What is this phenomenon in music recordings

[redrol]

Ooook. Im out, enjoy being hyperbolic.

 

[castleofargh]

I don't have proof, but just looking at some docs magnetic tape has around 65,000,000 magnetic particles per second of recording a quarter inch format at 15 inches per second. Digital is 10x lower in terms of bits per second. It's certainly not a 1:1 thing but, its higher resolution.
Quarter inch, two track ATR Master Tape running at 15 inches per second has approx 80,000,000 particles per second.

We know the typical order of magnitude for the noise from a given tape system, and it sure isn't 10 times better than 20 something bits achieved by most ADCs(limited not by digital encoding but by thermal noise). Even with noise reduction techs (all the Dolby ones, from basic to stuff for rich people) would ideally get us up to around a 16bit equivalent AFAIK. And that was achieved with EQ, compression, decompression, more or less complicated filters to basically try and make all the signals at all frequencies loud, so they'll stay as far as possible from the noise floor the tape would inevitably cause.
Your initial statement

Analog tape is higher resolution than digital

looks to be very much false.

When the outcome is so dramatically unrelated with the variables you presented, I think the obvious conclusion is that your rational has been missing key elements.

 

[redrol]

I didn't even mention noise or signal to noise. *shrug* Considering most audio has an actual snr around what.. 70db? Analog and Digital are similar in terms of the end result. Are we just going to ignore that analog recording has no quantization?

 

[gregorio]

Im out, enjoy being hyperbolic.

Is this another audiophile mangled translation? Hyperbolic = Factual.

I didn't even mention noise or signal to noise.

Exactly, a big mistake as that is one of the main reasons why digital was invented and why analogue is inferior.

Considering most audio has an actual snr around what.. 70db?

Most commercial music recordings have SNR around 50dB or less, extremely few have greater than 60dB but then the problem is, how can that be achieved with analogue in a typical music production?

Analog and Digital are similar in terms of the end result.

They can be similar under certain circumstances but not the same.

Are we just going to ignore that analog recording has no quantization?

As quantisation noise is down at around -120dB with 16 bit and -144dB with 24bit then yes, we can obviously ignore it because it’s completely inaudible. However, we can’t ignore analogue tape saturation, tape noise, generational loss, wow/flutter, HF loss and timing error with analogue tape because they are roughly 100 to as much as 10,000 times greater than quantisation noise and not inaudible.

G

 

[castleofargh]

I didn't even mention noise or signal to noise. *shrug* Considering most audio has an actual snr around what.. 70db? Analog and Digital are similar in terms of the end result. Are we just going to ignore that analog recording has no quantization?

Well, you didn't, but you also didn't refer to anything concrete, so I'm picking something for you to try and actually look at resolution and get somewhere. You correlate magnetic particles and... data rate, in an imagined perfect model that is at best a non-applicable concept of superior resolution. Not the same thing as effectively reaching superior resolution.

I'm saying that if your reason to believe analog tape has better resolution than digital is that unrealistic apples to oranges rational between powder and data rate, then now is a good time to change your mind.

 

[gregorio]

Even with noise reduction techs (all the Dolby ones, from basic to stuff for rich people) would ideally get us up to around a 16bit equivalent AFAIK.

Ideally, with the best Dolby pro tech from the mid ‘80’s, Dolby Pro-HX and Dolby SR, about 90dB was attainable in theory from the best multitrack recorders and tape formulations. In reality, a little less, so about 14-15bit equivalent but in practice, a whole lot less due to tape wear and the multiple generation losses which were unavoidable. Bounce downs during recording due to track limitations, a bounce down for a working copy, bounce downs for overdubs and submixes during mixing, then bouncing down the final mix, then bouncing down the master, then the actual LP cutting/tape duplication. Achieving a 60dB SNR by the end of all these processes was virtually impossible, even with the very best analogue tech, around 50dB or so was more likely. With digital recording it was easy though, even with round tripping for analogue mixing and mastering. Plus, distortion/losses due to tape wear, timing/sync issues, etc., were effectively non-existent with digital compared with analogue tape.

It’s all very well looking at the theoretical numbers, which still put digital well ahead of analogue but if we look at how the technology is required to perform in practice, to actually produce music recordings, then the gap widens significantly further!

