Audacity 2.0 Released

[Bruce B]

Har-bal does the same thing.

 

[rbbert]

Har-bal does the same thing.

Do you think their mid-side processing produces an effect similar to that $4k QOL component?

 

[Bruce B]

Do you think their mid-side processing produces an effect similar to that $4k QOL component?

Sure does..... same exact thing...

 

[Andre Marc]

Hey Bruce:

i have been archiving my Dad's 40 year old reels with Roland 96/24 WAV recorder, editing in Audacity. The results, in my opinion
have been stunning. A mix of some pre recorded commercial releases and many FM recordings dating back to 1967.

When A/B'd to the original tape they are virtually impossible to tell apart.

Being able to fix channel imbalances, reverse channels, remove noise, do virtual splices, fades, normalize, amplify, and all manner of
fix ups is quite amazing.

 

[Bruce B]

Hey Bruce:

i have been archiving my Dad's 40 year old reels with Roland 96/24 WAV recorder, editing in Audacity. The results, in my opinion
have been stunning. A mix of some pre recorded commercial releases and many FM recordings dating back to 1967.

When A/B'd to the original tape they are virtually impossible to tell apart.

Being able to fix channel imbalances, reverse channels, remove noise, do virtual splices, fades, normalize, amplify, and all manner of
fix ups is quite amazing.

Now just think what those would sound like being transfered from a modified Studer A80RC going into either a Grimm AD1/Sonoma or a Digital Audio Denmark AX24/Pyramix rig.

You can do all sorts of things in the digital domain. I like to keep everything in the analog domain in regards to EQ/Comp/M-S processing...etc. But you get my drift. Just have fun!

 

[Andre Marc]

I can ONLY imagine!

I agree and would also eq/compress in the analog domain. I actually chose not to EQ these transfers at all, figuring
that the sound of the tape was the sound of the tape, and the idiosyncrocies there of, are part of the charm.

I think tape rules as recording medium, but high rez digital rules as a delivery and playback medium.

Now just think what those would sound like being transfered from a modified Studer A80RC going into either a Grimm AD1/Sonoma or a Digital Audio Denmark AX24/Pyramix rig.

You can do all sorts of things in the digital domain. I like to keep everything in the analog domain in regards to EQ/Comp/M-S processing...etc. But you get my drift. Just have fun!

 

[fas42]

I like to keep everything in the analog domain in regards to EQ/Comp/M-S processing...etc. But you get my drift. Just have fun!

In simple terms, Bruce, why you do prefer this way? Do you feel that that type of digital manipulation in some way negatively "distorts" the signal, or on the other hand that the analogue manipulation adds a touch of positive, warming, analogue "distortion"?

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

In simple terms, Bruce, why you do prefer this way? Do you feel that that type of digital manipulation in some way negatively "distorts" the signal, or on the other hand that the analogue manipulation adds a touch of positive, warming, analogue "distortion"?

Frank

Actually both..... anytime you go from the analog/digital or digital/analog domain there is a degredation. I don't care how good your equipment or software is.

Going through analog equipment can have a "warming" effect, but only if you use that type of analog equipment. I have EQ/Comps that are both on the warm/dark side AND have some in the transparent/clinical side. It's all depends on what flavor you want to inject.

 

[fas42]

Actually both..... anytime you go from the analog/digital or digital/analog domain there is a degredation. I don't care how good your equipment or software is.

Going through analog equipment can have a "warming" effect, but only if you use that type of analog equipment. I have EQ/Comps that are both on the warm/dark side AND have some in the transparent/clinical side. It's all depends on what flavor you want to inject.

So if you're given a digital master, which requires only a digital end product, would you go to the analogue side at any point, for any correction efforts?

With regard to the analogue EQ'ing gear would you regard it as totally transparent? In other words, if you had an analogue track, ran the signal through the gear with all settings at zero, and compared the output to the master in an ABX test how would that go?

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

So if you're given a digital master, which requires only a digital end product, would you go to the analogue side at any point, for any correction efforts?

With regard to the analogue EQ'ing gear would you regard it as totally transparent? In other words, if you had an analogue track, ran the signal through the gear with all settings at zero, and compared the output to the master in an ABX test how would that go?

Frank

With a digital file, you have to weigh the pro's and con's if a D/A to A/D conversion is worse than what the analog processing can do with the file. With top notch converters, you won't be able to detect a difference during an ABX test.

Running through an EQ such as one by GML or EAR, yes, it's totally transparent during bypass mode.

 

[fas42]

With a digital file, you have to weigh the pro's and con's if a D/A to A/D conversion is worse than what the analog processing can do with the file. With top notch converters, you won't be able to detect a difference during an ABX test.

anytime you go from the analog/digital or digital/analog domain there is a degredation. I don't care how good your equipment or software is.

Sorry, Bruce, those two comments seem to contradict each other: which is more "correct"? :b

Running through an EQ such as one by GML or EAR, yes, it's totally transparent during bypass mode.

I wasn't talking about bypass mode, which should mean the signal is routed around the active circuitry: I mean for the signal to pass through ALL the circuitry, with settings such that no actual change occurs to the signal, in the normal sense. Zero effective compression, zero effective EQ, etc ...

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

Sorry, Bruce, those two comments seem to contradict each other: which is more "correct"? :b


I wasn't talking about bypass mode, which should mean the signal is routed around the active circuitry: I mean for the signal to pass through ALL the circuitry, with settings such that no actual change occurs to the signal, in the normal sense. Zero effective compression, zero effective EQ, etc ...

Frank

Yes, everytime you go through any digital conversion, you get degradation. You have to determine if the degradation is worth what you will gain from going through analog processing. If you can keep it in the digital domain, more then better, but there is something that analog can do that digital can't. Look at all the tape emulation plugins. They are close, but nothing near what you can gain by going through the real thing. Same with EQ's and Comp's. You have to determine what compromise is the lesser evil.

Yes, keeping everything flat in the EQ and Comp, yes it's transparent. Not so with EQ's and Comps by Manley, Tube Tech, Sontec....etc...

 

[fas42]

Look at all the tape emulation plugins. They are close, but nothing near what you can gain by going through the real thing. Same with EQ's and Comp's.

So in what way do they "fail"? I can understand tape emulation not being "perfectly" mimiced, because you have physical variability in the tape transport and recording/playback mechanism creating all sorts of subtleties in the sound, but EQ's?

Let's say we have masters in the digital and analogue realm which match in an ABX. Put analogue throught the analogue EQ, digital through the digital EQ to do the identicals mod's, you say there would be a difference. What would that be?

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

The main difference is the analog equipment adds harmonics... the digital emulations don't, unless they were written that way (ie... Crane Song Phoenix).

 

[fas42]

The main difference is the analog equipment adds harmonics... the digital emulations don't, unless they were written that way (ie... Crane Song Phoenix).

So, in a nutshell, the analogue EQ'ing "distorts" the signal in a musically pleasant, appealing way, which can also be achieved in the digital domain if the software is set up to add that extra manipulation ...

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

So, in a nutshell, the analogue EQ'ing "distorts" the signal in a musically pleasant, appealing way, which can also be achieved in the digital domain if the software is set up to add that extra manipulation ...

Frank

Correct

 

[Ron Party]

Bruce, you have all the fun toys!

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, you have all the fun toys!

And the one who dies with the most toys, wins!!

 

[Ron Party]

Ha! I just want access to your hard drives.

 

[NorthStar]

Funny bunch! :b