Hmm seems White is another one, after Neil Young. Here is a portion of a recent Jack White interview with comedian Marc Maron's WTF Podcast.
http://youtu.be/zP3ye4AO2_Q (http://youtu.be/zP3ye4AO2_Q)
Maron: "It seems you have a respect for the old, crackly stuff."
But you know it's not that! It just sounds so much better!
The liner notes of
Elephant read:
No computers were used during the writing, recording, mixing or mastering of this record
Belief systems are very powerful and don't require any proof at all, scientific or otherwise.
The liner notes of Elephant read:
No computers were used during the writing, recording, mixing or mastering of this record
I wonder if the CD version continues, "not that you'll ever know because
you bought the CD."
I believe that anything more complicated than a wax cylinder just isn't authentic enough. If you want to get that "real" sound of the 1890's, you simply must use wax cylinders, but you must only record on a hand cranked lathe! This is very important. Newfangled electric motors take away all of the humanity in an audio recording. Only a human arm cranking your wax cylinder around will add the depth and feeling your recording requires. I'm glad I could help with this! Sorry, I have to go now and milk a cow and fill all of my lanterns with kerosene.
Everyone has their own, personal preference.
Which is totally irrelevant, given that Hydrogenaudio is about objectively verifiable phenomena, not unsubstantiated and possibly wholly placebo-based “personal preference”.
Hmm seems White is another one, after Neil Young.
Personally, I expect this to be the norm amongst artists, so I'm not surprised. Quite frankly I'm more interested in what Jack Black has to say.
The whole interview is interesting though. If you're a fan of comedy you might have heard about this podcast, it's easily the most popular one about comedy. Maron is a great interviewer when it comes to comedy, but I wasn't expecting him to challenge White on science.
... I have to go now and milk a cow and fill all of my lanterns with kerosene.
You have a cow that gives kerosene?
You have a cow that gives kerosene?
Should've used a comma. Reminds me of the story of the Panda that eats, shoots, and leaves.
Quite frankly I'm more interested in what Jack Black has to say.
+1
At the same time though, Jack White IS going for the old-school crackly style recording. You guys have listened to The White Stripes, right? Silly analogy of course - and if he tried - he could get a great sound via digital recording. But Elephant and White Blood Cells get a lot of play time for me because they sound good on everything; with the heavy distortion and analog master and so on - its still enjoyable to listen to on my crappiest pair of speakers - whereas more complex stuff never gets playtime on those because it just sounds like shit. Of course, I do prefer to listen to the White Stripes on my good speakers.
I don't think he really means to say that analog sounds better than digital and that everyone should use it (even though he does), but for his specific style, analog recording is a great thing. If his mixes were overly clean, he'd lose his signature sound, and I imagine his experience with digital recording has just reflected that fact. Although its perfectly possible to get the his sound via digital recording - that's not typically what one would be going for. So he probably just never worked at a digital recording studio where the person in charge of the mix understood the sound he wants - but was able to get it using analog recording - and thus assumes that digital can't do it.
Sorry, I have to go now and milk a cow and fill all of my lanterns with kerosene.
Don't have a cow dude.
Obviously, the "pencil never leaves the paper" is a terrible analogy again. This is another guy not understanding how digital audio works. But, I have to agree with Bradapalooza, we also have to be careful here at HA not to jump on every musician saying that analog sounds "better". It might very well sound better to them than a digital recording, they only do not understand the reason why it does sound better. They do not understand that it is the distortion, saturation, flutter, etc. they like about it, rather than "digital has only 0's and 1's so you are missing information"-kind of arguments.
