc

My question to you then, Bob, is what exactly defines "Pro Tools'ed"? Have you done mixes on both a ProTools setup and an analog mixing desk for comparison?

Those versions of Satisfaction I did that you heard were all done in ProTools. Do you feel that they were too pristine/"digital"/etc?

 

Well, don't ignore the rest of the posts! The consensus is NOT clear!

 

Again Luke, what I am detecting on this thread is a groundless bias against digital by some.

 

There are some interesting and well considered points on both sides of the digital argument in this post!

I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to chime in on the technical issues, but if I remember correctly, doesn't Steve Hoffman do all his mastering in analog and only transfers to digital after all EQ, levels, etc. have been adjusted in the analog domain?

This would imply that at least one well-respected mastering engineer prefers analog-based mastering.

 

For three main reasons. He runs things in tube gear, dither alters the sound, and he doesn't like digital EQ. He has never said that digital is bad.

 

Sure. But personal preference doesn't necessarily infer quality. That is, while Steve prefers analog gear, that's not to say digital is necessarily worse. He's used to analog gear, gets great results, and can see no real reason to change.

I mean, I *prefer* to use Macs. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I feel PCs are "worse" - just different. I could use PCs and do most of the same things, but why should I switch now? I like Macs. I'm comfortable with them. You see?

 

Uh-oh, I think you just started another argument!

 

Out of the frying pan...

Ryan

 

Luke,

Obviously, my comments were about the mixes on that CD in particular as my post clearly stated, yes? In the case of those mixes, I am making a judgment based on my evaluation of those mixes as compared to the same tracks on other CD's - nothing more and nothing less. Certainly, I cannot comment on completing any mixes since I have never completed a mix. Have you listened to the mixes on the CD that I referenced?

With regard to your second question, I have yet to play your mix on my system at home. I need to record it on a CD from my computer. I will say that on my computer here your mixes sounded very compelling. The real test would be listening to the mixes while recording them onto Reel tape -most likely, a task that I will undertake when I record tracks on my project for 1965.

Bob

 

Grant,
I have looked at all the posts that address the issue: which produces a superior sound when processing, analog or digital? Those who address that issue, prefer analog. No one else has expressed an opinion on THAT subject.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears. I don't have a bias and I don't have the resources to test for myself so I have to rely on the information provided by others.

 

I agree that there are plenty of ways of screwing up the sound of a well recorded piece of music in the analogue domain. However, none of them produce the kind of strangely uninvolving and unnatural sound I hear when I listen to a piece of music that has been through some heavy digital processing.

To my ears, the effect of digital processing is to make for a listening experience without any of the subtlety and beauty that is possible with an unprocessed recording.

 

From my layman POV, I first identified the "strangely uninvolving and unnatural sound" when listening to George Martin - Producer. There is so much fantastic music on that 6 CD box set that was beautifully recorded at Abbey Road. But the sound is just as you describe. Such a pity. Another Peter Mew effort.

 

Agreed!

Well, I'm experiencing an effect in audio that does not occur in purely analogue recordings. Namely the strangely uninvolving listening experience that I keep refering too (I wish there was a better way to describe it!).

I'm saying that I believe the reason for this is digital processing. But my opinion is based on what I hear, not on math(s ).

 

Yep, that's exactly what I am saying

 

So I guess the next question, as regards this discussion, is why [you have the preference you do]?

 

And I appreciate that very much! Any other way, then it wouldn't be Hoffmaneered!

 

Obviously I can't speak for Ken or Malc, but I was trying to address LukPak's suggestion that it was possible to have a digital EG that would produce an identical result to an analog EQ. I stated that I did not believe it was possible to do that.

Ken suggests that analog processes change the sound and so do digital processes and that Malc was attacking the premise that digital processing was bad and that since the net effect (and purpose) of all of these processes was to alter the sound that there is nothing wrong with digital. According to Ken, all of these processes do what they are supposed to do by altering the sound.

We have all experienced the "life" being sucked out of sound. I am not at all sure what to attribute that to, but Malc posits a theory that, in essence, the Nyquist theory stated that digitally encoding and decoding music would accurately preserve it, but that we destroy the integrity of that music whenever we apply any sort of a digital process to the digital stream.

That is, if we only use digital to store the music and do all of our work in the analog domain with respect to processing (which I have verified at least one highly regarded engineer with the initials "SH" does), we can produce pretty wonderful results. Malc sees the "proper" use of digital as merely a storage mechanism and that no "work" should be done with the digital data.

I know for certain that that life-sucking has been accomplished via the use of some combination of digital processes. I have never experienced that life-sucking by any combination of analog processes. Certainly analog tools can be misused, but I can't remember recordings that suffered from that particular malady where the work was done completely in the analog domain either before or after the proliferation of digital tools.

It is not at all clear to me whether it is some specific digital processes that do this or that they all do. I am trying to formulate an opinion, but realistically, I have far too little information to do so. I have heard some processes like NoNoise used sparingly and heard what I thought was acceptable results, but I didn't have the opportunity to compare that to the un-NoNoised tapes. And, of course, I have heard NoNoise totally misused and recognize the resulting lifeless recording.

Inasmuch as the recordings that I purchase do not identify in any way what technology has been used to produce them and don't know of any source of that information, I don't know how to formulate an opinion. I do find Malc's theory intriguing.

I would love to spend a day at a recording studio listening to the various tools being used discretely and formulate my own opinions about each of them in isolation. Perhaps there are some digital tools that are not life-suckers. If I were able to find digital tools that were not life-suckers I would also like to see how well they play together. Perhaps combinations don't work together and are lifesuckers even if they can be used individually without being lifesuckers.

Regardless, I think that is takes a long time to really formulate a meaningful opinion and even if I were granted my wish I would only be formulating snap judgements.

I know at this point that what Steve has described as being real-time analog processing (I hope I'm not paraphrasing poorly) produces a highly desirable result for certain. I believe that it might be the case that we can produce a highly desirable result if we were to very carefully use a small subset of the digital toolset available.

In the meantime we have Malc's wonderfully cogent theory and at least one engineer who seems to live by it.

If you've made it this far I hope you have gotten something out of my rambling because I certainly don't express a clear opinion (if you think I do please let me know what my opinion is because I am most unclear).

Best Regards,
Emery

 

The only way to form an opinion is to use the stuff.

 

That's a shame. I would think your schedule would be packed.