Digital catching up to Analog?

R

Rabid Pickle

New member
So I went to school in Hollywood for audio engineering and heard from basically every instructor there how Analog is always better and blah blah. The elitism made me want to puke. In some ways analog certainly sounds better. I'm not for all digital or all analog, but it seems like digital is catching up. Digital is certainly more convenient and seems like its always getting better and better. But I'm no expert.
What do you think? Will digital sound just as good and/or better than analog someday?
 
Rabid Pickle said:
Will digital sound just as good and/or better than analog someday?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Post-secondary instructors crack me up. They need more shit to do. Or maybe they need to be required to actually work in the field a few months out of the year... or something. I once had a programming teacher who wouldn't let us use C's rand() function because "it wasn't random enough". Well.. guess what - commercial programming houses all use rand(), and commercial studios all use digital recording technology. Same old story...you nailed it with "elitism". That's academia for you, brother :D.
 
I'll happily trade them my cassette 4 track with its superior sound for their computer. Do you know how to contact these people? :D

okay seriously though, as a complete technical ignoramus I have to say I can hear the difference without knowing why. The only time I think it sounds "better" is when I deliberately saturate the tape a bit for that natural crusting compression it causes. This is not "better" for a lot of sounds, but it has its uses, so I keep my little tape deck around. Most anything I want to sound clear I go right into my recorder which is 16-bit/44.1 kHz, hardly the best quality digital, but still it sounds cleaner than the tape. I don't buy that crap that it makes it sound 'tinny'. Some digital effects do, but thats a fault of the effect parameters; The actual recording doesn't suddenly become 'brittle' or 'tinny'. If the elitist school of thought is to be believed, recording to tape will have a nice warm tape master sure, but how are you going to keep that wonderful elitist analog quality when you go making a CD out of it?
 
I use them both. Different technologies for different purposes. That said, the inside of a PC case is the noisiest place on earth. You think you're going to get high end sound quality on a PCI card? Keep dreaming. If you're going to use digital technology to make music, at least use a device specifically designed for music.
 
diggy_dude said:
I use them both. Different technologies for different purposes. That said, the inside of a PC case is the noisiest place on earth. You think you're going to get high end sound quality on a PCI card? Keep dreaming. If you're going to use digital technology to make music, at least use a device specifically designed for music.
Click to expand...

But there are people on this site making high quality recordings on their computers all the time....not sure I understand what you are saying.
 
showstone said:
But there are people on this site making high quality recordings on their computers all the time....not sure I understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Ninety nine percent of people can't hear the difference between high quality and excellent quality. Most people will tolerate noise or not notice it at all if the music is good. All this nitpicking about which is better, analog or digital, is pointless.
 
I don't have a clue what rand() means, but I do know what analog and digital means.

And which is better???? Neither one. Better is a subjective term and means something different to every person. Just use what you've got. I'm record digitally because it's cheaper and easier. Well, I've never spliced tape............:D:D
 
It might be helpful if someone mentioned that this is a HOME RECORDING forum, not a COMPUTER PROGRAMMING one, and this thread is about DIGITAL/ANALOG, not RANDOMNESS...

Anyway, yes, I suppose the day may come when digital quality equals analog, but frankly, I doubt it. Let me explain:

First, it is clear that many are trying to hasten the arrival of that day, witness the slew of "sweeteners" on the market- tube stuff, toob stuff, "British" pre's, etc. ad infinitum. Much progress has been made.

But, the mass appeal of digital is not any ability, poor or great, that it may have for smoothness or warmth. The main advantages are cleanliness and lack of noise, ease of use, and cost. The fact that digital can be (and often is) sterile, is too often ignored. IMO, until that is addressed at the baseline of digital, it will never mature as a "musical" medium.

YMMV, of course.
 
stevieb said:
The fact that digital can be (and often is) sterile, is too often ignored.
Click to expand...

Well, yes . . . I have heard many people say this. But I am not convinced, and I'm starting to think that 'sterility' is a state of mind rather than something intrinsic to the digital realm, and that what is being regarded as sterile is something that accompanies a production philosophy rather than the medium itself.
 
