I've heard the difference with digital, but it may have had a lot to do with the "lack of surprise" factor that was mentioned before. Bears' idea of mics out the window is a nice test.
Not all ADC/DAC gear is transparent. I've inserted some in the tape loop of an amp or mixing console and switched it in and out. Not hard to hear. But I suspect the analog sections more than the digital.
Not all ADC/DAC gear is transparent. I've inserted some in the tape loop of an amp or mixing console and switched it in and out. Not hard to hear. But I suspect the analog sections more than the digital.
Thanks John and Pano. I certainly haven't tried everything out there, so I'm not surprised that there's inferior product. But the reasonably inexpensive stuff I use (Echo and M-Audio) don't seem to have problems with their analog stages when levels are set properly (Pano's bete noir).
Is there a simple piece of recording software that will allow you to monitor the recorded feed "live"? I don't do much recording anymore, so don't know. But if you could do that, listen to a buffer of a few seconds that has gone to HDD (like monitoring the tape head) then it might be easy to do Bears' test.
I'll look at my software. EDIT: My recording software does not offer this.
I'll look at my software. EDIT: My recording software does not offer this.
I mostly use Goldwave or Audacity. Maybe they do it, but I can't figure out how. Think I've got Reaper, will look. Yes - I do have it.
Any multitrack recording software should be able to do that. It is a somewhat essential feature, although most will intercept the signal straight after the AD conversion before it goes to the hard disk to keep latency to a minimum.
Cool! The big problem is going to be isolation. You do not want to hear any of the direct sound because that adds to the "feel" of the live stuff - obviously. If the live music is loud, this can be hard to do.
Easier with acoustic guitar and voice! But any leakage is common to both feeds if your latency is low or you cheat like I did and use a switch.
You need to perform this test in a separate room, isolated from the live source which is being capture by the mic / mics.
The reason why the quality or accuracy of the mic, mic pre, mixing board or anything else in the audio chain before the signal reaches the monitors is, (and I ask the original poster to please correct me if I'm wrong) we're talking about the changes that happen in the recording or encoding process
Most people who have been in an isolated control room in a studio recording a live performance through monitors or headphones have had the opportunity to compare the 'direct monitored' audio to the recorded audio (as long as they're monitoring directly, rather than post-tape or post-soundcard monitoring, witch a lot of people do. (In that case, what you're hearing has already been encoded (recorded) even if it's only 2ms deleyed.
In the early 90's I switched from analog, to digital (original 16bit / 44kHz ADAT recorders) and that's when I started getting tricked by the recording all the time)... Sometimes, when recording a vocalist he or she will ask you a question (Ex. "turn up my headphones a bit please?" or "Can I listen to that last take?")... 5 minutes later, while recording a backup part by the same vocalist on another track, you'll hear "turn up my headphones a bit please?" and swear that they've just asked you to turn it up again, but in reality it's the old recording playing back. This rarely happened with analog because the noise floor was much higher, you'd hear the diference as soon as playback begins or ends. As much as I preferred the sound of analog (especially compared to the earlier digital formats), it coloured the sound.
Very interesting post, btw
The reason why the quality or accuracy of the mic, mic pre, mixing board or anything else in the audio chain before the signal reaches the monitors is, (and I ask the original poster to please correct me if I'm wrong) we're talking about the changes that happen in the recording or encoding process
Most people who have been in an isolated control room in a studio recording a live performance through monitors or headphones have had the opportunity to compare the 'direct monitored' audio to the recorded audio (as long as they're monitoring directly, rather than post-tape or post-soundcard monitoring, witch a lot of people do. (In that case, what you're hearing has already been encoded (recorded) even if it's only 2ms deleyed.
In the early 90's I switched from analog, to digital (original 16bit / 44kHz ADAT recorders) and that's when I started getting tricked by the recording all the time)... Sometimes, when recording a vocalist he or she will ask you a question (Ex. "turn up my headphones a bit please?" or "Can I listen to that last take?")... 5 minutes later, while recording a backup part by the same vocalist on another track, you'll hear "turn up my headphones a bit please?" and swear that they've just asked you to turn it up again, but in reality it's the old recording playing back. This rarely happened with analog because the noise floor was much higher, you'd hear the diference as soon as playback begins or ends. As much as I preferred the sound of analog (especially compared to the earlier digital formats), it coloured the sound.
Very interesting post, btw
I believe Direct Monitoring does exactly what you need in order to easily perform this test. It loops the audio in, directly to the audio out before it's digitized. Your software, be it Cubase, Protools, or whatever allows you to toggle between the two monitoring states, with minimum latency.
Last edited:
Darp's observations are more akin to what I was talking about... not a quick A/B, like some seem to be suggesting.
Rather, a casual long term listening experience is what I am thinking of.
So, you don't need a time machine at all.
You can play back something that came before, especially if it not quite "determinant" like a take of a specific 'song' or 'instrumental' where you are apt to quickly recall it based on simple contextual clues. That's why the "mics out the window" or a similar approach is so good! Hard to really recall a random hour of that, IF you are listening to it often or all the time...
Btw, it is quite an interesting experience to have that piped in to you room on a regular basis. But now I am giving away "secrets"! 😀
_-_-bear
Rather, a casual long term listening experience is what I am thinking of.
So, you don't need a time machine at all.
You can play back something that came before, especially if it not quite "determinant" like a take of a specific 'song' or 'instrumental' where you are apt to quickly recall it based on simple contextual clues. That's why the "mics out the window" or a similar approach is so good! Hard to really recall a random hour of that, IF you are listening to it often or all the time...
Btw, it is quite an interesting experience to have that piped in to you room on a regular basis. But now I am giving away "secrets"! 😀
_-_-bear
No secrets here. Like audiophile cables "break-in", the same way audio-engineer gets used to all control room distortions and learns to filter out them. Like, when you drive a car you feel the road, even though your body does not have wheels.
And yet, he came to the same conclusion: the recording process- assuming a reasonable digital system- had no audible effect.
Sure... nothing has an audible effect SY.
All amplifiers below a certain threshold of "distortion" sound the same.
Etc...
Perhaps you are correct about the higher bitrate digital stuff right now.
But that's not a productive attitude or approach imo.
_-_-bear
All amplifiers below a certain threshold of "distortion" sound the same.
Etc...
Perhaps you are correct about the higher bitrate digital stuff right now.
But that's not a productive attitude or approach imo.
_-_-bear
I'm skeptical of claims of jitter audibility several orders of magnitude below the published listening tests
but a diference between soundcard adc/dac and recording/playback is that the soundcard (or studio setup) can use the same clock for both
this attenuates jitter spectrum frequencies lower than the latency
adc digital out to external dac with "the usual" pll would be the better aproximation to typical record/playback
but a diference between soundcard adc/dac and recording/playback is that the soundcard (or studio setup) can use the same clock for both
this attenuates jitter spectrum frequencies lower than the latency
adc digital out to external dac with "the usual" pll would be the better aproximation to typical record/playback
Good point jcx but is this the scenario Bear is referring to in his original post?
So far Darp & SY seem to fall on the side of no noticeable sonic difference between live mic feed & recorded feed = while Bear is of the opposite opinion. Surely there must be more on this forume who have experience of this?
So far Darp & SY seem to fall on the side of no noticeable sonic difference between live mic feed & recorded feed = while Bear is of the opposite opinion. Surely there must be more on this forume who have experience of this?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.