News from the "analog revival"

peter k. · Oct 19, 2020

E-6 Revival ...
Well de sweet ole lady was grumbling about what all this old film doing in the freezer, took a look and it was mostly E-6 which we hadn't been shooting of late, so got back into slide film and now all out, so its time to try Ekatchrome and so ordered a five 120 pack and see what its all about.

dutchsteammachine · Oct 20, 2020

Maybe people like slide film because they associate them with happy vacation/trip memories...

This is not the case for most millennials like me however. But I am a nutter for any old physical medium. Film, still and audio.

138S · Oct 20, 2020

dutchsteammachine said:
Maybe people like slide film because they associate them with happy vacation/trip memories...

Slides (Projected, in a visor, etc...) are a display medium that, until I know, has no match today. Some late model expensive TVs are not bad, but a Velvia slide may show an static contrast that plays in another division. A contrasty, somewhat underexposed slide projected in an overpowered projector (high cri LEDs) steals the show. You may need sunglasses to view it.

peter k. · Oct 20, 2020

dutchsteammachine said:
Maybe people like slide film because they associate them with happy vacation/trip memories...

Nah... as 1385 stated, .. Slides projected has no match. Its not nostalgia, its a real image, that even held up to window light, can blow your socks off.
Try it u'll like it! It will be open up another new world of photography fer ya.

George Mann · Oct 20, 2020

Yes. Slide film is unmatched for its realism.

Arthurwg · Oct 20, 2020

One great reason to shoot slides was to make Cibachrome / ilfochrome prints. Sadly that seems gone forever.

138S · Oct 20, 2020

Arthurwg said:
One great reason to shoot slides was to make Cibachrome / ilfochrome prints. Sadly that seems gone forever.

There are one or two men (at least) resisting in the trench, one is C. Burkett. A quality second to none...

Helge · Oct 20, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
Recently, I put in the time and effort to replace deteriorated foam surrounds on the woofers of my 24 year old Allison CD-9s. They're driven by an Adcom GFA-555. Today I was listening to the following CD

https://www.amazon.com/Studio-JOHNN.../ref=tmm_acd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

which was recorded, performers arrayed around a stereo mike, in the very studio where my AES conversation with Bob Fine took place. Anyone who believes vinyl is superior in any way to a competent playback of that CD has drunk so much Kool-Aid it's overflowing and pouring onto their keyboard.

The very fact that oversampling DACs helped noticeably with sound on CDs and is now standard on just about any CD player, tells you much of what you need to know about the difference between CDs and Vinyl.

Analog media regardless of whether they actually have better resolution than the digital medium they are being compared to, degrades in an inimitable, graceful way pleasing to the human senses.
Digital media aliases, temporally and spatially and eventually clips.

In the case of vinyl, the idiosyncrasies of the medium also forces better recording, mixing and mastering practices, that could also be employed on CDs but very rarely are.

While CDs and 12 inch 33 rpm vinyl is in some regards merely on par with pros and cons of both formats, 45 rpm 12 inch vinyl most definitely has the ability to have better overall sound quality and dynamics than CDs.
Many albums have become available in that format, even some of them from great analog masters.

Cholentpot · Oct 20, 2020

Helge said:
The very fact that oversampling DACs helped noticeably with sound on CDs and is now standard on just about any CD player, tells you much of what you need to know about the difference between CDs and Vinyl.

Analog media regardless of whether they actually have better resolution than the digital medium they are being compared to, degrades in an inimitable, graceful way pleasing to the human senses.
Digital media aliases, temporally and spatially and eventually clips.

In the case of vinyl, the idiosyncrasies of the medium also forces better recording, mixing and mastering practices, that could also be employed on CDs but very rarely are.

While CDs and 12 inch 33 rpm vinyl is in some regards merely on par with pros and cons of both formats, 45 rpm 12 inch vinyl most definitely has the ability to have better overall sound quality and dynamics than CDs.
Many albums have become available in that format, even some of them from great analog masters.

Don't boost the bass too much or that needle is gonna pop out of the groove.

grat · Oct 20, 2020

For those with superb hearing in the 1980's (which includes me), I've got news for you... That was 30+ years ago. Your hearing sucks. Go listen to the mosquito sound they play to annoy teenagers. Gives me a headache, but I can't hear it.

One of the reasons for Kodak's film numbers to decline has to be that Hollywood basically stopped production when the pandemic broke out. There was also a period when C41 chemicals were in short supply, and color film was more likely to be sold out than in stock. There were production issues in virtually every supply chain on the planet.