I can relate to his thinking, even if I don't agree. Here's the problem. For musicians in the late 80's / early-mid 90's - digital gear for musicians was really poor quality, especially at price points that "struggling" musicians could afford. Manufacturers embraced digital technology a little too early, often as a cost savings measure (or for convenience at the expense of sound quality). Analog subtractive synthesizers start incorporating digital envelopes and LFOs which were very coarse grained with low update rates (and often smoothed by an RC which slowed down times). At the minimum setting, the envelope attack time for a Moog is about 2ms, but an Oberheim Matrix 6 is maybe around 20-30ms (from memory) - slow enough to lose the 'punch'. Early digital delays were similarly terrible, with a cheap ADC and DAC, low sampling rates, and "zipper" artifacts when adjusting settings. Digital "budget" recording in the 90's often used lossy codecs (e.g. ATRAC on sony minidisc equipment) or low bit-depths and sampling rates.
Obviously, these issues are a thing of the past, having been corrected mostly due to CPU/DSP speed increases. However, it caused many musicians to question the sound quality of digital equipment, and has created a pervasive bias against digital equipment in favor of older analog equipment that persists to this day.
I think some of you are unrealistically underestimating the quality of studio-grade analog recording. Specifically to what was actually said in the interview, the analog tracks were digitized in order to practice "moves" on them so not to degrade the tape through repeated playback. White then attributed special qualities to the playback of the analog source over the digital copy of the analog source. As such I don't see any daylight for excusing what is expectation bias.
For musicians in the late 80's / early-mid 90's - digital gear for musicians was really poor quality, especially at price points that "struggling" musicians could afford.
It was still vastly better than the typical "8 tracks on a cassette" or on 1/4-inch tape PortaStudio many people were using.
--Ethan
I still see a lot of Alesis products in use despite how bad they supposedly sound because they were widely affordable.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0571211658/ref=cm_rdp_product) is probably the book he's referring to. Anyone read it? Reading some of the negative reviews it seems a bit sketchy.
The quote is actually regarding a pen (http://books.google.com/books?id=U-1HpoR0y2oC&pg=PT195&dq=perfecting+sound+forever+%22greg+milner%22+pen+would+never+leaves+the+paper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JAjyT6b9E8Wz6wGKo-SdBg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), not a pencil.
It might very well sound better to them than a digital recording, they only do not understand the reason why it does sound better. They do not understand that it is the distortion, saturation, flutter, etc. they like about it, rather than "digital has only 0's and 1's so you are missing information"-kind of arguments.
Another point is that analogue tape imposes an entirely different workflow and way of thinking about and interacting with audio, much like developing pictures in a darkroom is a fundamentally different experience from working in Photoshop, or doing an oil painting on canvas is not the same as trying to simulate one in Illustrator.
I don't think enough thought is given to how a technology can alter the creative process, and thus artistic output itself. It doesn't matter if a technology can in theory be made to mimic an older one; it's still a different beast, and that difference will eventually show in the results.
That sounds reasonable, but no more reasonable than the likelihood that people hear differences when they expect to hear differences, even when such differences don't actually exist.
Again(!) the anecdote given by White in that interview should suspect of being tainted by expectation bias long before it is given any credibility as being real and merely being a matter of personal preference.
Tape saturation effects are still very popular for DAWs so it might just be that White heard something that suited his tastes when listening back to what was bounced to tape. It could likely be distilled down to a function of saturation and subtle EQ.
That sounds reasonable, but no more reasonable than the likelihood that people hear differences when they expect to hear differences, even when such differences don't actually exist.
That the workflow enabled (or prevented) by the technology effects the "creative process" seems pretty obvious. Heck, I wrote an essay on it when I was 15! Just like certain tunes and chord progressions are more likely than others to "come to you" if you play a guitar vs keyboard vs whatever.
Certain sounds and instrumentations are more likely to end up on your recordings if you have 24 tracks to play with than if you have 4 or 2 or 1. The ability to overdub obviously changes the possibilities.
The quality of overbudding obviously changes the sound of the result (e.g. Les Paul single overdubs, Phil Spector many overdubs but hopelessly muddy, Roy Wood many overdubs but less muddy, modern practice as many perfect tracks+overdubs as you want).
Your actual performance will be different if you're playing to a live audience vs cutting live to wax (full re-takes now possible) vs if you're recording to tape (edits now possible) vs if you're recording to digital (edits now trivial).
