Agreed. Main issue is “better” is subjective and doesn’t always mean the same thing to different people.
I have dabbled in other tape formats, and one thing stands out to me about the compact cassette (not VHS): most people used them in the car, where conditions were bad for cassette storage. Car cassette players also tended to have poorer quality mechanisms and heads. As a result, many people remember the format being bad, when in fact, it was more about their use case. A quality home cassette deck with a quality cassette (e.g. type II or chrome) stored in the right conditions is capable of extremely good results.
Not sure if there is something similar with VHS audio, though. Very different format. I just know there is a debate, but it could be entirely bogus.
The debate is basically bogus. There are very few analog audio formats that can reproduce an audio signal more accurately than a CD, and even then, that’s only because CDs use a 44.1KHz sampling rate and 16bit encoding. There is no analog audio format that can rival a 32bit 96KHz PWM recording, and that’s not even the best digital recording available. CD chose 44.1KHz and 16bit because it’s nearly perfect for the range and sensitivity of human hearing. It’s only when you need to record ultrasound or extremely low amplitude sound that you would use something better.
Fun fact: if you add some hisses and pops and a little bit of compression to CD audio before playing it, some people (me included) will say it sounds better.
There is no analog audio format that can rival a 32bit 96KHz PWM recording, and that’s not even the best digital recording available
Analog audio is not sampled. By definition, it includes more data than any sampled version.
Now, the benefits of the sampling in terms of reducing format noise or similar are (subjectively) up for debate.
Totally agree with things sounding better if you introduce noise. I suspect it has to do with sampling, and maybe is not well understood.
Fun fact: if you add some hisses and pops and a little bit of compression to CD audio before playing it, some people (me included) will say it sounds better.
Exactly. It is subjective. It’s not about right or wrong.
I think there are things (like above) where the measurements are misguided. But at the end of the day, even that doesn’t matter.
Analog audio not being sampled doesn’t really matter. It’s like film, it can’t have infinite “resolution”. It’s the size of the granules on the tape and the speed the tape is moving that determines how good audio can sound. Grain size is kind of equivalent to floating point resolution, and tape speed is kind of equivalent to sampling rate. In order to get as true-to-life audio reproduction as 32-bit 96KHz PCM, you’d need absolutely wildly expensive tape and equipment. I’m not even sure if it’s physically possible.
When you say by definition it includes “more data”, you have to think about what that data is. There’s signal, the stuff you want to record, and there’s noise, the stuff that gets on there that you didn’t want. The higher precision a digital recording is, the higher the signal-to-noise ratio. Unlike analog tape, there’s not really a theoretical upper limit (just the limits of your recording hardware). If you record with a high enough precision, you can record incredibly quiet or incredibly loud sounds, way out of the range of the best audio tape. Same with frequencies. The faster your sampling rate, the higher the frequencies you can record. And unlike tape, it’s not going to shred itself to pieces if you go really really high.
Things sound “better” when you introduce noise because people like analog recordings. Not actual analog recordings, mind you, just the appearance of analog recordings. It has nothing to do with audio quality, it’s just vibes. It gives good vibes.
Ok, yeah. I get you. It definitely is subjective, and I like tape. :) I have a huge tape and vinyl collection. And I have an all-analog setup to listen to it. Tube pre-amp and tube amp. For me, I know it’s less accurate audio, but I want that less accurate audio.
Agreed. Main issue is “better” is subjective and doesn’t always mean the same thing to different people.
I have dabbled in other tape formats, and one thing stands out to me about the compact cassette (not VHS): most people used them in the car, where conditions were bad for cassette storage. Car cassette players also tended to have poorer quality mechanisms and heads. As a result, many people remember the format being bad, when in fact, it was more about their use case. A quality home cassette deck with a quality cassette (e.g. type II or chrome) stored in the right conditions is capable of extremely good results.
Not sure if there is something similar with VHS audio, though. Very different format. I just know there is a debate, but it could be entirely bogus.
The debate is basically bogus. There are very few analog audio formats that can reproduce an audio signal more accurately than a CD, and even then, that’s only because CDs use a 44.1KHz sampling rate and 16bit encoding. There is no analog audio format that can rival a 32bit 96KHz PWM recording, and that’s not even the best digital recording available. CD chose 44.1KHz and 16bit because it’s nearly perfect for the range and sensitivity of human hearing. It’s only when you need to record ultrasound or extremely low amplitude sound that you would use something better.
Fun fact: if you add some hisses and pops and a little bit of compression to CD audio before playing it, some people (me included) will say it sounds better.
This is why the debate still exists:
Analog audio is not sampled. By definition, it includes more data than any sampled version.
Now, the benefits of the sampling in terms of reducing format noise or similar are (subjectively) up for debate.
Totally agree with things sounding better if you introduce noise. I suspect it has to do with sampling, and maybe is not well understood.
Exactly. It is subjective. It’s not about right or wrong.
I think there are things (like above) where the measurements are misguided. But at the end of the day, even that doesn’t matter.
Analog audio not being sampled doesn’t really matter. It’s like film, it can’t have infinite “resolution”. It’s the size of the granules on the tape and the speed the tape is moving that determines how good audio can sound. Grain size is kind of equivalent to floating point resolution, and tape speed is kind of equivalent to sampling rate. In order to get as true-to-life audio reproduction as 32-bit 96KHz PCM, you’d need absolutely wildly expensive tape and equipment. I’m not even sure if it’s physically possible.
When you say by definition it includes “more data”, you have to think about what that data is. There’s signal, the stuff you want to record, and there’s noise, the stuff that gets on there that you didn’t want. The higher precision a digital recording is, the higher the signal-to-noise ratio. Unlike analog tape, there’s not really a theoretical upper limit (just the limits of your recording hardware). If you record with a high enough precision, you can record incredibly quiet or incredibly loud sounds, way out of the range of the best audio tape. Same with frequencies. The faster your sampling rate, the higher the frequencies you can record. And unlike tape, it’s not going to shred itself to pieces if you go really really high.
Things sound “better” when you introduce noise because people like analog recordings. Not actual analog recordings, mind you, just the appearance of analog recordings. It has nothing to do with audio quality, it’s just vibes. It gives good vibes.
I totally agree it’s just vibes. I’m sorry if I suggested otherwise, but most of my point is about audio being subjective.
If everything is subjective, then some people will like tape.
Ok, yeah. I get you. It definitely is subjective, and I like tape. :) I have a huge tape and vinyl collection. And I have an all-analog setup to listen to it. Tube pre-amp and tube amp. For me, I know it’s less accurate audio, but I want that less accurate audio.