 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big Hyperflake ...and 289 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614165 Today 10 Topics 127544 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fact: Speakers are, by their very nature, analogue devices. (If you accept analog is imprecise and has an infinite range of detail) Consequence: Any "digital" recording we hear, is in fact, an analogue representation of digital sounds. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
our eardrums are mechanical... but the signal is then turned into electronic impulses, i'm not sure how synapses work, i think they're more chemical than electrical... i think there are some implications in there somewhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
does it really matter when scooby doo has just started? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have always argued that our "senses" are to all intents and purposes digital: We can only "read" (be that see, hear, feel, etc.) to a certain level of accuracy, no matter how subtle our palette, sharp our eyesight, good our hearing. As a result, so long as a digital signal exceeds these resolutions, it is indistinguishible (to humans, without the use of extra, more sensitive equipment) from the analaogue equivalent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When you're stuck in work, and trying desperately to avoid spending cash on ebay, by convincing yourself you can do analogue sounding stuff with softsynths, then yes, it is relevant ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
u r not an empiricist. u r teh gayer! Or maybe I was actually thinking of Descartes. What a cock he was-"Oh shit, when I look at a stick in water, it appears to bend! Ergo, our senses decieve us and we can't trust them!" I r happy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wouldn't call our senses digital i don't think.. ah hell, i dunno, senses are generally to strange and complex for me to think about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
too strange |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm going to only make analogue music from now on and I will change my name to Alan Ogue |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh look, everyone is running to make analogue music!!!! next vsnares album will be analogue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, but the point we're trying to make is that ALL music is analog... i mean digital... wait, no it's analog. right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it just gets modulated, then demodulated then to electrical signals, hence, digital. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so, everything is digital then? that's what i said. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is analogue or digital serilously |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
digital is black and white analogue is various shades of grey |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
analog is a continuous change in measurements... like a sign wave. digital is represented by distinctly different measurements... like either a 1 or a 0. if you look at a digital clock you know the exact hour and minute it is displaying, but in a truly analog clock the hands are always somewhere between the numbers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck, i_x_ten just blew my explaination away. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everything is kind of "digital" if you consider that analog sound is movement in air and therefore made up of discrete components (ie molecules) and not one continuous wave as is commonly believed. It's digital but at an ultra high resoloution. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you seem angry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
errh.. isn't it so that analogue is MORE precise, and not unprecise in the fact that "incalculable" things still remain?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh look, everyone who has been looking at analogue/analogue emulation for years, has now been accused of bandwagon jumping. :D Soundguy: But the movements of those molecules is analogue- they are not moving on some set "grid". :) Drunken Master: Analogue is more precise in the sense it is "higher resolution". It is imprecise in the sense that it is hard to replicate and impossible to get exactly the same each time it is played (a record is different every time you listen). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but also, in digital media (e.g. CDs) there is a frequency limit at 22,000Hz. Even though we cannot hear above 20,000Hz, the frequences above this threshold still make a difference to the sound we hear. These higher frequences can be stored and recreated on an analogue medium. So even if CDs are played thru speakers, these higher frequences still wont be produced. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what the heck does analogue sound like anyway? i always thought the intro to 'cow cud is a twin' was in analogue, then the song started properly in digital. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol, is that the one that starts off sounding as if he's recording the ambient environment in his room, then mixes into the actual track? can't remember the names on 'i care...' very well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
erm yes i think so. it starts off with two seconds of laughing and squarepusher saying 'right?' then goes into the intro |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Anything that is perceived by our senses is analog. When you look at a picture on your computer, you are seeing the analog-rebuilding, so to speak, of a digital code of 0's and 1's that say "this pixel is this color, this pixel is this color" etc and when you put that entire code together you can see the photo. You are not seeing the 0's and 1's, however, you see photons being emitted by your monitor because your video card told it to do so. Same goes for sound. When my Digital Ex-5 synth plays sounds, it is using a series of algorithms (essentially blueprints of 0's and 1's) to create soundwaves that are converted into a series of voltages to be amplified and heard as sound. I don't actually hear the 1's and 0's though, I hear the sound, which thus is analog. On a more Sci-fi note, the same would even apply to food synthesization, granted such a thing is even possible. There would be a series of digital blueprints and basic food ingredients that, when combined, would create a finished product that you can taste. You obviously wouldn't want to taste just the instructions and the basic food ingredients, you'd want to taste chicken noodle soup. The same goes for looking at a digital image. It's worthless to you if all you can see is a grid of 0's and 1's. Perhaps "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is a good way to look at it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you guys are thinking too deep. but at least it's not a flame war! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but its still an analog version of a digital signal, and not a pure analog signal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No offense intended to anyone directly, but every last one of you are fucking stupid and don't know what you are talking about. In fact the only person making much sense was Zephyr Twin but then he had to fucking spoil it all by going into some Star Trek bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was merely trying to illustrate an example, sorry if it offended you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Apology accepted with the humility expected of a god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL. if you do that i buy your first record without listening. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahah, good one. :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shed a lot of light on the subject there then... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everything is kind of "digital" if you consider that analog sound is movement in air and therefore made up of discrete components (ie molecules) and not one continuous wave as is commonly believed. It's digital but at an ultra high resoloution. digital = made of digits, generally 0 & 1. stop saying everything is digital at a higher resolution it doesn't make sense. molecules are not digits. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, because I would probably cause 50% of peoples head explode with my wisdom. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol... how about a rolo then? or maybe a bit of flapjack? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you want to say that everything is digital, well its not digital to base-2 (Binary). You can say that everything is digital if you are using base numbers equal to that of the amount of elements there are, or better yet, configurations of sub atomic particles. But we as humans can't deal with such large numbers... we need to simplify things. So we just say analogue instead, and accept that there are shades of grey (and we need not define them all). Whilst the output of a digital signal is analogue (similarly, the output of a wav file is not all the information, but a fourier transform of it.... or so my understanding goes), the digital signal loses information. The point of having analogue is that it has "Infinite definition." Because with digital, things are quantized, and whilst we quantize things to a level where we can't really notice the difference, the difference is still known. There are certain things that occur when processing digital signals, for example, the sample frequency must be twice that of the highest frequency used in the sound, (hence why mp3s and the like are generally 44.1kHz) so that a digital representation of a crest and a trough (of the signal wave) can be made. I believe thats called Nyquist theory. My point, the output of a digital format may be analogue, but it has lost quality because at some stage it has been digitized. The point of analord (and analogue) is that it doesnt lose anything to quantization. I bet no-one can really hear the difference between a 192kbps mp3 (or better yet, AAC) file and the vinyl. I think its all just novelty value. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You mentioned base 2 :( elusive will be back to destroy this thread with massive misinformation :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that elusive is ever so elusive! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
aslong as we dont need to explain ADC converters, we're alright... that will explode your minds (bore you to death) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ohh yeah, after reading over what I said... what your supposed to infer about nyquist theory is that information about waves is lost when its quantized. I sine wave at the frequency of 22.05kHz when turned into an mp3 will be a square wave. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when you watch a spinning wheel as it speeds up, it will look like it is slowing then going in reverse then slowing and then going forward again then reverse again. for example sometimes on the hiway, if you look at the wheel of a car traveling next to you, it will look as if it is going in reverse. This is because you brain is sampling images at a high velocity, and kinda animating them into movement. another phenomenon based on the same principle is the illusion that your TV is pulsing if you look at it while making motorboat noises with your lips, or playing a digeridoo, or eating something crunchy. the vibrations of your skull cause a strobe effect that interferes with the sampling velocity of your eyes and brain. so i'm not really sure what i'm talking about here, but i thought, like, maybe it was relevant, like! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sometimes the hemispheres of your brain go out of sync, for a split second. The image that one eye percieves is interpretted before the other eyes image is interpretted. This can cause you to think that you've seen something before, when in reality, you haven't. Yes, i'm talking about deja vu. Although this has nothing to do with anything, I enjoy mentioning it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
One nice thing about this analog craze is that synth makes will start competing and driving down the prices. I'd like an analog synth like an Alesis Andromeda or a Minimoog Voyager but I just can't justify the cash outlay to myself. In the meantime I bought an Alesis Micron which is the best virtual analog I've ever heard. It destroys the Nords and Acccess Viruses I tried. It has the meaty chunkiness of real analogs. Still and all I'd like to see an affordable quality monophonic synth with a builtin keyboard and some nice versatile routing possibilities for say $700 USD. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god, the synth I want most right now is an andromeda... god those things are ace. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the "god" count in that last post is simply unacceptable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In terms of analog shit, the only thing I really get the urge to buy is a 303 but then I slap myself in the face to put my thinking back on solid ground. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Same here, not just because it's iconic (although I'll admit that comes into it), but because I love the sound and want to use it in my tracks. However, Audiorealism Bassline is good enough to fool me most of the time (I blind tested myself and got it right 60:40% of the time, as opposed to the 90:10 with rebirth) and it is about 1/10th of the price. I can't possibly justify the cost for what it does. I know it's an investment and will hold its value etc. but you can get a lot better (more versatile) gear for £800. As Fleetmouse says, you should be able to get a "proper" analogue workstation for that much. Hopefully, as classic synths break over the years, and the number of people into making music increases, the price will come down. I do think a lot of the gear is overpriced and takes advantage of the fact that they will largely be owned by professional studios/individuals, who can afford to throw money around. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
analogue: 1. [n] something having the property of being analogous to something else 2. [adj] (electronics) of a circuit or device having an output that is proportional to the input; "analogue device"; "linear amplifier" digital: 1. [adj] (electronics) of a circuit or device that represents magnitudes in digits; "digital computer" 2. [adj] relating to or performed with the fingers; "digital examination" 3. [adj] displaying numbers rather than scale positions; "digital clock"; "digital readout" the key here is analogy, when the needle of an analog VU moves, it is air pressure (sound...) causing it to travel in a predetermined scale representing a physical phenomenon (volume, watts, ...) so it is a perfect representation at any given moment of the real thing, if you could zoom as much as you want in the scale it would always represent the same thing with the same realism. a digital one as got a resolution wich leads to a limit in what precision it can achive, it'll go straight from 1 to 2 if his resolution doesn't allow it to represent 1,5. a good example is knob value for synths, midi data is typically 128 levels for a given knob, so your cutoff won't be very precise if it's scale is limited like that... try to map thohse 128 value on the on the frequency scale of human hearing and you'll quickly see the necessity to have big resolution in digital for precision. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