The final result is certainly different. There are "wrong notes" on old recordings because it wasn't practical to fix them. There are no "wrong notes" on modern digital multi-track recordings (unless they were intentionally left in, or no one noticed them).
I guess this is all hearsay though. It would be interesting to test. You could record twice (at least) with the same musicians. In one session, use protools, allowing as many takes+edits as they want. In the other, allow them one take. Obvious practical problems with this comparison though e.g. use different music = difficult comparison; use same music = very well practised after 20 takes vs 1!
What would Sgt Pepper have sounded like if they had 100 tracks + powerful DSP available? I can't imagine anyone honestly believes it would be the same album.
Cheers,
David.
I guess this is all hearsay though. It would be interesting to test. You could record twice (at least) with the same musicians. In one session, use protools, allowing as many takes+edits as they want. In the other, allow them one take. Obvious practical problems with this comparison though e.g. use different music = difficult comparison; use same music = very well practised after 20 takes vs 1!
THere are plenty of examples where the same song by the same musicians is available in multiple versions where you can compare polished/edited studio sessions vs one-take (concert recordings).
That sounds reasonable, but no more reasonable than the likelihood that people hear differences when they expect to hear differences, even when such differences don't actually exist.
That the workflow enabled (or prevented) by the technology effects the "creative process" seems pretty obvious. Heck, I wrote an essay on it when I was 15! Just like certain tunes and chord progressions are more likely than others to "come to you" if you play a guitar vs keyboard vs whatever.
I hope we've moved on from White's anecdote, though it makes me wonder why you quoted
me. White specifically said the original analog recording sounded different from the digitization of that same recoding as soon as it was played back; not after the edits were performed.
Go back and listen to the interview again, I did. It might also help us determine whether the correct writing implement made its way into the title of they thread.
Tape saturation effects are still very popular for DAWs so it might just be that White heard something that suited his tastes when listening back to what was bounced to tape. It could likely be distilled down to a function of saturation and subtle EQ.
No, he talked about the comparison between the tape and the tape bounced to protools.
NB: I'm not discounting that analog tape behaves differently when overdriven. There is no reason that the sound produced by overdriven analog tape can't be captured digitally, however, provided enough care were exercised to make sure the ADC wasn't overdriven, which should be easy enough, one would think.
I hope we've moved on from White's anecdote
yes
though it makes me wonder why you quoted me
because you replied to the quote "Another point is that analogue tape imposes an entirely different workflow ... I don't think enough thought is given to how a technology can alter the creative process, and thus artistic output itself." but didn't directly quote it.
White specifically said the original analog recording sounded different from the digitization of that same recoding as soon as it was played back
I didn't think that deserved comment
Cheers,
David.
Go back and listen to the interview again, I did. It might also help us determine whether the correct writing implement made its way into the title of they thread.
I wasn't questioning the use of the word "pencil" in the title of the thread, I questioned the accuracy of Jack White's recollection of the
book he attempted to recite during the interview, "Perfect Sound Forever", which the post above mine addressed and asked, "Anyone read it?".
I haven't read it, however in the passage of the book I linked to, author Greg Milner actually wrote: " If you were to draw a sound wave with a pen the way an analog recorder does with a stylus or recording head, the pen would never leave the paper."
It's not a big deal; I'm just pointing out what the author
actually wrote, should anyone care.
in the passage of the book I linked to, author Greg Milner actually wrote: " If you were to draw a sound wave with a pen the way an analog recorder does with a stylus or recording head, the pen would never leave the paper."
And neither it would in digital – but it
would go out of its way to draw big ol’, nasty ol’ staircases all over the place!
Yuk!
I guess this is all hearsay though. It would be interesting to test. You could record twice (at least) with the same musicians. In one session, use protools, allowing as many takes+edits as they want. In the other, allow them one take. Obvious practical problems with this comparison though e.g. use different music = difficult comparison; use same music = very well practised after 20 takes vs 1!
THere are plenty of examples where the same song by the same musicians is available in multiple versions where you can compare polished/edited studio sessions vs one-take (concert recordings).