G

 

[redrol]

Well, you didn't, but you also didn't refer to anything concrete, so I'm picking something for you to try and actually look at resolution and get somewhere. You correlate magnetic particles and... data rate, in an imagined perfect model that is at best a non-applicable concept of superior resolution. Not the same thing as effectively reaching superior resolution.

I'm saying that if your reason to believe analog tape has better resolution than digital is that unrealistic apples to oranges rational between powder and data rate, then now is a good time to change your mind.

It makes no difference because I can't source anything analog anymore.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

It makes no difference because I can't source anything analog anymore.

But for the sake of the conversation at hand it makes a huge difference!

 

[gregorio]

It makes no difference because I can't source anything analog anymore.

There are still a few commercial studios using an entirely analogue chain. A couple or so in Nashville (recording country music) for example, a few others around the world and some of the big commercial studios can still provide analogue recorders/chains on request. It’s not easy though, the last analogue multitrack recorder was discontinued years ago, so maintenance is a problem and I think there’s only one or two places in the world that still make multitrack tape.

G

 

[71 dB]

Yes approximating the analog signal isn't as good as the real thing, analog to analog. Note, im not saying it has higher fidelity since there are other metrics in play here.

But here you reveal that you don't understand digital audio at all! Digital audio doesn't approximate signals! The sampling theorem says you can perfectly capture signals if you take samples at least 2 times higher frequency than the highest frequency in the signal. That's the beauty of digital: Once you are over critical values set by human hearing* you are good (audibly perfect).

* Humans hear up to 20 kHz at best meaning 40 kHz + about 10 % extra to cover the anti-alias and reconstruction filter issues is sufficient. That's 44.1 kHz for You.

 

[bigshot]

Response measurements of 24 track analog recorders... Not quite CD quality.
https://www.endino.com/graphs/

In LA the big sound houses maintain one of these monsters to use to transfer old masters to digital. They don't generally record with them any more.

 

[redrol]

As I said basically.. its a mute issue. You can't find anything mastered in analog anymore nor master tapes nor tapes of any kind. What I said is still accurate in terms of overall resolution of the analog signal as it hits the recording tape. In the future people like me will likely take analog to a much higher degree and in the end, analog is superior to digital IF we can harness the electrons to do what we want. Don't take this as an argument. It's more a challenge.
If anyone feels like it google up new tech in using analog to record. VHS high def is one example although its a hacky thing that analog folks are doing.

 

[Davesrose]

As I said basically.. its a mute issue. You can't find anything mastered in analog anymore nor master tapes nor tapes of any kind. What I said is still accurate in terms of overall resolution of the analog signal as it hits the recording tape. In the future people like me will likely take analog to a much higher degree and in the end, analog is superior to digital IF we can harness the electrons to do what we want. Don't take this as an argument. It's more a challenge.
If anyone feels like it google up new tech in using analog to record. VHS high def is one example although its a hacky thing that analog folks are doing.

Yet as bigshot's link shows, the best analog studio tape does not meet the specs of an early ADC (let alone modern one). Funny you mention VHS. My profession does deal with photography and 3D animation. It's been years since I've had a VHS player plugged into my TV: it's just terrible for any digital TV (be it HD or now 4K capable of HDR). There was an esoteric VHS format that had HD resolutions, but it only had a handful of movie titles (D-VHS). You think number of particles in an analog medium is somehow equivalent to a digital medium. 35mm film was great for 20th century technology, and we're now scanning and archiving it at the best resolving power it can reach (4k). Current digital cameras exceed the standards of film cameras. Even if shot in 4K, digital exceeds the specs for dynamic range and sensitivity in low light (color film had a reduction with dynamic range as there were three layers of emulsions).

 

[bigshot]

People who look forward to an analog renaissance remind me of folks who say the South will rise again. It's both wrong headed and unlikely to come to pass.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

People who look forward to an analog renaissance remind me of folks who say the South will rise again. It's both wrong headed and unlikely to come to pass.

Myself, I am really waiting on wax phonograph cylinders to make a strong come back again. You know with the analog potential of this tech being so immense and all. It certainly could give digital a run for it's money including the early wireless diaphragm and flaring horn technology which could outperform today's pesky power hungry
wired speakers.