dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1481
share rss forum feed


Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12

[Quiz] Analogue VS Digital Master

downloadsample1.wav 7,674,136 bytesdownloadsample2.wav 7,674,136 bytes
There are 2 audio samples here.. 1 of them was created with digital stuff and the other with hi end analog stuff....

Can you tell which one is the analog and digital masters? (Yes we are listening over a digital connection BUT you can tell a difference)

I will reveal the correct answers after awhile......... (I could tell instantly)


printscreen

join:2003-11-01
Juana Diaz, PR

Why would they be exactly the same number of bytes if they are allegedly different samples?


BoulderHill1

join:2004-07-15
Montgomery, IL
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

1 recommendation

reply to Dude111

What do you mean by "created with digital stuff"?

All instruments produce analog sound.

Actually all sound is analog.

You have a problem with the samples you posted. Both are digital. They are wav files. Wav files are a digital representation of sound.

Unless you have a way of sending each one of us an analog based recording of this sound such as a cassette tape, or 16 track studio tape to compare with the wav files then we have nothing but two digital files to compare.

This sound you have posted was analog in the beginning because as already said, sound is analog.

Whether that source sound gets recorded on an analog medium such as tape or is encoded as a digital file is irrelevant.

When either is played back it will again produce a sound that is analog.

The difference is that the digital playback will be an exact representation of the source sound without any loss within the limits of the type of encoding process and file type used. ( we are assuming a lossless type encoding )

The analog playback will be within the limitations of the medium being used. There will be some loss of fidelity (however negligible) as well as added effect such as low frequency boost which is the nature of an analog recording. When sound is recorded on analog tape for example, depending on the dynamics of the equipment used the recording can have enhanced bass response or high frequency headroom optimized. Some of this is just built in to the equipment or it could be done by whoever is recording the sound by using equilization controls. So by nature the analog recording is influenced by the medium.

I fully agree that analog playback methods (tape, vinyl) quite often sound much better than digital (CD's mp3 devices).

I have several albums on vinyl and on CD. The vinyl record sounds much warmer with an overall louder volume and significantly better bass response. In fact I need to tone down bass and volume controls when listening to the album version as compared to the CD of the same title. But this is because of the nature of the phonograph system.

To the contrary however the album version is subject to cracks and pops due to dust on the grooves. Needle wear, groove wear, variences in platter speed also can contribute to diminished playback quality.

A CD on the other hand will always playback exactly the same. There is no loss over time or with repeated playing. It plays back the exact same sound as was encoded in to it.



Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12

1 edit
reply to Dude111

 

Yes but can you tell JUST FROM LISTENING which one is mastered digitally?? (I sure could)

quote:
I fully agree that analog playback methods (tape, vinyl) quite often sound much better than digital (CD's mp3 devices).
Im very glad to know your aware of this

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Dude111

Re: [Quiz] Analogue VS Digital Master

the master does not matter as long as it is made with high standards. In this digital vs analog war that goes on all over the internet people seem to forget that the reason CDs sound worse than records many times is not because the format is digital, But because the person at the mixing board very likely played with the settings to make the CD "louder"
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports



ilikeme
I live in a van down by the river.
Premium
join:2002-08-27
Sugar Land, TX
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Vonage
reply to Dude111

They are both the same. As said in the post above me, It does not matter if its digital or analog, its how it the person mixing it produces it, what levels they use, what kind of compression is used (if any), and many other things. A digital file can sound the same, if not better than an analog file if done right.



Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12

1 edit
reply to Dude111

 

Well I am listening on a tuner and i can tell you THEY ARE NOT THE SAME (On a tuner you can hear more detail)


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8

A tuner is a device for receiving radio broadcasts. It does not play back digital music files. You need something containing a DAC and an amplifier.


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to printscreen

Re: [Quiz] Analogue VS Digital Master

said by printscreen:

Why would they be exactly the same number of bytes if they are allegedly different samples?

They're not really the same. (Forum upload bug?)

 Directory of C:\temp
 
03/22/2013  21:00         3,407,386 sample1.wav
03/22/2013  21:00         7,674,136 sample2.wav
               2 File(s)     11,081,522 bytes
               0 Dir(s)  85,671,985,152 bytes free
 

So, basically, one file has about twice as much information as the other. This is not inherent in whether the first recording was made with analogue or digital equipment; it just means that someone set conversion/compression controls differently in the two cases.

We're probably comparing compression algorithms!


Bach
Premium
join:2002-02-16
Flint, MI

Dave,

when I download the files they are both 7,674,136 bytes.