I think 28decided made a pretty good point with his post - and this isn't really practical because the concert recording is performed in a very different environment where as his point was more along was with the production of studio music.
I think the point applies very well with Sgt Pepper, for example. There's also numerous examples in hip-hop.
The final result is certainly different. There are "wrong notes" on old recordings because it wasn't practical to fix them. There are no "wrong notes" on modern digital multi-track recordings (unless they were intentionally left in, or no one noticed them). What would Sgt Pepper have sounded like if they had 100 tracks + powerful DSP available? I can't imagine anyone honestly believes it would be the same album.
Interesting that you mention the issue of mistakes or non pristine artifacts David. Have you heard the one about the "print through" issue on Led Zeppelins first (self titled) album, track "Babe I'm gonna Leave you"? The legendary little "
I can hear it calling me" pre-echo at about 1.40.
I'm not sure if it's true or just a rumor, but I've heard it was an unintended "print through" on the tape, but in the end they actually liked it. They didn't re-take it and apparently even liked it so much that they used the same effect (but deliberately) in some future recordings. Funny stuff.
... I haven't read it, however in the passage of the book I linked to, author Greg Milner actually wrote: " If you were to draw a sound wave with a pen the way an analog recorder does with a stylus or recording head, the pen would never leave the paper." ...
I recall seeing a discussion that pointed out how "analog" tape recording bias quantises the recorded audio, but I can't find it here. Maybe it was somewhere else. Does anyone remember seeing it?
Anybody who has ever aligned an analog tape machine and watched the phase wobbles at the tape wanders in the transport, the tiny dropouts from particles lifting the tape from the heads, the wow and flutter, the lumps and bumps in the frequency response and the ever present noise floor will not declare that to be 'best'. Never once have I ever been fooled by an analog recording being real. Please don't tell me to ABX an analog tape. There are too many 'tells' in analog. I _have_ been fooled by a digital recording a few times - was it playback or E-E? You may _prefer_ analog and while I don't, the whole point is to enjoy and if you do, great.
G²
I'd have trouble discerning words and sentences in a text if the pen never left the paper
That sounds reasonable, but no more reasonable than the likelihood that people hear differences when they expect to hear differences, even when such differences don't actually exist.
Again(!) the anecdote given by White in that interview should suspect of being tainted by expectation bias long before it is given any credibility as being real and merely being a matter of personal preference.
I dont believe it. Here the mods are on my side. My mind feels cleaner already.
I'd have trouble discerning words and sentences in a text if the pen never left the paper
Cursive writing is, sadly, becoming a lost art.
Anybody who has ever aligned an analog tape machine and watched the phase wobbles at the tape wanders in the transport ...
Likewise, play the the 1 KHz test tone track off a test LP. Play the same track off a test CD. Now explain how the LP is superior to the CD. The point is that if it can't sound superior when reproducing arguably the simplest possible signal, how can it magically do a better job with "real world" complex signals? All of the imperfections audible in the test tone reproduction are still present in the "real world" music reproduction.
...wow and flutter...
For me personally I'm not especially sensitive to the wow and flutter of my TT (for example.) I'm sensitive to bad digital mastering.
I remember when the CD started taking off in the '80s and thinking "I need a CD player! No more tape hiss or bad vinyl pressings!" What pushed me eventually (and somewhat grudgingly) back to vinyl is the horrible 0 dB clipped/overly compressed masters they're putting to CDs in recent times. It doesn't help that we have these "professionals" perpetuating stupid myths about analogue. Their time and expertise could be applied to making the best of digital but is instead being squandered and stifled by this nostalgic bullshit.
I've no displeasure with the Redbook CD or even good lossy encodes. I just think it's a crying shame that modern "mastering" has many of us looking for "better" versions than on a format that is more than capable of containing music reproduction of more than adequate quality to the human ear.
(But then again chasing vinyl is a crapshoot sometimes too. It's sometimes just lose/lose for me.)
There are plenty of other threads on vinyl. Maybe this one can stay on topic? Maybe we can pick it up where Sanchez and David left off?