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
|