[mattbatt]

Originally Posted by thesteve

It's not a marvel at all that old technology is still around. We could still use the abacus for computations. it's simpler and will require less maintenance than a calculator because it's much simpler. We still use combustion engines that, while they are refined, probably aren't that different from their 1930s counterparts.

Yah, computers used to fill the entire room with tubes. Horrible! Transistors are completely better technology for turning on/off at high, reliable speeds, or for a computer, computing 0's and 1's. But music isn't made up of 0's and 1's unless you convert it to a digital signal. An amp's analog signal is much different than a computer's singal, except you could make an argument, both consist of electricity. There are things that turn off and on in an amp, though a tube's valve creates a different tone, warmth, range than a transistor's. Here, we are comparing tone, not processor computational data streams.

The fact is, tubes haven't changed. Engines have changed drastically (computerized equipment, intake -- so many things have changed) though the idea remains the same. But like mentioned before, the idea of tubes and transistors remain the same: turning on and off. This was not a correct comparison. And the computer -- I don't know of one 20 year old computer that would work today, running tasks that need to be ran and linked with other computers. It would be an island all unto itself. Sorry, Gates made it so you have to upgrade.

Point: tubes for amps weren't failing like other technologies that were forced to upgrade. The abacus was fine until society demanded super-fast, real time computational 3-d equations be made for huge engineering processes. the 386 was fine until people needed GUI's and professional software, video editing, audio editing suites, ect. ect.

What guitarist has a demand that a tube can't handle? It is just convenient and cheaper to have SS, BUT doesn't mean it's better tech.

Originally Posted by gtrdave

Considered and noted incorrect due to lack of clarity.

It would be better for you to state that some manufacturers don't state the rms output of their amplifiers in documentation if that's what you mean to say . . . Yes, isn't it strange that in this day and age of digitally-based hi-res audio we still crave tube amplification and tape saturation?
And to what end? So that the audio can end up on a consumer medium that's, at best, a compromise of 44.1kHz 16 bit stereo audio or, at worst, some low-bitrate highly compressed lossy audio codec played through a pair of cheap computer speakers or lacklustre earphones . . .

I hear you, next time I'll clarify better. However, in my last post, consider efficiency between tubes and solid state, which explaines why even though rated the same wattage, DB and sound is different, favoring the tubes.

Anyway, that can be argued so I'll move on to the next part of your quote which is just like video editing/compositing:
when capturing audio and/or video, the highest resolution and process is used regardless of the output (cheap TV's or compressed codecs and ear buds) to ensure the best overal quality. Take a CD at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz. You will be able to tell the difference of recording quality compared to a home recording and that of a pro studio even though the medium is technically the same resolution. And this ties into the tube/SS debate. Whether resolution or wattage, the output can vary depending on the plathora of other variables.

That's why a recording studio will still spend major $$$ even if their hardcore engineers hate CD's. Underoath's new CD was recorded in the red, clipped most of the way BY using tubes which couldn't be done with SS. And, when I put their CD in my car compared to other CD's (which most likely also used tube pre's and tape) the volume (not percieved mind you) is greater at the same audio-deck setting and does not clip like digital would (even though the medium is now digital). woah!

[tht00]

Originally Posted by mattbatt

Anyway, that can be argued so I'll move on to the next part of your quote which is just like video editing/compositing:
when capturing audio and/or video, the highest resolution and process is used regardless of the output (cheap TV's or compressed codecs and ear buds) to ensure the best overal quality. Take a CD at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz. You will be able to tell the difference of recording quality compared to a home recording and that of a pro studio even though the medium is technically the same resolution.

Umm... CDs are designed to be transparent to the human ear. Putting a bad recording into CD audio isn't going to make is sound better, just as putting a good recording into CD audio isn't going to make is sound worse.

Originally Posted by mattbatt

And this ties into the tube/SS debate. Whether resolution or wattage, the output can vary depending on the plathora of other variables.

That's why a recording studio will still spend major $$$ even if their hardcore engineers hate CD's. Underoath's new CD was recorded in the red, clipped most of the way BY using tubes which couldn't be done with SS. And, when I put their CD in my car compared to other CD's (which most likely also used tube pre's and tape) the volume (not percieved mind you) is greater at the same audio-deck setting and does not clip like digital would (even though the medium is now digital). woah!

Originally Posted by mattbatt

That's why a recording studio will still spend major $$$ even if their hardcore engineers hate CD's. Underoath's new CD was recorded in the red, clipped most of the way BY using tubes which couldn't be done with SS. And, when I put their CD in my car compared to other CD's (which most likely also used tube pre's and tape) the volume (not percieved mind you) is greater at the same audio-deck setting and does not clip like digital would (even though the medium is now digital). woah!

Huh? You don't 'clip' or distort a mix... I'm confused what you are getting across.

Again, the whole idea of the CD is to be a transparent media. It's 44.1 kHz, roughly twice that of what humans can here (and the guide to encoding analog waveforms to digital is 2 samples per your max target frequency -- 120hz to capture a 60hz form, etc).

You can then essentially master the recording as 'loud' or as 'soft' as you want, so long as you don't go beyond the 16-bit format of CD audio and clip the waveform. Mastering has nothing to do with CDs... I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by mattbatt

The fact is, tubes haven't changed. Engines have changed drastically (computerized equipment, intake -- so many things have changed) though the idea remains the same. But like mentioned before, the idea of tubes and transistors remain the same: turning on and off. This was not a correct comparison.