Sal Santamaura · Oct 20, 2020

Helge said:
...Analog media regardless of whether they actually have better resolution than the digital medium they are being compared to, degrades in an inimitable, graceful way pleasing to the human senses...

Yeah, that's why competently made digital recordings are kept within their systems' dynamic range. And the gradual increase in distortions as vinyl nears its upper dynamic limit is called "musical" by so-called "golden ears." It's distortion they like.

Helge said:
...45 rpm 12 inch vinyl most definitely has the ability to have better overall sound quality and dynamics than CDs.
Many albums have become available in that format, even some of them from great analog masters.

"Great analog masters" made on tape, with its own set of "musical" distortions?

Yeah, 45rpm 12-inch vinyl. The ULF of audio. Carry on.

Cholentpot · Oct 20, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
Yeah, that's why competently made digital recordings are kept within their systems' dynamic range. And the gradual increase in distortions as vinyl nears its upper dynamic limit is called "musical" by so-called "golden ears." It's distortion they like. "Great analog masters" made on tape, with its own set of "musical" distortions?

Yeah, 45rpm 12-inch vinyl. The ULF of audio. Carry on.

Let's scratch something with a needle and we'll call it best ever.

Agulliver · Oct 21, 2020

grat said:
For those with superb hearing in the 1980's (which includes me), I've got news for you... That was 30+ years ago. Your hearing sucks. Go listen to the mosquito sound they play to annoy teenagers. Gives me a headache, but I can't hear it.

One of the reasons for Kodak's film numbers to decline has to be that Hollywood basically stopped production when the pandemic broke out. There was also a period when C41 chemicals were in short supply, and color film was more likely to be sold out than in stock. There were production issues in virtually every supply chain on the planet.

I get my hearing tested every year, in part because of the outlying results I got when I was 7. 40 years later I'm just about to reach the point where 20kHz is the drop off point with my right ear, 21.3kHz in the left. Still able to determine 1/2 Hz difference between tones.

That mosquito sound, I still actually hear it just about. Though it's as much a feeling as a musical note now. In the days of CRT televisions I could tell if one was on anywhere in a house in PAL territory and NTSC was painful. Even CRT computer monitors were audible depending on the VGA settings. 800x600/50 I could certainly hear.

My hearing doesn't suck....yet.

CD does. As I've said before even the people who invented the thing described it as "mid fi - at best".

What this has to do with film I don't know. Maybe I got out of bed the wrong side.

George Mann · Oct 21, 2020

Cholentpot said:
Let's scratch something with a needle and we'll call it best ever.

You don't need a needle to scratch a cd!

Helge · Oct 21, 2020

Cholentpot said:
Let's scratch something with a needle and we'll call it best ever.

Condescending extreme reductionism can be done to anything.
CDs are just aiming a flashlight at dented tinfoil on plastic.

Helge · Oct 21, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
Yeah, that's why competently made digital recordings are kept within their systems' dynamic range. And the gradual increase in distortions as vinyl nears its upper dynamic limit is called "musical" by so-called "golden ears." It's distortion they like. "Great analog masters" made on tape, with its own set of "musical" distortions?

Yeah, 45rpm 12-inch vinyl. The of ULF audio. Carry on.

Any recoding using the range of the medium will get distortion at the extremes of the range, be it frequency or amplitude.
Since the recording is surprisingly often made for human enjoyment, it’s important that that distortion, since it’s unavoidable whether we are talking analog or digital, is as pleasing as possible to the human sensory apparatus.

Helge · Oct 21, 2020

Cholentpot said:
Don't boost the bass too much or that needle is gonna pop out of the groove.

Hence the third paragraph of my post.

138S · Oct 21, 2020

Helge said:
since it’s unavoidable, is as pleasing as possible to the human sensory apparatus.

Sorry for the off...

IMO this is a urban legend, today (and since long ago) digital records/reproduces with total fidelity with no distortion, if the thing is well made...

You may take FLAC digital recordings of a vynil playback, for example you may search at youtube "So What - Miles Davis/Kind Of Blue [Dynavector DRT XV-1t • VPI Super Scoutmaster w/rim drive]" , were a high end Dynavector was employed. It plays perfect in my (Danish) Troels Gravesen design (Scan-speak powered), with no degradation from the digital encoding/preproduction.

What is key is the quality of the source, 90% of the music is edited in low quality, not even using the full range, and mixed to perform optimally in low end equipment. DAC has to be good, and a cheap D class amplifier may make weird things in the twitter...

Vynil reproduction adds a signature, but you can digitally record that signal with its signature and reproduce that totally faithful, even if comparing the signals with the oscilloscope, (vynil fully analog vs vynil digitally encoded-decoded). An exemplary conditioning work is made by Don's Tunes, which also shows great photographs, sometimes Tri-X.