Digital will never have the "quality" of analog because digital technology tends towards greater precision, not away from it. Nor should we want it to. The "sterility" of digital isn't a bad thing, nor does it make digital inferior to analog. It serves its purpose of capturing sound without adding the coloration of the physical medium it's captured on. If your music wants that coloration, use analog or sweeteners somewhere in the chain.
 
observation from an audiophile here.
I'm in the Stereophile end of things when it comes to sound and those guys may be nuts when it comes to some of the bizarrely high priced gear they use, but their 'golden ears' have some of the most refined listening abilities you're ever gonna run into.
Way better usually than pro-sound guys (also me).
In fact ..... originally it was the audiophile community that raised the red flag about the sound deficiencies of CDs.

The reason I say all this is that it's pretty well accepted among that community, the very same guys that think CDs suck, that the latest newest 24bit 192 sampling rate stuff finally gets to the point where you can't tell the difference between it and analog.
Although I'm often skeptical about audiophile stuff ..... there are listeners whose ears I really respect .... if Michael Fremer ( a manic analog soldier) says he can't hear the difference ....... I have to suspect that niether can any of us.
Having said that ..... CDs are 16bit 44.1 and they will never ever totally capture the warmth of analog.
But as far as a studio goes ...... there's no doubt whatsoever ...... if the very latest hasn't gotten there yet (probably has but ....) it definitely will.
 
stevieb said:
It might be helpful if someone mentioned that this is a HOME RECORDING forum, not a COMPUTER PROGRAMMING one, and this thread is about DIGITAL/ANALOG, not RANDOMNESS...
Click to expand...
Yea, my bad. I just asked a mod to move those posts out of this thread.
stevieb(and some others) said:
...[pro-analog stuff]...
Click to expand...

...[pro-digital stuff]...

Since there is no way to prove anything here... at all: I predict this debate will continue until tape is just not available anymore.
 
stevieb said:
Man, surgeons and hospitals EVERYWHERE would love for that to be true...:)
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would, but that is not the context in which 'sterility' is being used.

I suspect that the digital vs analog debate is more ideological than scientific. Statements like "it's pretty well accepted among that community" (irrespective of their context) are often found in such debates. They are the debating equivalent of "everybody knows that . . . ".
 
Personally, I dig and use both.
gecko zzed said:
and I'm starting to think that 'sterility' is a state of mind rather than something intrinsic to the digital realm, and that what is being regarded as sterile is something that accompanies a production philosophy rather than the medium itself.
Click to expand...
While I don't think this was true up to the mid 90s, I think it certainly is now. I used to think the sound of CDs was brittle, long before I was aware of the digital vs analog debate. But this was 15, 16 years ago. And things have improved greatly and moved on. And even if one can detect a difference, it's an assumption that being able to detect a difference means one is therefore better {or worse}.
The Akai DAW that I use, when I first got it, I was expecting this clinical sound and I was really surprized at my first recordings on it because it sounded pretty much like the 8 track cassette portastudio that I'd been using for the 14 years up to that point.
Some digital stuff sounds tinny and some analog stuff sounds muddy but given that it is perfectly possible not to have either, I'd have to conclude that these things are not inherent in the respective mediums.
Besides which, unless you are right up next to the music being made, you're looking at compromise, somewhere along the line, regardless of which.
 
gecko zzed said:
I'm sure they would, but that is not the context in which 'sterility' is being used.

I suspect that the digital vs analog debate is more ideological than scientific. Statements like "it's pretty well accepted among that community" (irrespective of their context) are often found in such debates. They are the debating equivalent of "everybody knows that . . . ".
Click to expand...
no it's not at all.
I was specifically referring to specific reviewers in that community that have said they can't hear the difference and I named one in particular.
I was quoting (well ----paraphrasing if you wanna be anal about it) a specific well known analog fanatic that writes in Stereophile, has audiophile DVD's and books and such out so it wasn't a vague or general statement in any way. Start reading Stereophile or go to their archive and read ..... or The Absolute Sound ....... pretty much all those listeners agree on this ..... I've read the articles. I don't make vague statements as if I'm debating because I don't give a crap about any of this.