Bach
Premium
join:2002-02-16
Flint, MI
reply to Dude111

Well isn't this familiar: »www.gearslutz.com/board/masterin···ter.html

One thing I could hear -- and all it took was firing up Audacity to confirm it -- is that sample2.wav is riddled with clipping, upwards of 3 to 13 samples in length. This is not long enough to be blatantly obvious that it's clipped, just enough to raspy-up the percussion. Pilot error in creating sample2, not the fault of digital vs analog methods.


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits
reply to Bach

Curious. I re-downloaded them both, and got a short sample1 again - but differently short. It's repeatably shorter, but not repeatably the same length. Meanwhile, sample2 always comes across the same size.

Above was with IE9 on Win7. Switching to a handy Linux system I get 198 bytes...

$ wget http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/2083531~eb8205bc8724aae9868cc70531073452/sample1.wav
--2013-03-22 22:54:55--  http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/2083531~eb8205bc8724aae9868cc70531073452/sample1.wav
Resolving www.dslreports.com (www.dslreports.com)... 209.123.109.175
Connecting to www.dslreports.com (www.dslreports.com)|209.123.109.175|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: unspecified [text/plain]
Saving to: `sample1.wav'
 
    [ <=>                                                                                 ] 198         --.-K/s   in 0s
 
2013-03-22 22:54:56 (6.30 MB/s) - `sample1.wav' saved [198]
 
Looks like the mime type may be incorrectly defined.

Edited: Hmm, not. I sniffed the traffic and the content-type is audio.wav, with the correct content-length. Nevertheless, there's obvoiusly something odd about it.

Perhaps it's analogue hypertext.


aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

Click for full size
This is what *I* got.

BTW, what are some normal specs for pro audio recording equipment? 192 kHz and 24 bit?
--
Wacky Races 2012!


Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12
reply to Bach

 

Yes BACH thats where i got the idea for this test from!! (I just joined that site the other day)

I KNEW INSTANTLY SAMPLE 1 WAS THE ANALOGUE ONE AS IT SOUNDS MUCH BETTER TO ME!!!!!



vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to Dude111

Re: [Quiz] Analogue VS Digital Master

You absolutely abhor any digital audio and have stated that on a number of occasions. Find everything you want to listen on analog. You'll be a much happier dude Dude. If you can't find it on analog then it's not worth listening to.
Stop torturing yourself. Or perhaps you enjoy inflicting pain upon yourself.
--
The new Oldsmobiles are in early this year!



Bach
Premium
join:2002-02-16
Flint, MI
reply to dave

said by dave:

... Switching to a handy Linux system I get 198 bytes...

When I re-tried the download last night under IE (I was curious if perhaps *I* was the one who had the incorrectly sized download) I also got a 198 byte file.

But this is what was in that 198 byte download:

quote:
You must be logged into dslreports.com in order to download forum attachments bigger than 2 megabytes in size.

Downloading using parallel requests (download accelerators) are detected and disabled.
So, perhaps you weren't logged in under Linux?

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8

said by Bach:

So, perhaps you weren't logged in under Linux?

Oh, duh. You are correct.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Dude111

Re:  

Let's apply some rationality here. Sample1 sounds better to you. You can't say that it's because it was originally mastered on analogue equipment.

Both of them have been converted to digital encoding at some point. It is entirely possible that the conversion of sample2 was done with less attention to quality.

I know you're an analogue-recording fan, but listening to digital material is a comparison of two difference instances of analogue-to-digital conversion.



Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12

Yes your right Dave but the source is better (Sample 1) so it will be detected (Or should be) even on a digital connection..


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by Dude111:

Dave but the source is better (Sample 1)

That cannot be determined from the available evidence.

Sample1 has gone through the following transitions:

Live sound -> analogue mastering -> digital conversion -> us here.

If we hear distortion at the end of it, it is not possible for us to tell whether the distortion was introduced at the 'analogue master' stage or the 'digitial conversion' stage.

Sample2 had, presumably, this happen:

Live sound -> digital mastering -> digital conversion -> us here.

(I think we're not listening to the 'master', are we?). Likewise we cannot say whether any badness was introduced in the mastering or conversion stages.


aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1
reply to dave

said by dave:

Both of them have been converted to digital encoding at some point. It is entirely possible that the conversion of sample2 was done with less attention to quality.

Or it was intentionally overdriven to prove a point.
--
Wacky Races 2012!


aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to dave

said by dave:

said by Dude111:

Dave but the source is better (Sample 1)

That cannot be determined from the available evidence.

Sample1 has gone *presumably* through the following transitions:

Live sound -> analogue mastering -> digital conversion -> us here.

Fixed that for you -- you missed 'presumably' up there.

Of course we cannot determine from 2 digital samples what happened before. Normally, with most everything being equal, a sample with a bigger file size will have a better quality.

Personally, I suspect that these samples were created and *manipulated* to prove a point.
--
Wacky Races 2012!