NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/audio/19097

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 1.7 KB | 38 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!labtam!graeme
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Gill)
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:30:32 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <shetline-200193174831@128.89.19.74>
Lines: 27

In article <shetline-200193174831@128.89.19.74>, [e-mail] (Kerry Shetline) writes:
> Anyway, I saw the same Luddite analog nostalgia bit on MTV and was really
> annoyed. The only counter-argument came from some guy saying that musicians
> who didn't like digital didn't like it because it showed the flaws in their
> performance: a real pointless sour-grapes opinion. That's all the air time
> the pro-digital side got.

    There could certainly be some truth in that. One of the recent
reviews of the Alesis (sp?) ADAT commented that they were upset that
switching from analog to digital multitrack showed up all the flaws
in the rest of their equipment.

    It is noticeable that unlike high end audio fanatics, the
professional sound people are ready to admit that digital gear
is more accurate and flexible than analog gear, while still
noting that they often like the sound that analog gear imparts
on music. What they are really saying is that the older analog
gear was part of artistic process, while digital is transparent
and therefore outside this process. If you want to have "warm"
analog sound on CDs you have to add that to the master recording
artificially, rather than relying on analog tape and vinyl record
distortion to do it for you.

    Graeme Gill
    Design Engineer
    Labtam Australia