I was just giving some factual info concerning the opinions of some audiophile reviewers that I follow and, if you bother, you'll find out was accurate.
And I DIDN'T say they were right. I simply said I respect their opinions. Whether you think they're right or wrong is irrelevant ..... I was simply telling where I personally get some of my input.
It can obviously be argued that there's no reason to believe it just because they say it.

But .... I also made a specific point to say that " there are listeners whose ears I respect .... if Michael Fremer ( a manic analog soldier) says he can't hear the difference ....... I have to suspect that niether can any of us" .......
Cleary an explanation of why I, personally, have pretty much come to this opinion and not saying that it's a reason for anyone else to accept it ..... just explaining why I do.

And, BTW, personally I'm an analog guy and far prefer the sound of vinyl to CD so I'd just as soon things stayed that way.
But as long as I see listeners whose opinions I respect write in major audiophile magazines (that you apparently don't read) that they can't tell the difference then I have to take that into account. You, of course, are free to think I read stupid stuff by stupid reveiwers.

And once again ....... I don't care what anyone thinks about this one way or the other ..... I was just giving some info that has influenced my own thinking. The only reason I'm saying something is I don't like someone using the debating equivalent of "I'm talking out my ass".

:D
 
Last edited:
Lt. Bob said:
no it's not at all.
Click to expand...
indeed it isn't!

I wondered what I had said to generate such a long response . . . and now I realise that I misread a word in your post . . . just one word in fact . . . I read "the" instead of "that" in "it's pretty well accepted among that community", That one word makes a big difference!

The lesson is to read a bit more slowly, I think. My apologies to you and your "specific reviewers".
 
Isn't this like asking if Fender is catching up to Gibson?

Digital gear is getting better all the time. No one can deny that. But it's how you use it. The analog gear sounded great even if used 'improperly'. Try clipping your digital recording and hear that wonderful saturation. The digital people who record at 24 bit and 192 kHz and only buy gear that has a THD of less than .001% wonder why it's sounds sterile. But it's even more than that. They spend 912 hours quantising everything and making it sound robotic. The time doesn't move, the drumming is perfect, the vocals are perfect, the whole enchilada is just........ perfectly sterile. Analog people are just more 'human' and you always think their recordings with natural tape saturation and compression sound 'better'. And it always vocals that gives it away for me, other than the timing being too perfect.
 
ranjam said:
Isn't this like asking if Fender is catching up to Gibson?

Digital gear is getting better all the time. No one can deny that. But it's how you use it. The analog gear sounded great even if used 'improperly'. Try clipping your digital recording and hear that wonderful saturation. The digital people who record at 24 bit and 192 kHz and only buy gear that has a THD of less than .001% wonder why it's sounds sterile. But it's even more than that. They spend 912 hours quantising everything and making it sound robotic. The time doesn't move, the drumming is perfect, the vocals are perfect, the whole enchilada is just........ perfectly sterile. Analog people are just more 'human' and you always think their recordings with natural tape saturation and compression sound 'better'. And it always vocals that gives it away for me, other than the timing being too perfect.
Click to expand...

You describe perfectly my earlier thought: "what is being regarded as sterile is something that accompanies a production philosophy rather than the medium itself". What is creating this apparent sterility is not the medium itself, but how it is used.
 
New member, first post, here goes...

What determines whether a recording is considered "digital" or "analog"? If I used a POD to record a guitar directly onto tape, would that be considered a "digital" recording because there was an AD/DA converter in the signal chain? If I transfer an MP3 to tape does that mean that it is "analog"?

In order to make an "analog" recording, does it have to be tracked, mixed, mastered, distributed and played through an all analog signal chain, with no AD/DA conversion at any point? If so, then 99.9% of people will never hear an "analog" recording in their life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top