OK, I'll give you that. I can't ALWAYS tell the difference between analogue & digital audio, but if you build two "identical" mixes using mixing a "Pro Tools" session on an SSL console and a "Pro Tools" ITB mix with SSL plugins and randomly switch back & forth, I can hear the change 90% of the time and get which is which at least 75% of the time even on my wife's office computer. That tells me that emulation can't precisely replicate the real thing at the very least. That's why I always laugh at the somewhat common practice of people recording & mixing on computers, dumping to tape and back to "give it that warm analogue sound"... It still sounds like a cheap digital mix. On the other hand, one audio engineer (who has many gold records under his belt) told me that 1/4" tape was "good enough" in the 60s, but today requires something of higher quality (24-bit 96KHz). We both participated in a mixing competition a couple of years ago. I used my $2,000 live mixer and a low end pro 1/4" deck from the early 80s with no noise reduction but didn't tell anybody. Out of maybe ten entries, he voted for mine, having no clue.MovieStuff wrote: It's like saying that one can always tell if a woman is a natural redhead by pointing out all the bad dye jobs in a crowd....
I've heard people that like to rave about the ILM matte paintings when they come out of a movie but, in reality, if you know it's a matte painting while watching the film, then it really isn't doing it's job, even if it looks pretty. On the other hand, Albert Whitlock did hundreds of matte paintings during his career that no one ever suspected. Ironically, he got less of the limelight because his work was beyond detection. So when someone says they can always detect the difference between analog and digital audio, I sort of take that with a grain of salt because, frankly, I don't believe it. Like HD 24P, I think it's only obvious when it's done incorrectly. No offense intended to anyone.
Roger
BTW, I was thinking of the same thing this morning about ILM. It's amazing how many people talk about how great the digital effects are in a movie, but I'm like "if you can tell they're digital effects, they're not great." Of course, there's been more than one occasion where I've been accused of using digital effects when there was no effects of any kind.
Also, I think vinyl is highly overrated. I have a couple of turntables and a few vinyl albums, but I'm not the militant collector people think I am. The medium just wears way too quickly. I'd much rather have 1/4" stereo albums!