Hubert Sumlin at work:

Helge · Oct 21, 2020

138S said:
Sorry for the off...

IMO this is a urban legend, today (and since long ago) digital records/reproduces with total fidelity with no distortion, if the thing is well made...

You may take FLAC digital recordings of a vynil playback, for example you may search at youtube "So What - Miles Davis/Kind Of Blue [Dynavector DRT XV-1t • VPI Super Scoutmaster w/rim drive]" , were a high end Dynavector was employed. It plays perfect in my (Danish) Troels Gravesen design (Scan-speak powered), with no degradation from the digital encoding/preproduction.

What is key is the quality of the source, 90% of the music is edited in low quality, not even using the full range, and mixed to perform optimally in low end equipment. DAC has to be good, and a cheap D class amplifier may make weird things in the twitter...

Vynil reproduction adds a signature, but you can digitally record that signal with its signature and reproduce that totally faithful, even if comparing the signals with the oscilloscope, (vynil fully analog vs vynil digitally encoded-decoded). An exemplary conditioning work is made by Don's Tunes, which also shows great photographs, sometimes Tri-X.

Hubert Sumlin at work:

There will always be distortion at the extremes if the recording uses the capability/space afforded by the medium.
With digital its aliasing and clipping.

Currently employed digital media has a signature too, that can be recorded by an analog medium of sufficient resolution.
Digital just has had luck in convincing most punters that that signature is neutral and better. This due to the digital source and equipment being newer and cheaper/more easily reproduced and therefore more widespread.

138S · Oct 21, 2020

Helge said:
There will always be distortion at the extremes if the recording uses the capability/space afforded by the medium.
With digital its aliasing and clipping.

If you want you may record 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, or 192 kHz, which is a plain overkill... Those sampling rates may make sense for studio work and edition. In the same way it is benefical to edit oversampled images in Photoshop... it happens the same with audio edition, as you apply many filters that oversampling prevents quality degradation. IMO the CD 44.1 kHz, at 16bits or 14 bits per sample, is total quality, but on any doubt you may go to 192 kHz if you want.

Another thing if what the particular DAC makes with those 44.1 kHz or 192 kHz, if noise is well controlled and what the signal chain does. We have several treatments, equalizer or tone, amplification... You are not to notice the flaws of a cheap D Class amp in the bass/mid motor, because the high switching frequendies won't reach them, instead the switching can be noticed in the twitter, but a separate A/B amp (not much power for the twitter) can be used for that, or a good D. Denmark sports nice audio, you have several good manufactuers and Troels...

I was in the audio control cabin in a D-A-D concert, and I saw their technician operate... that was a proficent job I witnessed and I remember quite well...

IMO today audio signal is easily managed, what is as complicated as always has been is the sound image provided by speakers-room, but we have new powerful tools to understand what we are doing.

Cholentpot · Oct 21, 2020

Helge said:
Condescending extreme reductionism can be done to anything.
CDs are just aiming a flashlight at dented tinfoil on plastic.

Love this.

138S said:
If you want you may record 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, or 192 kHz, which is a plain overkill... Those sampling rates may make sense for studio work and edition. In the same way it is benefical to edit oversampled images in Photoshop... it happens the same with audio edition, as you apply many filters that oversampling prevents quality degradation. IMO the CD 44.1 kHz, at 16bits or 14 bits per sample, is total quality, but on any doubt you may go to 192 kHz if you want.

Another thing if what the particular DAC makes with those 44.1 kHz or 192 kHz, if noise is well controlled and what the signal chain does. We have several treatments, equalizer or tone, amplification... You are not to notice the flaws of a cheap D Class amp in the bass/mid motor, because the high switching frequendies won't reach them, instead the switching can be noticed in the twitter, but a separate A/B amp (not much power for the twitter) can be used for that, or a good D. Denmark sports nice audio, you have several good manufactuers and Troels...

I was in the audio control cabin in a D-A-D concert, and I saw their technician operate... that was a proficent job I witnessed and I remember quite well...

IMO today audio signal is easily managed, what is as complicated as always has been is the sound image provided by speakers-room, but we have new powerful tools to understand what we are doing.

Not that I need to mention this but I work in audio production occasionally and even though I'm a relative youngster I've had the experience of using pre-digital recording equipment. While it's very nice and the sound can be pure I'll stick with digital. Analog audio multi tracking was a beast that needed killing. Audio recorded via an analog chain plugged into a DAW can sound just as natural and pure if done by the right hands and ears.

