Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC

Fun to read all this stuff about extremely high end systrems blah blah blah blah....

I used to be a bit pure-blood about hi-fi - all concerned about valves, cabling, etc etc

lately however I have realised one important thing.

Most modern rock music is recorded wholly in the digital domain. The guitar tones are modelled and plugged straight into a soundcard, the keyboard tones are modelled analogue synths, the drums are loops, the processing is all digital, the reverbs are convolution models. The vocals are pitch corrected digitally. Hardly anything recorded these days has not been slapped through half a dozen digital process to give it more 'life', 'warmth', 'bounce', 'depth'... whatever. And most of this is done inside the very PC or Mac that everyone is saying cannot reporoduce music accurately.

Sure classical and jazz are still largely recorded using acoustic instruments across air with nothing in the way. Beyond that though, any rock music recorded in the last 10 years is a lost cause in terms of 'transparent' reproduction. There is nothing transparent about the music, it is all emulation. And to be honest I can't hear the difference.

I myself have a very old and very beloved Vox AC30, full of glorious warm tubes and 30 years of grime and grit from being lugged all over filthy bars and gig venues. The other day I was listening to some things a friend had recorded on PC using a cheap guitar and Native Instruments' new AC Box Combo from its amp simulation series. I couldn't honestly tell the difference. I certainly wouldn't be able to detect anything out of the ordinary in the context of a mix. And I am not the only one. I defy anyone to find me a rock guitar player who is only using analogue processing and a single amplifier turned up to 11. Modelling, emulation and simulation are not esoterica, they are now the standard tools of the musician's trade. I'm even beginning to see bands who have dispensed with amplification completely and have opted to use laptops, Guitar Rig and plug straight into the mixing desk. The same goes for keyboard players.

This is how modern music is made. At this very moment I'm listening to the new Eels album on my 1400 euro Dell PC fitted with an Audigy 2 ZS soundcard, hooked up to Alesis M1 Active monitors (my recording set-up) and it sounds just fine.

You can spend 10 grand on any system you want but if you're listening to modern rock music you might as well listen to it on an 800 euro pc with a soundblaster and a half decent set of speakers. It will reproduce the digital recording as well as anything in my book.

arcer wrote: Most modern rock music is recorded wholly in the digital domain. The guitar tones are modelled and plugged straight into a soundcard, the keyboard tones are modelled analogue synths, the drums are loops, the processing is all digital, the reverbs are convolution models. The vocals are pitch corrected digitally. Hardly anything recorded these days has not been slapped through half a dozen digital process to give it more 'life', 'warmth', 'bounce', 'depth'... whatever. And most of this is done inside the very PC or Mac that everyone is saying cannot reporoduce music accurately.

The "modern" bands i listen to uses non of these effects not even guitar modeling...the old stuff is still the best stuff

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: arcer wrote: Most modern rock music is recorded wholly in the digital domain. The guitar tones are modelled and plugged straight into a soundcard, the keyboard tones are modelled analogue synths, the drums are loops, the processing is all digital, the reverbs are convolution models. The vocals are pitch corrected digitally. Hardly anything recorded these days has not been slapped through half a dozen digital process to give it more 'life', 'warmth', 'bounce', 'depth'... whatever. And most of this is done inside the very PC or Mac that everyone is saying cannot reporoduce music accurately. The "modern" bands i listen to uses non of these effects not even guitar modeling...the old stuff is still the best stuff The question is: IF (for the sake of this discussion) the modelled sounds are as good as the original, so that you can't even tell them apart when listening on a good system ... are they not equal then?  Many people complain about Presto Ballet for instance, saying that all that digital recording, Pro Tools etc. is messing up the sound and makes it sterile ... they don't even know that none of these tools were used. Today when a recording sounds crystal clear and just perfect, everyone automatically assumes that it has been digitally "enhanced" ... that isn't so.

Now with guitar modeling tools you are supposed to make it sound like a MARSSHALL JCM 2000 forexample or a FENDER BASSMAN and i am pretty sure you can get a decent sound but not even close to the original stuff

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ arcer: Check out Presto Ballet - Peace Among the Ruins. It was recorded in 2004 and they used no digital equipment whatsoever. Analog synths, analog tapes ... it sounds amazing.  Incidentally: You say that you can't hear the difference of many "emulated" sounds compared to the original. Are you talking about listening on cheap equipment or high end? It sounds a little odd that you say that they sound virtually identical and on the other hand that the digital version "kind of sucks".

I'm not saying there aren't people out there recording material on tape using analogue gear and I agree that real instruments across air sound better than anything, but merely that most modern rock music is recorded almost completely in the digital domain and therefore applying very high end gear to warm this stuff up is sort of pointless.

Sure there is a standard at which you should be reproducing music but I, for one, do not believe that you need thousands and thousands of euro worth gear to adequately reporoduce sounds that have been created in the digital domain.

And as a sometime musician I agree that there is nothing quite like the trouser-flapping experience of plugging in a good guitar into a good valve amp, turning the thing all the way up, hitting a powerchord and revelling in all that natural saturation but as far as recording goes, in the context of a full mix, I can't hear any difference between a real amp and a modelled version - particularly Native Instruments whose models are stunningly real. I don't think I ever said the digital versions suck. I actually think they are fantastic and give me a sonic armoury I could never have dreamed of owning in hardware form.

I reckon you can reproduce music to a very high standard on a PC using high quality MP3s, a good soundcard and some decent monitors. Many people record albums to a high standard on such tools, why should listening to the same music be any different.

Put it this way, and here I'm echoing something James Lee said earlier in the thread, I have a 5,000+ euro system in my living room that hardly ever gets used anymore, except for vinyl. I'm more than happy listening to 192 bit rate MP3s in my office on my adequate Alesis monitors and Audigy soundcard or on my i-pod in the car.

It should be about the music not the medium.

One hundred years ago people listened to "crappy" mono radio in a quality that compares to that of 64kbps mp3 ... and they were amazed.

Listen to the music, not the medium ... that really makes sense.

It's the same with cars, houses etc. ... there's always someone who has a better one than you, it makes no sense to go for the PERFECT solution.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, oliver ... I'm just saying that just because you think that such a system is necessary, it doesn't have to be the perfect solution for other people.

P.S.: What's better - a $1000 system with $4000 spent on CDs, or a $5000 system with no music?

oliverstoned wrote: It just show that most people are disapointed in hifi cause they received bad advices from sellers, who just want to sell as much as possible. You prefer music over electronics...me too. With a PC you loose half of the music and the musicality (ability of a system to let the music and the emotion flows) is Zero. What's your hifi system? i'm just curious

You're really pathetic ... a hopeless case. Can't you at least add something like "I think" or "IMO" or anything, it's really just your opinion - which I have proven to be wrong.