I'm up for a Laugh...Music...Digital vs. Analog?????

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Just like a synthesizer will never replicate a symphony orchestra, regardless of how many stored routines it has, regardless of how many thousands more 'instruments' it might be able to imitate, regardless of anything.

Digital will always be a 'fraction' of analog.

Again, it's just pure math and physics. (think about it).

(and I work in electronics, very high end electronics).

P.S. - Anything outside of the wave form will be noise. Anything inside the wave form will be lost fidelity / bandwidth. It's like calculus, digital is just approximating a curve, just like we do with binary mathematics.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Just like a synthesizer will never replicate a symphony orchestra, regardless of how many stored routines it has, regardless of how many thousands more 'instruments' it might be able to imitate, regardless of anything.

Digital will always be a 'fraction' of analog.

Again, it's just pure math and physics. (think about it).

(and I work in electronics, very high end electronics).

P.S. - Anything outside of the wave form will be noise. Anything inside the wave form will be lost fidelity / bandwidth. It's like calculus, digital is just approximating a curve, just like we do with binary mathematics.

My all time favorite album: "Rush-Moving Pictures"...

I got a speeding ticket, listening to that album on magnetic tape.

Years later, I got another speeding ticket with that album in my CD player.

Great music, transcends mediums... so do cops, evidently...

I posted the OP for a reason, and perhaps I should have posted it in another forum other than music.

You see, "digital" is what's wrong with society today; people believe it's 'real". Digital is not real, it is only an approximation of reality.

Think of how many things today people are depending on which are purely digital. AI is going to save the world, right? Autonomous everything...automation, robots, simulations, virtual realities, virtual augmentation...all of it. It might be close, but none of it is reality. The human brain is an analog thing. Computers and digital technology can try to approximate it, but they can't "be" it. They just can't.

We live in a world which increasingly doesn't understand this dichotomy. Music, and 'digital vs. analog', is just something which serves a s good example, a metaphor, of exactly this issue. It illustrates the point about how our society has been duped into believing that digital is better...but it's not. Digital is easier, but it's not better; never has been and never will be.

Digital will never be better!

a reply to: madmac5150

Great album, but still way better on 24 track analog tape than it ever will be on some digital media.

In fact, still better on vinyl, than it ever will be on digital media.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: madmac5150

Great album, but still way better on 24 track analog tape than it ever will be on some digital media.

In fact, still better on vinyl, than it ever will be on digital media.

I'd argue, but I'm neck deep in "Red Barchetta"... VERY LOUD... you understand

Seems they need to cut the highs and lows on vinyl also. And a lot of the adjusting is in the vocal range.

Sibilance, the high-frequency noise burst that you get when the letters s, f, and t are emphasized, is a major issue that mastering engineers encounter. “Problematic sibilants typically fall in the 6 to 12 kHz range

“It's something I'm always aware of when I'm mastering a CD, because I often cut a vinyl master of the same project. But when I get something that's already been mastered, and we're doing a straight cut from that master, I'll watch the high end. I try to cut it as flat as possible, without causing any distortion. If I have to do any high-frequency limiting, I let the artist know and see how much we can get away with on this end before we ask someone to change their mix or remaster it

“Some vocalists learn to underpronounce the sibilant sound — that makes all of our jobs much easier,”

Which means sometimes artist have to sing their songs differently for vinyl.

source: www.emusician.com...

And the lows

Make the bass mono when mixing for vinyl. Always and absolutely. With bass I don’t only mean the bassline. I mean all low frequencies – the bassline, the low end of your drums, percussion, any bassy effects, etc. No panning, no stereo effects. Make it mono.

With stereo bass content the needle has to do big vertical movements which easily results in skips. Also the record will have to be cut quieter.

While mixing, use m/s monitoring and a spectrum analyzer to spot any low frequency stereo content. Put special attention to any percussive sounds, bass stabs, bass guitar and such.

resoundsound.com...

But at least you have your distortion, I mean noise to make you think your getting "fuller" sound.

Digital = house
Vinyl = open field

But then vinyl really depends on the mastering. Some places actually master it as digital, compressing the hell out of the file with filters and what not. basically de-grading it and send it of to the pressing plants.

Hence why some newer vinyl sounds like utter garbage. It's those some people pick to use as a comparison to digital and digital will never achieve that fidelity.

Not with it's 20hrz cut offs ;/
But The Loudness War will never end..

I have Been a vinyl collector since 1985..
Not once bought into the digital.. DAT i used but still.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Has digital recording improved the frequency response of music, has it improved music in general...or has it degraded it??

As someone who grew up with vinyl and tapes I'm in no doubt that digital recordings are the superior format , digital is cleaner and gives the listener the full spectrum of sound produced where vinyl gives a dull sound that's prone to degradation over time.
My first digital album was Queens A Kind Of Magic , the clarity damn near blew my socks off.


Still sounds as sweet today as it did back then.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I love 8 tracks. The sound was ahead of its time.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Ha ...my friends Alice and Dennis pay no
particular attention to such trivialities.

S A V V Y ?
www.youtube.com...

HooHaa

a reply to: Lumenari

Amen to that.
The only cure is
McIntosh digital to analog
converters turned up to
the max with Alice.
We used to shop at Cindy's antique store.
She married Dennis and was the designer for all of
the Original Alice Cooper Band Wardrobe.
My old Friends : www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Both

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Lets be honest here. Nothing can truly duplicate the original sound. It can only be copied.

Analog recording media has always sucked, and it still does. As much as I love the subtle crackles and pops of a virgin vinyl record, it sucks as a sound reproduction medium. Tape, as much as I love it, has its flaws too(hiss and stretching among others), but it's probably the closest approximation to the the original sound you're going to get with the analog medium.

The digital medium has the potential to be the best medium for sound reproduction ever. You know as well as I do, the only reason you can hear any difference between a properly done digital recording and an analog one, is because the digital recording is too clean, and because the present digital recording strategy is limited in its ability to pick up nuance and "ambiance", and even that statement is debatable. There are other factors, but I will leave it at that.

If I make two recordings, one digital and one open reel tape at say 15ips, and introduce the inherent tape imperfections into the digital recording, I'd bet money you won't know which is which. Audiophiles are usually audiofools. No offense intended to anyone in the thread.

This debate is old and has been had ad infinitum by people in the industry smarter than you and I put together. Listening to them makes my head hurt.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, I'm almost 50 and when I was growing up, the closest thing to hi-fi I had was a cassette Walkman. I definitely do not miss cassettes and fast forwarding and rewinding. I was so desperate to get a CD player when I found one that was under $100 I risked fighting with my parents to get one (which was no small thing).

I also was not a fan of tape hiss or the noise reduction that attempted to compensate for it. Nor was I a fan of media that wears out a little more every time it's played. Frankly, 320 MP3 works just fine for me. I'm picky but I'm not really that picky. Something that was recorded well will generally sound better no matter what. An MP3 of a nice recording will sound just fine for casual listening.

In contrast - A poor recording sounds pretty bad no matter what.

To me, whatever differences there are are not substantial enough to overcome the advantages of digital. )

I work in radio.

As much as it is a pain in the a, analog has better frequency response, it is not sampled, and has a fuller sound. I actually did a paper on this is 94 comparing a guns and roses cd vs vinyl

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Easy, transportable and small. That's what it's all about anymore.

Digital = Modern society

Analog = Real life

a reply to: theatreboy
Better frequency response has little to do with sound quality, especially when that response is above or below human hearing. Note also that FM radio is limited to 15khz on the top end.

and has a fuller sound.

That's a very subjective statement, just as my mention of nuance and ambiance is. All are debatable.

There is something to be said for the type of imperfections a person comes to prefer in their music reproduction, and I would not argue with that, but ALL recording techniques introduce errors and distortions in the sound, but within the human range of hearing, digital is still superior at reproduction given the same variables for both mediums such as mics used, cables, mixing boards, etc. as well as recording strategy.

I play guitar, and I actually don't mind some digital effects, I put them between hand built fuzz pedal and a fender deluxe that has had the piss beaten out of it and it all comes out sounding pretty good.

Digital seem best suited for delays and accurate pitch shifting. I don't like it for distortion, compression or amplification at all really.

I have noticed that the response from digital amps is strange, I cant get them to interact with the guitar in the same way as an old clunker with a bunch tubes powering it.


I do love playing with digital instruments on my computer, but that's just for fun and cheesy sounds, never for anything live.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Lets be honest here. Nothing can truly duplicate the original sound. It can only be copied.

Analog recording media has always sucked, and it still does. As much as I love the subtle crackles and pops of a virgin vinyl record, it sucks as a sound reproduction medium. Tape, as much as I love it, has its flaws too(hiss and stretching among others), but it's probably the closest approximation to the the original sound you're going to get with the analog medium.

Analog media may suck in the hands of the inexperienced public, but analog is far superior in actuality. Yes, analog does have (mass) reproduction issues...the further away from the source you get. However, analog reproduction from source to master, and from master to child, is far superior than source to digital master. And, herein lies the thing people fail to understand; digital can be mass-reproduced with better accuracy, BUT the master is lower quality to start with.

Secondly, with properly adjusted equipment you don't have things like tape stretch. Again, to ease, portability and size.

The digital medium has the potential to be the best medium for sound reproduction ever. You know as well as I do, the only reason you can hear any difference between a properly done digital recording and an analog one, is because the digital recording is too clean, and because the present digital recording strategy is limited in its ability to pick up nuance and "ambiance", and even that statement is debatable. There are other factors, but I will leave it at that.

I absolutely can tell the difference by looking at the two signals in comparison to the source signal.

If I make two recordings, one digital and one open reel tape at say 15ips, and introduce the inherent tape imperfections into the digital recording, I'd bet money you won't know which is which. Audiophiles are usually audiofools. No offense intended to anyone in the thread.

I'll take you up on that bet! You might want to be careful betting on this subject; let's just say lunch...so you don't lose too much.

This debate is old and has been had ad infinitum by people in the industry smarter than you and I put together. Listening to them makes my head hurt.

There is no debate, analog is better and it always will be. Period. There's no scientific debate on this at all. There is only opinion. And that opinion is based on:

1. Ease
2. Portability
3. Size

...in lieu of...

1. Quality

a reply to: wheresthebody

I have noticed that the response from digital amps is strange, I cant get them to interact with the guitar in the same way as an old clunker with a bunch tubes powering it.

That's because there's a DAC between you and what you hear. My point exactly.