Debating Analog or Digital

[Bobbsy]

Aaaah, I certainly don't want to start that...not my intention.



I love a good hijack too...and maybe start another flame war.

It depends on what you watch. I can't say I care much for digital noise and pixelation on broadcast TV, but then maybe I've been lucky so far. I'm a bit more picky about what I watch, too. Admittedly, I've never been a fan of broadcast TV, but from time to time I catch movies at a friend's house that has DirecTV, and I thought the picture was great. You can't really tell me that broadcast on 480i from a quad video machine will look as good as the same program that has a new 2-4k digital transfer and is being broadcast in HD, because I won't believe you.

That said, maybe it's what you're watching. Shit shot digitally will always look like shit shot digitally, and it doesn't matter what resolution it has. So maybe that's your problem? I'm still coming down from the golden age of television (the '90's), where damn near every program of substance was shot on 35mm film and it's really incomparable. Thankfully, that hasn't disappeared altogether. If you have a chance to catch the Walking Dead (Super 16), Boardwalk Empire (35mm), or something else that shoots film, I think you'd be astounded at how good tv can look...better yet, get blu-ray.

Hmmm...we're going to have to agree to disagree on your "shit shot digitally" comment. The original feed (before any compression) coming from a properly adjusted broadcast HD camera looks stunning. The problems only start when people start throwing MPEG or DV compression into the mix. I'd put good modern electronic cameras well ahead of most 35mm once you start thinking about grain etc. (and, for those of you on NTSC, the kludge needed to display a 24fps source onto a 30fps format).

And, of course, all this is still back at the studio where the pictures probably (if you're lucky) exist in RGB or YUV. However, at some point in the process these good pictures will be converted to NTSC or PAL with the "footprint" of artifacts that entails. This is where any analogy with analogue/digital audio disappears. Analogue TV AS VIEWED IN THE HOME was restricted to the encoded formats of PAL or NTSC (or SECAM if you're French) and covered with blurry, swimming edges etc. There was certainly no golden age of analogue TV once you got down to PAL or NTSC rubbish.

Of course now the broadcasters are doing the same thing and converting their pristine digital pictures into almost unwatchable rubbish by cramming up to 3 channels into one of your 6MHz UHF channels (or 4 on an 8MHz UK channel). Clever tricks like stat muxing can help but, in the end, you're still cramming a quart into a pint pot.

I agree that Blu-Ray looks a lot better than the HDTV being broadcast but even there, there are huge variations. Video bit rates range from under 15mpbs up into the low 30 mbps ranges--and, of course, the coding system can be MPEG, VC-1 or AVC.

Anyhow, there are too many variables for a generalisation...but, if you get back to the original camera output, HD digital video is stunning and so far ahead of either 480i/580i or 35mm passed through a telecine that there's simply no comparison. Alas, what you see at home bears no relationship.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I love creating digital pictures of analog gear.

Taking pictures of digital gear is pretty unexciting.

Cheers!

 

[gtruchel]

I love your graphics work I've seen posted around here, Ghost. Very good stuff. I will say that I don't like digital TV on LCD screens a lot of time. I can see the pixels on that stuff. I have not 1 hi def TV in my house. I have a standard def projection TV and another 36" CRT and they both do fine for me. I do seem to prefer the plasma sets I've seen to LCD as far as hi def goes. I really don't know why, plasma just looks a bit more natural to me. LCD computer monitors seem better or maybe it's because I'm looking more at static images that at full motion video. I'm a web developer by trade so I look at nice LCDs all the time but prefer my older TVs or plasma. When I go to hi def in my home, I will most likely look into getting plasma. Maybe I'm just silly though so don't anyone get angry. In fact I'm sure that LCD TV technology has gotten a lot better since I've paid attention. I mainly just haven't want to spend the money on a hi def TV when all mine work perfectly fine. My DAW has 2 LCDs and so does my Macbook Pro's screen and they look good so I'm not a hater or anything. Mostly just spend my extra money on audio related things. Lately that's been getting back into tape!

 

[Hammerstone]

Hmmm...we're going to have to agree to disagree on your "shit shot digitally" comment. The original feed (before any compression) coming from a properly adjusted broadcast HD camera looks stunning. The problems only start when people start throwing MPEG or DV compression into the mix. I'd put good modern electronic cameras well ahead of most 35mm once you start thinking about grain etc. (and, for those of you on NTSC, the kludge needed to display a 24fps source onto a 30fps format).

Grain is the price you pay for superiority. It's kinda like tape hiss Anyway, I'll agree that modern HDTV is far superior to the old analog broadcast. Looks much better. Even digital-camera-shot stuff.

Here Ghost, an analog picture of analog gear...uh...converted to digital...

 

[miroslav]

I'll still take take the visual impression of quality 35mm or 70mm films over anything done with a digital camera.
Yes...the digital camera may be more "accurate" (same comments made about digital audio)...BUT...the human eye doesn't see things with the same kind of accuracy. There is a *natural* softness to film that IMO makes the view more pleasant than that stark/high contrast stuff you get with digital, which may be more preferred for gaming or sports...but I think it's just plain ugly. The fact that you can accurately see every hair and blackhead on someone's nose isn't necessarily a better picture than where you have the softness of film removing those kinds of details.

