Why digital is superior to analog

[Beck]

I've had a dog in this fight since 1989, so please take your time. It's not that easy as it seems at first look. First of all I would narrow your paper to the two technologies as recording mediums. For example, MIDI is neither digital nor analog. I was using MIDI when it first came out, long before affordable digital, and all synchronization methods before that were deigned for video and audiotape in the beginning. MIDI is not digital per se. It's a control method and can be used with tape, analog synths and analog consoles.

A couple comments on some of your points:

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

One can also say of analog, “Do things digital can’t.” And again using digital synths/samplers isn’t a problem with most people that prefer tape for recording. My studio is full of digital gear, but I prefer recording to tape. By pitting everything digital against analog tape you are in a sense creating a debate that really doesn’t exist in the music world. You could throw in digital TV for good measure. See what I mean about narrowing down the argument?

The fixing/manipulating with things like pitch correction is a hot topic. You won’t find a consensus that it’s a good thing. Many see it as very destructive to the artistic process. But we could pitch correct before digital. It just wasn't so handy as to be so easily abused.

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

We were doing this in the analog days by sending tapes through snail mail, albeit slower. Bands, for example Van Halen, would create entire albums by recording one member’s part in a studio in New York and another member’s part at a studio in LA. Yes it is faster and more convenient now, but the concept is not new. Tracking and mastering were done in different studios as often if not more than everything being done in one studio. The emergence of the home studio changed this more than the advent of digital.

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

Not necessarily because now you’re getting into the whole area of mixing and mastering, which requires in depth knowledge of acoustics, psychoacoustics, EQ, blending, masking, separation, etc. It is still a gradual process. That hasn’t changed.

Technically superior/robust
Doesn’t degrade (sound quality)
Higher sound quality (technical)

Always debatable. The idea that digital sampling/recording is benign is a myth. Digital imparts its own artifacts that many of us find objectionable. But you don’t even have to invite an analog advocate to the debate. Just start following the innumerable threads on many forums where digital advocates are debating with each other over converters, bit depths and sampling rates. Analog isn’t even on their radar (no pun).

Analog equipment requires more maintenance, care

This is one of my all time favorites.

I have several analog machines, but two I’ve owned for 20 and 23 years. They still function exactly the same as they did when I bought them. The maintenance time and cost have been a drop in the bucket compared to the countless PC’s/DAWs I’ve gone through in the same time period.

I also worked in a TV studio and later a commercial recording studio in my younger days. I’ve been a computer/network consultant for about 12 years, so I know the true total cost of ownership of the devices and mediums in question.

I don’t even remember all the software and computer hardware I’ve gone through in my own home studio, but here’s a quick summery of my experience.

Buy Alesis ADAT after reading breathless review in Electronic Musician Mag
ADAT has life span of typical VCR
Throw away Alesis ADAT
Buy PC and software
Microsoft OS bugs
Microsoft releases fix
Fix introduces new bug
Microsoft releases fix V2
Program has compatibility problem
On phone with software vender
Vender releases fix
Blue screen
Virus
Crash Boom Bang!
Reinstall OS and all programs
Hard drive crash… need replacement
Reinstall OS and all programs
Bad RAM… replace
Processor burns up because fan failed… replace with faster one for good measure
New software released… makes old hardware obsolete
Need new PC
New OS released… conflicts with new recording software/hardware
On phone with hardware vendor… can only use program with Intel Board
Buy new motherboard
Defrag on a schedule
Scan for viruses on a schedule
Periodically vacuum out inside of PC as routine maintenance
Case fan stops working
Video card dies… need replaced
Monitor color goes funky… need new monitor
Hard drive too small… need bigger, faster one
Reinstall or transfer contents of old drive to new
Chorus
Bridge
Repeat
Oh wait, 16/44.1 isn’t good enough after all this time anyway… lets do 20-bit or 20/48
Not so fast… if you don’t have 24/96 it just won’t sound “accurate.”
But what about the 16/44.1 “Perfect sound forever” thing from Sony? I feel violated
Buy new PC to support new OS, new hardware and recording software
New version of recording software doesn’t work well with new OS
Discard old software and try something else you have to learn all over again
Or go back to previous more stable OS and keep old software

Reel-to-reel deck sits in corner and laughs at you through the whole thing and starts taunting you in your dreams… “Timothy… Timothy… but I thought you said Windows 95 SR2 was the OS of the gods and that a 266 MHz processor was like OMG!… HA HA HA… you fool!”

