Yes Bob,
No doubt about it, analog and digital audio are different beasts. Each
can be calibrated such that they are virtually neutral when cross
copying material between them. It's also fair to say that there are
identifiable differences between the two disciplines. These can be
manipulated intentionally, as you have done. Analog tape can function as
an extremely versatile audio processor, particularly as a high frequency
compressor and inter modulation and harmonic distortion generator.
Today, these effects are emulated digitally in software. Is it the same
as real tape compression? I want to say "not quite", but I'm pretty sure
that I could not pick out the differences in a double blind test.
Today's AM Broadcast transmitters are simply high powered D to A converters.
However, as you note, digital can't give you the sight, smell, feel and
warm glow of a vintage AM transmitter.
That's simply magic.
73, Mike, NM7X
On 8/14/2012 9:48 AM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
> I recall some years ago when I was working as a "recording engineer"
> for a major US record label, the producer wanted "that analog sound".
> We proceeded with the original recording on a digital multitrack
> recorder. Then we transferred the tracks to a well aligned analog
> multitrack machine and then transferred the analog tracks back to the
> digital machine for final mixing. Thus we attained "that analog
> sound". That way the publicity department could say "recorded in full
> digital format", which I guess is somewhat correct.
>
> Today's DSP technology really does a nice job of not being apparent as
> compared to the early digital grating or harsh "digital" sound. That
> has to do with faster sampling rates, more data bits per word and
> faster processing times. It just keeps getting better and better as
> technology moves ahead today.
>
> Of course there's "some of us" that still enjoy seeing and feeling the
> warm glow of tubes and the sound of a well modulated and clean AM
> signal. Yet as I sit and look at the current copy of RADIOWORLD, is
> see advertisements for all sorts of digital processing system for
> broadcast. Even the AM and FM transmitters today are digital
> modulated beasts.
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Gorniak"
> <radionorthstar@gmail.com>
> To: "Ten Tec Contesting" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Older rigs
>
>
>> The quality of the design and execution thereof are far more important
>> than whether a particular RF or audio system is "analog" or "digital".
>> I've participated in a number of professional listening projects over
>> the years. I've always been amused when people who profess to prefer
>> analog audio wind up favoring the digital systems in double blind tests.
>>
>> 73, Mike, NM7X
>>
>> On 8/12/2012 2:46 PM, Al Gulseth wrote:
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> Point (2) is well taken. Back in the days of "vinyl" when I worked
>>> in small
>>> market radio I could hear when a stylus was getting "edgy" (chipped
>>> or worn);
>>> it had the same effect on me as a chalkboard screech. Thus I
>>> question how
>>> much real advantage there is in most normal situations (especially
>>> since I'm
>>> not a contester or serious DXer) of digital manipulation and its
>>> associated
>>> artifacts versus the (at least to me) much easier to listen to audio
>>> of a
>>> purely analog chain.
>>>
>>> But then again, some folks might not even notice the difference (or
>>> at least
>>> it might not bother them like it does me.) Guess this is one of
>>> those "different strokes for different folks" HI HI!!
>>>
>>> 73, Al
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|