That is the part with some of the extreme digital audio lovers always get hung up on...that the digital "accuracy" is what makes digital audio "better" in their view...and why they don't get why some analog lovers don't prefer that, over their "less accurate" analog tape.

So there's a lot of subjectivity in play here...what looks and sounds good to one person doesn't always work for another...and the "accuracy" (or lack of) is not a trump card IMHO. There's more to it than that.

But again...I'm not looking to flame any debates...I like, and use both analog and digital for what I consider each of their strong suits.

 

[wings012345]

Digital for the eyes, Analog for the ears!

 

[Ainaudio]

Answer on question "what is better?" is simple.
Analog has analog problems.
Digital has analog+digital+analog (A/D/A) problems.
We can only discuss about all these problems, but digital has more anyway

 

[RAMI]

HAHAHA! This is hilarious.

I'm so glad this didn't turn into a "Digital vs. Analog" debate, like I knew it would.

I mean, I can't see how that even happened considering the title of the thread.

I knew it.


Priceless.

 

[miroslav]

Well...when someone asks which to use and why...it's kinda' impossible to talk about the two formats without considering each of their pros/cons....and that is not the same as having an all-out flame war between the digital and analog proponents like there's been in some threads in the past, of which I don't see anyone here doing that.

Actually...most of the discussion has pointed out that both have value depending on what you want to do and your style of working, or that maybe a combination of the two is the best way to go....again, depedning on your own direction and intended SOP.

 

[RAMI]

Well...when someone asks which to use and why...it's kinda' impossible to talk about the two formats without considering each of their pros/cons....and that is not the same as having an all-out flame war between the digital and analog proponents like there's been in some threads in the past, of which I don't see anyone here doing that.

I agree. I never said this was a flame war. I said we don't need another thread entitled "Debating Analog or Digital" because I knew it would turn into exactly that, and it did. It's a tired, old topic and people are just repeating what they've typed in hundreds of other threads about it.

That's all I was saying......and that's exactly what happened.

 

[miroslav]

Yeah, I agree that the thread title was probably not the best chosen....though I don't think it was intented to rally the troops on either side.

I go through a love/hate thing every session for both analog and digital.
Some days the tape deck SOP is making me jump through hoops other days it's the DAW....but I still don't ever feel I am on either side. These are just tools, and you have to find what works for you....I think that's all the OP was trying to do.

 

[foxdfive]

Damn! and Ive been playing the entire song all along. Helps when you play live though ^_^

 

[RAMI]

Yeah, I agree that the thread title was probably not the best chosen....though I don't think it was intented to rally the troops on either side.

I go through a love/hate thing every session for both analog and digital.
Some days the tape deck SOP is making me jump through hoops other days it's the DAW....but I still don't ever feel I am on either side. These are just tools, and you have to find what works for you....I think that's all the OP was trying to do.

Ok, now we're debating whether we're debating about digital and analog. This is a debate that I don't even have to debate with myself whether I want to debate the debate on whether we're debating or not

 

[slider2015]

I use both.
In terms of digital or analog for me it depends on how I'm using it.
I use an analog mixer to a digital recorder which also has mix capability but I like the feel of knobs versus a slider bar.

Ont thing I do like about digital though is it's much easier to then import it into a software package ( as it's already digitized) and make further modifications to the audio tracks.

 

[miroslav]

Ok, now we're debating whether we're debating about digital and analog. This is a debate that I don't even have to debate with myself whether I want to debate the debate on whether we're debating or not

You raised that question....errrr....debate


What you do in private..."debate with myself"....is better left private.

 

[RAMI]

I almost joined the Debating Club, but someone talked me out of it.

 

[diggy_dude]

I got kicked off the debating team for playing devil's advocate for the opposing team.

 

[PRHunt]

Ok, now we're debating whether we're debating about digital and analog. This is a debate that I don't even have to debate with myself whether I want to debate the debate on whether we're debating or not

This is in danger of becoming a Mass Debate.

 

[A Reel Person]

...

Most guys on internet forums are master debaters.

 

[Rod Norman]

analog/digital

Here's a suggestion. We used to do this using the 2" 16 track machine synced to the 2" 24 track. Sync your analog to your digital and record the drums on the analog. At the same time, record the drums to two tracks stereo on the digital. Then do everything else and do NOT run the drum tape tracks. When everything is mixed nicely, pull up the analog tracks and do your master mixdown. The drums will be HOT! If you have room use a track or two for the sax or acoustic guitar, whatever air pushing instrument you have. Of course, the more distorted, the less you need the analog. Digital will do just fine. Good Luck,
Rod Norman

So I have a chance to buy a really nice 388 in clean excellent shape. Been thinking about going back to the analog world for a while. I have always wanted one of these. Back in the day i had a tascam 246 4 track. Was pretty cool for the time. I currently own a Tascam 2488 Neo. Debating on upgrading to the Tascam DP32 or picking up this 388. I love the ease of use with the Tascam digital and that everything you need is built in. Effects.compressors, mixing down to CD. I know with the 388 these will all be external devices I will need to purchase. Any of you have regrets going from the ease of digital back to the analog world? I know sometimes its a cool retro thing and a different warmer sound. More hands on which is kinda cool.