If you're going to look at things like EFI and intake, then of course it has changed. The engine itself, hasn't changed very much though. I'm sure if you showed the innards of a Mesa Dual Rectifier to the ghost of Buddy Holly's amp tech he'd think, "what the heck is that thing?" Sure it runs off of vacuum tubes, but I don't know that one of those Mesa's has much in common with a Gibson Skylark or a '57 Twin.

And the computer -- I don't know of one 20 year old computer that would work today, running tasks that need to be ran and linked with other computers. It would be an island all unto itself. Sorry, Gates made it so you have to upgrade.

It seemed your argument earlier was that computers only lasted for two years because they were failing. The fact that computers become obsolete quickly is more a characteristic of the industry outpacing technology. Music technology, particularly amplification, has been relatively slow-paced compared to the rest of the world. Gates didn't make it so we had to upgrade, the world simply demanded more than what the existing technology could provide

Point: tubes for amps weren't failing like other technologies that were forced to upgrade. The abacus was fine until society demanded super-fast, real time computational 3-d equations be made for huge engineering processes. the 386 was fine until people needed GUI's and professional software, video editing, audio editing suites, ect. ect.

What guitarist has a demand that a tube can't handle? It is just convenient and cheaper to have SS, BUT doesn't mean it's better tech.

Tubes for amps did fail in many levels of sound amplification. Guitar, and to a lesser extent bass and other instrument amplification is the only place where it didn't happen. That's really all I was saying.

[mattbatt]

A CD has a resolution, 16 bit, 44.1 kHz, agree? Regardless of this resolution, a mix is always recorded at higher resolutions, (using tape/tubes) and even when using digital, at 24 bit, 48 or 96 kHz or more, so when compressed down to the CD, the overall quality remains good. Regardless of what the human ear can hear or not, my audio engineer instructors tought us that frequencies unheard still effect frequencies that are heard (believe me, we asked 'why waste hard drive space for resolutions the ear can't perceive?') Thus, large mixes like movies and/or orchistras record at a minumum of 96kHz. Period. And when mixed and compressed, you can tell the difference (mostly in eq's, clarity, ect.) and it does effect how the instraments interact with each other.

This is just like film. You shoot on beta film or 16, 32 mm (way higher res. than HD -- but if you use digital HD, fine, I'll include it in this example) but at the most right now, it has to be compressed down to the medium of DVD, which is 500 lines of resolution. Way less then the starting resolution you shot with! Granted.

Yet if I started with a camera that took 500 lines of resolution and put it on a DVD, it would look worse than if I used a higher resolution camera, say 35 mm film, and compressed that down, because the 35 mm captures detail, shadow, color, edge resolution that the cheap camera couldn't. And compression software, for digital and audio, doesn't delete that extra info, it just crams that all onto the medium's resolution.

SO, the more info you can store when mixing and the higher resolution you can record at, the better your CD will sound (that's why tube and tapes are still being used alongside Pro-Tools).

Also, yes, mixes can be recorded in the RED if using tube and/or tape. This was a common practice for rock albums back in the day and one reason why engineers hated digital when it came out. It is actually easier to mess up with tape and tubes because it won't destroy your track. Record anything clipped in digital and you'll have to start over. You can't 'unclip' that distortion like you can with tape that's in the RED. Engineer's job's got harder in this area because digital is always more precise. Remember, it comes down to 0's and 1's, on/off, no middle grays like analoge.

Originally Posted by thesteve

Tubes for amps did fail in many levels of sound amplification. Guitar, and to a lesser extent bass and other instrument amplification is the only place where it didn't happen. That's really all I was saying.

Agreed.

[gtrdave]

Originally Posted by mattbatt

I hear you, next time I'll clarify better. However, in my last post, consider efficiency between tubes and solid state, which explaines why even though rated the same wattage, DB and sound is different, favoring the tubes.

Anyway, that can be argued so I'll move on to the next part of your quote which is just like video editing/compositing:
when capturing audio and/or video, the highest resolution and process is used regardless of the output (cheap TV's or compressed codecs and ear buds) to ensure the best overal quality. Take a CD at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz. You will be able to tell the difference of recording quality compared to a home recording and that of a pro studio even though the medium is technically the same resolution. And this ties into the tube/SS debate. Whether resolution or wattage, the output can vary depending on the plathora of other variables.

That's why a recording studio will still spend major $$$ even if their hardcore engineers hate CD's. Underoath's new CD was recorded in the red, clipped most of the way BY using tubes which couldn't be done with SS. And, when I put their CD in my car compared to other CD's (which most likely also used tube pre's and tape) the volume (not percieved mind you) is greater at the same audio-deck setting and does not clip like digital would (even though the medium is now digital). woah!

Compression plays a large part in overall loudness of what you're hearing on any recording as does the knowledge and skill of the engineer.
I've heard many recordings done in "pro studios" that sound like dog food and other "home recordings" that are stellar due more to the skill of the engineer rather than the quality/cost of equipment.

[mattbatt]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

Compression plays a large part in overall loudness of what you're hearing on any recording as does the knowledge and skill of the engineer.
I've heard many recordings done in "pro studios" that sound like dog food and other "home recordings" that are stellar due more to the skill of the engineer rather than the quality/cost of equipment.

Tape allows more 'info' to be compressed (as in, fit in) without clipping (because it allows some clipping) and that's my point. You have less 'bandwidth' in digital because it can't allow clipping. Digital is precise and can't budge. Using both mediums together is good. Many people saturate tapes and use tube pre's to warm the signal before coverting to digital. Once it's digital, you go from there.

An artist needs a tool and medium to work magic. Good equipment helps, but isn't always necessary.