138S · Oct 21, 2020

Cholentpot said:
Audio recorded via an analog chain plugged into a DAW can sound just as natural and pure if done by the right hands and ears.

IMO a bit like in imaging... In music you may make pure digital music, but an acoustic source won't be perfectly substituted by a digital intrument, not matering how later the signal is processed. In cinematography, recently ‘No Time to Die,’ ‘Tenet,’ and ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ have been shot on mainly film, but first they do with film is scanning it, following a digital processing and again printing film with a film recorder for IMAX and 65mm display alongside with (the most common) digital exhibition.

Both in music and in imaging the hybrid workflow adds great flexibility and efficiency with no compromise in the quality, and with no damage to the genuine analog source.

Still, a "pure" analog workflow, this directly auditioning a mastre's violin performance... this is a different game

Me, I feel really happy to see that film capture (thought minoritary) still holds an strong position in some selected powerful productions. When this 2020 some 1st rate directors (having access to multi $100k digital bugs) say they are to shot something on film... this tells something to me... I feel privileged to use the same medium.

Cholentpot · Oct 21, 2020

138S said:
IMO a bit like in imaging... In music you may make pure digital music, but an acoustic source won't be perfectly substituted by a digital intrument, not matering how later the signal is processed. In cinematography, recently ‘No Time to Die,’ ‘Tenet,’ and ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ have been shot on mainly film, but first they do with film is scanning it, following a digital processing and again printing film with a film recorder for IMAX and 65mm display alongside with (the most common) digital exhibition.

View attachment 257641

Both in music and in imaging the hybrid workflow adds great flexibility and efficiency with no compromise in the quality, and with no damage to the genuine analog source.

Still, a "pure" analog workflow, this directly auditioning a mastre's violin performance... this is a different game

Me, I feel really happy to see that film capture (thought minoritary) still holds an strong position in some selected powerful productions. When this 2020 some 1st rate directors (having access to multi $100k digital bugs) say they are to shot something on film... this tells something to me... I feel privileged to use the same medium.

Exactly! Take from both and make the best.

My audio chain, as far as I can take it I like to keep it natural and raw. I then take that signal and capture it via digital. My film shooting is the same way. I always say 'If not for digital I wouldn't be shooting film' I'm a purist as it comes down to shooting and processing. Printing though, I'm fine with a good scan. Oh sure, a darkroom print stands its own, but a nice scan and print is nothing less to me.

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 21, 2020

A few years back, I watched an interview with a music producer. He explained how they use all this high-end gear to create perfect quality masters and then produce copies of superb quality as well to be played back to delight our ears. Then, when he's out and about, he has to laugh as he sees all these kids, the artist's fans, listen to these great songs on crappy cell phones or ipods, yet enjoying the heck out of it. The brain seems to adapt and can enjoy lower quality playback. He acknowledged, it's the content that counts.

There might be something to learn from that about our photography.

Helge · Oct 21, 2020

138S said:
If you want you may record 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, or 192 kHz, which is a plain overkill... Those sampling rates may make sense for studio work and edition. In the same way it is benefical to edit oversampled images in Photoshop... it happens the same with audio edition, as you apply many filters that oversampling prevents quality degradation. IMO the CD 44.1 kHz, at 16bits or 14 bits per sample, is total quality, but on any doubt you may go to 192 kHz if you want.

Another thing if what the particular DAC makes with those 44.1 kHz or 192 kHz, if noise is well controlled and what the signal chain does. We have several treatments, equalizer or tone, amplification... You are not to notice the flaws of a cheap D Class amp in the bass/mid motor, because the high switching frequendies won't reach them, instead the switching can be noticed in the twitter, but a separate A/B amp (not much power for the twitter) can be used for that, or a good D. Denmark sports nice audio, you have several good manufactuers and Troels...

I was in the audio control cabin in a D-A-D concert, and I saw their technician operate... that was a proficent job I witnessed and I remember quite well...

IMO today audio signal is easily managed, what is as complicated as always has been is the sound image provided by speakers-room, but we have new powerful tools to understand what we are doing.

You can always up the ante.
With analog media it’s bigger film and bigger faster tape.
But:

A. We are talking commercial solutions here.
SACD sadly died and every other high bit rate format is struggling.
So what we are left with is 16 bit 44.1 Khz. and below.
Same with tape and vinyl, though fast, thick, widely grove spaced vinyl is actually gaining a surprisingly amount of popularity.

B. The trouble with quantization actually starts a good deal below the half-schooled mans “sacred” Nyquist frequency.
And then we haven’t started discussing how ADC and DACs are far from the perfected science that most people in the business would like you to believe.

News from the "analog revival"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency