Why digital is superior to analog

[jordanstreet]

Before the flames start shooting I know this is a touchy topic and no one is superior to the other. I know it's more a matter of the engineer's experience.

I am writing a paper and this is going to be my thesis. I chose digital vs analog because I know some about it and the people reviewing my paper no nothing about. I chose the digital side because imo it's easier to argue for.

So let me know if you guys have anything to add to what I've got so far as an outline (btw I know some points can be disputed such as sound quality etc.)

Do things analog cant
Create effects not possible in analog
Record instruments/sounds not available to you (samplers)
Fix, improve, manipulate musicians performance (tuning, pitch manipulation, timing correction)
MIDI (do things humans can’t, have perfect performances)

Do things better than analog
Share data between multiple users at same time (sending pro tools sessions, tracking one place mixing at another)
Edit more efficiently (mass edit, binds)
Distribute work easier (digital download, submission)
More precise idea of final product though all stages (sound)

Technically superior/robust
Record high number of multiple tracks
Doesn’t degrade (sound quality)
Higher sound quality (technical)
Analog equipment requires more maintenance, care

More Opportunistic
Gives opportunities to people on small budgets
Much more cost effective

thanks guys

 

[mshilarious]

A thesis is something you have to prove or disprove. It would be a weak paper if you didn't carefully consider counterarguments, of which there are more than a few . . . this isn't really appropriate grist for the newbs forum, I will move it elsewhere.

 

[ofajen]

How about adding "guarantee perfect sound forever" to your list?

Cheers,

Otto

 

[miroslav]

Yeah...but how does it sound?

 

[XLR]

A few observations:
1) Good digital is better than bad analog. Beyond that, I'd avoid sound quality claims.
2) The home computer is ubiquitous. Stock soundcards can be used to start out recording. Multitrack software and processing plugins are available for free. So the typical home computer owner already has a basic multitrack recording system available without leaving their house. Stepping up to decent sound quality, USB/firewire interfaces are inexpensive.
3) The digital word processor didn't make for better writing results than the analog quill pen. And digital audio recording doesn't make better recordings than analog, it just makes it easier.

 

[jordanstreet]

first off thank you all for the responses

A few observations:
1) Good digital is better than bad analog. Beyond that, I'd avoid sound quality claims.
2) The home computer is ubiquitous. Stock soundcards can be used to start out recording. Multitrack software and processing plugins are available for free. So the typical home computer owner already has a basic multitrack recording system available without leaving their house. Stepping up to decent sound quality, USB/firewire interfaces are inexpensive.
3) The digital word processor didn't make for better writing results than the analog quill pen. And digital audio recording doesn't make better recordings than analog, it just makes it easier.

I'll def take those into consideration thanks.

A thesis is something you have to prove or disprove. It would be a weak paper if you didn't carefully consider counterarguments, of which there are more than a few . . . this isn't really appropriate grist for the newbs forum, I will move it elsewhere.

Thanks for moving it, I wasn't quite sure where to post. And I completely understand where your coming from. Consider my audience though, this isn't getting published in soundonsound its going to be reviewed by a panel of english teachers . I will make sure my arguments are forceful and point out counter arguments as well just not in extreme depth.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I know...no one is superior to the other...it's more a matter of the engineer's experience.
...
I chose digital vs analog because I know some about it and the people reviewing my paper no nothing about.
...
I chose the digital side because imo it's easier to argue for.

I hope this is a paper for Litigation 101 in law school, and not for English Composition - let alone journalism - because you have basically just said you are going to be purposely lying through your teeth in this paper. You have said in so many words that you know that the thesis is false and that you picked it simply because it's an easy subject to lie to the public about. The good news is that there you have a long career ahead of you as either a Guitar Center salesperson or a marketing rep for T-Racks .

So let me know if you guys have anything to add to what I've got so far as an outline (btw I know some points can be disputed such as sound quality etc.)

OK:

Do things analog cant

Not an effective argument for superiority, because analog can also do things digital can't. It's a wash.

Create effects not possible in analog

Ditto.

Fix, improve, manipulate musicians performance (tuning, pitch manipulation, timing correction)

Entire theses can (and probably have been) written about how this is just as much a negative as a positive. Either way, it's a purely subjective point, and not a very strong argument for "superiority."

Do things better than analog

Define "better"?

Share data between multiple users at same time (sending pro tools sessions, tracking one place mixing at another)

This can - and has - easily be done in analog as well via two new inventions called magnetic tape and paper track sheets.

More precise idea of final product though all stages (sound)

I don't understand this one at all.

Record high number of multiple tracks

Also easily done in analog.

Doesn’t degrade (sound quality)

Since when? The easier it is for the user to mess around with the bits, the quicker the sound tends to degrade. And anything recorded magnetically - including hard drives - degrades over time.

And while this may not be sound quality specifically, you crash the hard drive or scratch the CD and you've lost data completely unless you spend several hundred bucks having it professionally extracted and restored.

Higher sound quality (technical)

Also purely subjective.

Gives opportunities to people on small budgets

Arguably just as much, if not more, of a negative thing as it is a positive thing.

Much more cost effective

Again, very debatable. There's noting cost effective about a medium that allows the inexperienced user to tinker with a phantom mix for days or weeks on end, when they would wind up with similar results anyway by spending two hours with an 8-track tape machine.

I'm not arguing for analog being superior; I'm arguing that to pick one over the other would be like saying that ice cream is superior to pizza, or vice versa. They both have their pluses and minuses, and the perfect meal would have 'za as the main course with a nice sundae for desert .

You ought write your paper on a thesis that strives for truth; that digital and analog both have their advantages and disadvantages, that choosing between the two is a false choice, and that the marriage of the two is what usually provides the strongest option, at least on paper. It will be a much more interesting paper, will be much more truthful, informative and educational, and you won't be sending another classroom full of newbs to these forums completely misinformed and in need of correction; we get enough of that already.

G.

 

[XLR]

Summary please. I don't have time to read posts that are longer than my monitor screen is tall.

 

[noisewreck]

Summary please. I don't have time to read posts that are longer than my monitor screen is tall.

Which is why I hate wide-screen monitors. They are great as TVs but not as computer monitors.

 

[noisewreck]

Yeah...but how does it sound?

ofajen already answered it:

How about adding "guarantee perfect sound forever" to your list?

 

[cjacek]

Man, are we at this again? I've really grown to hate the endless digital vs analogue debate, despite being active in more than one such thread, over the years. This topic can get very informative but more oft than not results in mud slinging and nothing ever gets resolved, nor do minds change. Why do humans tend to repeat history?

 

[noisewreck]

The good news is that there you have a long career ahead of you as either a Guitar Center salesperson or a marketing rep for T-Racks

I'd say he can be the perfect congressman.

This can - and has - easily be done in analog as well via two new inventions called magnetic tape and paper track sheets.

Yes, but digital is cheaper, thus better.

I don't understand this one at all.

Oh, c'mon. Think how nicely you can line up everything to the grid, arrange an entire song with the mouse, and if you're bored, you can color each track a different color. Then you can experiment to see what happens if you arrange them to make a nice rainbow... eh... uhm.

Also easily done in analog.

Yes, but digital is cheaper, thus better. Again!

Since when?

Since 1999 with the advent of DSD Anything better then that will need to be done with quantum computers, where each sample interval is no larger than the Plank scale, which arguably will result in more "continuous" waveforms than analog since analog based is on iron molecules (in the case of magnetic tape), thus you can argue that it uses molecular sampling technology... but I digress.

OK, tired of copying and pasting, so I'm gonna move on...

OP... in the famous words of Rodney King... "Can't we all get along?"

Analog is good
Digital is good
PC is good
Mac is good

Topics like these... bad. In fact they suck. This thread is a prime candidate for derailment.

 

[cjacek]

OP... in the famous words of Rodney King... "Can't we all get along?"

Analog is good
Digital is good
PC is good
Mac is good

Topics like these... bad. In fact they suck. This thread is a prime candidate for derailment.

Amen brother, amen.

 

[dintymoore]

When I was a kid a friend of mine's dad had a studio with a 24 ch Neve board, two 24 track MCI's and lots of vintage Neumanns. Carlos, George Benson and Sly used to record there. I have been chasing that sound all my life. Digital has yet to even come close.

Digital is in it's infancy, analog was pretty darn good by 1980.

Back in the day, you needed a Neumann lathe to make records, now you can make them with a Walmart computer. It's resulted in free copies of anything, and most songs can be downloaded for free from YouTube or from friends, so that's taken a lot of the money away from musicians.
If movies were free there wouldn't be much incentive to spend 50 million making one.

On the plus side it sure is nice to have a recording studio in my house and be able to make what's in my head into a reality any time I want.

 

[Dani Pace]

It's pretty easy to screw up an analog recording, it's real easy to screw up a digital one. I'm not sure if that's a point worth argueing but experience tells me that it's true.

 

[legionserial]

The 'best' way would probably be a hybrid of the two.

 

[mshilarious]

Man, are we at this again? I've really grown to hate the endless digital vs analogue debate, despite being active in more than one such thread, over the years. This topic can get very informative but more oft than not results in mud slinging and nothing ever gets resolved, nor do minds change. Why do humans tend to repeat history?

Oh I wouldn't hold out hopes for this thread being even 3% as good as some of the actual discussions that have been held here on the topic. I somehow doubt OP is up for the very technical nature of the issues.

Our previous efforts have been remarkably free of mudslinging, I'd like to keep this board that way. There are other less reputable BBSs where that may occur.

Bottom line, OP wants his research done for him, and he's already predetermined his conclusions, so this was bound to be a low quality thread from the first post. That fact has no bearing on the merits of analog vs. digital, so we shouldn't allow ourselves to get dragged into the muck.

 

[mshilarious]

It's pretty easy to screw up an analog recording, it's real easy to screw up a digital one. I'm not sure if that's a point worth argueing but experience tells me that it's true.

It's real easy NOT to screw up either one.

Recording 101:

- find a source worth recording
- put them in an acoustic space suitable for the recording
- put an appropriate microphone at an appropriate placement and orientation

Those are by far the three hardest parts. Now the digital vs. analog difference:

Digital:

- figure out how to plug in your digital recorder/interface.
- figure out how to operate the software (or firmware)
- press record
- press stop
- back up to two places, one of which should be geographically isolated

Analog:

- figure out how to plug in your tape deck
- figure out how to align, calibrate, & operate your tape deck
- press record
- press stop
- back up to a geographically isolated place


From there, you have to actively decide to screw up a recording, so I don't follow your comment. OK, it's less expensive to buy free plugins rather than an Alesis 3630 and an Aphex Aural Exciter (although those two should be free!), but the end result of incompetent production is the same.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Man, are we at this again? I've really grown to hate the endless digital vs analogue debate, despite being active in more than one such thread, over the years. This topic can get very informative but more oft than not results in mud slinging and nothing ever gets resolved, nor do minds change. Why do humans tend to repeat history?

Lasyness.

Most people tend to repeat history because they are too lazy to read or learn anything more than a Twitter-length summary of it - if at all - and wind up learning the wrong thing - if anything at all.

This thread is even more despicable because the OP admitted right off the bat that it's based upon a false premise. He already knows the right answer is that neither is completely superior to the other, that the two are complementary technologies, and that making it into an either/or question is a false choice. Yet he's taking the digital side because "it's easier".

Which leads to another reason for history repeating itself: When people falsely represent and re-write history out of such laziness, it's bound to be repeated.

G.

 

[miroslav]

I chose the digital side because imo it's easier to argue for.

I think you would end up with a much more interesting paper if you wrote about why analog is still holding ground in this very pro-digital world, and how most engineers have found ways to make the most of the two formats in a variety of hybrid setups.