Interesting New Take on Digital vs. Analog
- Thread starter mccalljd
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
So now digital is only good if we add back in the noise and distortion associated with analog recording and playback? Okiedokie.
I like good recordings...on vinyl or in digital form. Perhaps in the future there will be a new version of digital files that people can pay a premium for - the "analog effects" version. Then we can argue about which analog effects version sounds most like a record.
Alternatively, just record an LP into a digital form. Sounds just like the album!
I like good recordings...on vinyl or in digital form. Perhaps in the future there will be a new version of digital files that people can pay a premium for - the "analog effects" version. Then we can argue about which analog effects version sounds most like a record.
Alternatively, just record an LP into a digital form. Sounds just like the album!
Last edited:
I suspect that most of us wouldn't actually like listening to music if our ears were actually where the microphones are - certainly some recordings are made with with a single crossed pair of mikes a distance from the musicians, but most are multitrack and made with mics very close to the instruments and vocal chords of the players. I don't know about you, but other than my wife whispering endearments to me, I don't want to be six inches from any sound source - it's too loud, and it doesn't sound right, since normally interactions with the room/acoustic space are an integral part of what we expect things to sound like.
So recordings start out different from what we actually think the real thing sounds like. And then we play them through systems that almost always are incapable of actually reproducing the actual dynamic range of the original sound, and playing in rooms that are much smaller than the original venue, so even the dynamic range the system is capable of reproducing sounds too loud or too quiet, and the acoustic of the recording is at war with the acoustics of the listening room.
Is it any wonder that muddying the recording can actually make it sound better? And, possibly, more real?
So recordings start out different from what we actually think the real thing sounds like. And then we play them through systems that almost always are incapable of actually reproducing the actual dynamic range of the original sound, and playing in rooms that are much smaller than the original venue, so even the dynamic range the system is capable of reproducing sounds too loud or too quiet, and the acoustic of the recording is at war with the acoustics of the listening room.
Is it any wonder that muddying the recording can actually make it sound better? And, possibly, more real?
WaynerN
Addicted Member
I would say that analog and digital are more alike then one might think. Digital is a bunch of zeros and ones, analog is a bunch of north and south poles on magnetic tape. Not much of a difference there. There obviously are lots of other differences between the two, but its easy to see where the idea of recording digitally came from, its mother was analog.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Big problem with digital. Abuse of the toolset. Too easy to dynamic compress past the point of sanity with no laws of physics other than not exceeding 0dbfs. And digital NR abuse, excessive amounts of tasteless eq choices done in DAW stations. Analog only lets you go so far, before the laws of physics set in. Digital can be nice sounding, when the engineering at the controls is good, and taste and restraint in mixing and mastering is used. Too often it is not.
Final_Baton
Well-Known Member
Yes but then it's the fault of the human, and not the technology, isn'it?
It's the same with an instrument technology that was already there in the tape recording days : drum triggers. This stuff sounds abysmal to me and I loathe it.
I agree that loudness war/over compression/lack of dynamics, snapping everything to a grid, sample replacement is all awful. I'm against all of that.
But it's the fault of the individuals, not the tool. To be honest I think digital is a godsend. I don't see myself recording my band on tape and paying studio time/afford an analog console and preamps, we couldn't even afford this stuff. instead with digital, a good recording quality is in reach of everybody who'se serious about willing to learn about the essential techniques of studio recording. For instance my friend has a home studio and we record there and it's the difference between us being able to aford recording, and not being able to, basically.
sqlsavior
Lunatic Member
I recall that even back in the all-analog days it was shown that most people preferred music with a little bit of noise added to music without. I can imagine a digital fan asking how could they do the 'without'? 
I suppose it is all relative. Michael Fremer uses hi-res digital to evaluate and demonstrate differences in tonearms, etc. My very limited experience with hi-res digital is mixed. I heard more things than I was used to on 'Tusk', but very little of the astonishing 3-D imaging I'd remembered on 'Jazz at the Pawnshop'.
I disagree with the author about resolution, on one point. IME, the best vinyl exceeds CD-resolution capabilities. Because of my limited hi-res experience, I'm not claiming that about higher resolution digital, not at all. While I have Redbook listening experiences that are completely fulfilling, and not seeming to lack in any way, I don't get the almost spooky presence that occasionally presents itself on the very best records. That has to be more information. Or else, it's magic.
Perhaps in the actual physical events of record playback, each unique in time and space, sending whole molecules tumbling, masses of them, we are hearing the tension between the years of human will and effort embodied in the disk, and the entropic event of playback, where some of that effort disappears into lower energy and greater randomness.
Or not.
I suppose it is all relative. Michael Fremer uses hi-res digital to evaluate and demonstrate differences in tonearms, etc. My very limited experience with hi-res digital is mixed. I heard more things than I was used to on 'Tusk', but very little of the astonishing 3-D imaging I'd remembered on 'Jazz at the Pawnshop'.I disagree with the author about resolution, on one point. IME, the best vinyl exceeds CD-resolution capabilities. Because of my limited hi-res experience, I'm not claiming that about higher resolution digital, not at all. While I have Redbook listening experiences that are completely fulfilling, and not seeming to lack in any way, I don't get the almost spooky presence that occasionally presents itself on the very best records. That has to be more information. Or else, it's magic.
Perhaps in the actual physical events of record playback, each unique in time and space, sending whole molecules tumbling, masses of them, we are hearing the tension between the years of human will and effort embodied in the disk, and the entropic event of playback, where some of that effort disappears into lower energy and greater randomness.
Or not.
Similar threads
