I'm writing a paper proving that digital audio is better then analog audio. It's a research paper and I need "professional" opinions and quotes on the matter. If you work in the field or know a lot about it, please post a quote here and leave your name and where you work. Thanks for the help.
Analog vs. Digital Need help....
- Thread starter LTG
- Start date
Blue Bear Sound
New member
I think you know better than...
...1) to multi-post, and 2) not using the search feature to find your answers.
The topic has been done to death many times in the last 2 years, so the info you need is all here - you just need to look...... if you're doing a paper, then DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!
I can't speak for others, but I'm happy to help people except when it comes to doing other people's homework.......
Bruce
...1) to multi-post, and 2) not using the search feature to find your answers.
The topic has been done to death many times in the last 2 years, so the info you need is all here - you just need to look...... if you're doing a paper, then DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!
I can't speak for others, but I'm happy to help people except when it comes to doing other people's homework.......
Bruce
sonusman
Banned
You are going to have a very tough time "proving" your thesis friend!!! Abandon this idea before you spend too much time on it. The more you ask around, the more you will find that this is a silly claim!
"Better" is a very subjective term in audio.
I have yet to hear a digital delivery system, at any bit depth or sampling rate that sounds as good as 2" tape running at 15ips with dolby SR. I would wager that the finest sounding recordings (in your opinion) that you have heard were recorded in this format. I have not discussed this with ANY engineer who's ears I trust who would disagree that 2" analog tape has a certain ear friendly sound that digital currently does not have, and that sound is favored.
At the same time, I have heard some digital delivery systems that sound incredible! The versatility that digital offers in editing and archiving is simply incredible and cannot be duplicated in analog. There is no way to dispute this! Digital recordings rule in the department of providing versatility in what you can do with it after is was recorded.
So, if you want "the sound", you would favor analog.
If you want "the versatility to edit/copy/encode to other digital formats", you would favor digital.
Digital recording has a very bright future indeed. It will not be that long before most everything you hear will be digitally recorded (in the multi track stage of things). But, that time is not here yet. I could elaborate on the how's and why's of this, but that would be a lengthy process. Count this post as being my .2 cents worth on the subject.
I hope Shailat, John Sayers, Harvey Gearst, Tom Cram chime in here. I would find it incredible if any of them would disagree with the above (and by the way, there are many others on this BBS who I know would agree too, sorry you guys were not named).
A better approach to your paper might be in addressing how currently, both analog and digital recording mediums are being used closely together to allow the best overall sound with the most versatility in editing and archiving. If you approached a paper in that way, and formed questions based on that, I think you will find many quality engineers willing to discuss in more detail the why's of this.
Please don't take this as a rebuke. It is rather a wake up call.
Ed
"Better" is a very subjective term in audio.
I have yet to hear a digital delivery system, at any bit depth or sampling rate that sounds as good as 2" tape running at 15ips with dolby SR. I would wager that the finest sounding recordings (in your opinion) that you have heard were recorded in this format. I have not discussed this with ANY engineer who's ears I trust who would disagree that 2" analog tape has a certain ear friendly sound that digital currently does not have, and that sound is favored.
At the same time, I have heard some digital delivery systems that sound incredible! The versatility that digital offers in editing and archiving is simply incredible and cannot be duplicated in analog. There is no way to dispute this! Digital recordings rule in the department of providing versatility in what you can do with it after is was recorded.
So, if you want "the sound", you would favor analog.
If you want "the versatility to edit/copy/encode to other digital formats", you would favor digital.
Digital recording has a very bright future indeed. It will not be that long before most everything you hear will be digitally recorded (in the multi track stage of things). But, that time is not here yet. I could elaborate on the how's and why's of this, but that would be a lengthy process. Count this post as being my .2 cents worth on the subject.
I hope Shailat, John Sayers, Harvey Gearst, Tom Cram chime in here. I would find it incredible if any of them would disagree with the above (and by the way, there are many others on this BBS who I know would agree too, sorry you guys were not named).
A better approach to your paper might be in addressing how currently, both analog and digital recording mediums are being used closely together to allow the best overall sound with the most versatility in editing and archiving. If you approached a paper in that way, and formed questions based on that, I think you will find many quality engineers willing to discuss in more detail the why's of this.
Please don't take this as a rebuke. It is rather a wake up call.
Ed
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Agreed!
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
First you said that you proved digital is "better" than analog and now you are saying that you proved digital is "easier to work with" than analog...you are in essence telling me that BETTER=EASIER TO WORK WITH...this is not the case...maybe you need to restate exactly what you proved....analog at its best sounds better than digital at its best...digital is easier to work with....thats why someone who knows quality records to analog and uses digital for some processing and mastering....
Shailat
New member
I would think it's obvious to all that it's easier to work in digital.
The only thing I can add to Ed's post is that Analog is expensive
(the media) and so many times I have no choice but to use Digital.
And sometimes clients bring in digital and don't want to take the studio time to dump to analog.
But I have never come across a converter that will move me to tears like an analog.
So the punch ins take a bit longer.....so it's a nudge to rewind....
It's worth it for those that enjoy Aesthetics of sound.
No wonder so many companies are trying hard to make plug ins
duplicate the analog sound.
The only thing I can add to Ed's post is that Analog is expensive
(the media) and so many times I have no choice but to use Digital.
And sometimes clients bring in digital and don't want to take the studio time to dump to analog.
But I have never come across a converter that will move me to tears like an analog.
So the punch ins take a bit longer.....so it's a nudge to rewind....
It's worth it for those that enjoy Aesthetics of sound.
No wonder so many companies are trying hard to make plug ins
duplicate the analog sound.
SPINSTERWUN
Active member
LOL @ Gidge's response to regebro.
spin
spin
Tom Hicks
Well-known member
In terms of resolution,analog strobe tuners like the Peterson 520 on my workbench are more accurate than digital tuners because of their infinite variability in pitch recognition (most digital tuners are now from 1-3 cents).
By the same token,take a close-up look at two waveforms recorded on the finest digital and analog machines.At some point of magnification,the digital signal becomes obvious for how it AVERAGES the signal as opposed to more accurately recording the wave.Thus,the artificial noise is added to digital to obscure what is actually happening at the noisefloor location.
Another moot discussion because we all know where the technology is going and I don't mean 8 track!
I did enjoy the defination of "better" as easier as well as the first poster's notion of coming to a conclusion and then seeking facts to support it.
Tom
By the same token,take a close-up look at two waveforms recorded on the finest digital and analog machines.At some point of magnification,the digital signal becomes obvious for how it AVERAGES the signal as opposed to more accurately recording the wave.Thus,the artificial noise is added to digital to obscure what is actually happening at the noisefloor location.
Another moot discussion because we all know where the technology is going and I don't mean 8 track!
I did enjoy the defination of "better" as easier as well as the first poster's notion of coming to a conclusion and then seeking facts to support it.
Tom