Seriously, the biggest mistake people make is not factoring in the cost of PC hardware, software and all the computer maintenance into the studio budget. Every PC, OS and program issue is an issue for the digital format. If you have a self-contained digital recorder you won’t have all the PC issues, but they have their own issues, bugs. Limitations, etc.

More Opportunistic
Much more cost effective

Perhaps in the short term, but then a gravel road is more cost effective than asphalt, but how’s the ride?

Tim

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But that's the attitude with newbs in anything, since there have been newbs. They all think something (whatever it is they want to get into) should be easy and everybody wants quick results.

You're right that there is always a newbish enthusiasm. But from my view, there is a definite, perceptible difference between now and newbs in this racket thirty years ago.

First, when newbs first heard the term mastering, they found out what it was from relatively truthful sources. Not only did newbs not expect to get things fixed in mastering, but they didn't even try. About the only mastering that took place was setting the recording levels on the cassette deck for the distribution copy we sent out to Real Space. This wasn't because of lack of technology; hell we could've stuck anything in the mastering chain that we could in tracking and mixing, but it was *common knowledge* back then that mastering was not the place to make you mix sound good.

What's the difference? Only two that I can see: Back then the product advertising did not make the same degree of wild and irresponsible claims, nor had the public penetration, the way they do now. Or if they did make such claims, I don't remember anybody actually taking them at half the face value they do now. And back then there was no such phenomenon as the rapid spread and BS reinforcement of Internet myth like there is today (death panels my ass!) It's the false promises today that's generating most of the impatience, not the newbishness.

You're right that 90% of the crap on meSpace and meTube will be relegated to the dust bin of history faster than A Flock of Seagulls, but I have set to see an end of tunnel light that'll replace it with anything better.

G.

 

[miroslav]

So true!!!

... 90% of the crap on meSpace and meTube will be relegated to the dust bin of history faster than A Flock of Seagulls...

And the real sad part is that most of the people who put up that 90%...actually think the stuff is great, or they have no clue what is bad about it or how to fix it...other than to look for yet one more plug-in that will magically do it for them.

Don't get me wrong, I like some of digital's strengths...and I use it mainly for it's superior editing...but my front-end and back-end is still pretty much all analog (except for my digital reverb processors). I'm glad I grew up with tape and analog gear, rather than to be just getting into it all at this point in time.
Most of those 90% have no real foundation...they are just mousing around and assuming a lot of the work will be done by the software.
But digital can be good...with the right foundation going in....

 

[mshilarious]

You're right that 90% of the crap on meSpace and meTube will be relegated to the dust bin of history faster than A Flock of Seagulls, but I have set to see an end of tunnel light that'll replace it with anything better.

Hey man, FoS won a Grammy . . . an ANALOG Grammy!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hey man, FoS won a Grammy . . . an ANALOG Grammy!

Oh, what an idea! Digital Grammys!

No point making all those pesky physical trophys and giving them out at an awards ceremony, It's too hard, too slow, too expensive, and too 20th century old school. We'll just have evrybody get together on Skype and pass out digital virtual trophys.

The beauty of that is that the newbs of 2029 won't even have to bother mastering. Hell, they won't even have to bother mixing, tracking or actually playing any music. They can just cut right to the chase, Limewire their own pirated copy of a digital Grammy award and be done with it!



G.

 

[jedblue]

No point making all those pesky physical trophys and giving them out at an awards ceremony,

Oh I don't know about that Glen, if you've got the right connections then there's no end to the sparkly awards you can receive...

Of course, you could just award them to yourself if no one else will...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ah, yes, Idi Amin Dada. Here he is after he stole his Grammy for his 1992 hit "Diz Knee Land"

G.

 

[lumbago]

George Massenburg posted an interview in Audio Technology magazine recently which offers a succinct counter-argument (he claims digital music has ruined the music industry).

George's authority outweighs yours by about a billionfold

 

[Beck]

George Massenburg posted an interview in Audio Technology magazine recently which offers a succinct counter-argument (he claims digital music has ruined the music industry).

I'd like to see that. Any on-line parts of the interview, or the whole thing?

Until we see what he's talking about, we wouldn't know what he means. Did he talk about illegal file sharing or sonic issues, or something else? In what way did he say digital has ruined the music industry?

 

[lumbago]

Can't find any online links - Massenburg was criticizing the quality of digital audio (generally).

 

[mshilarious]

Can't find any online links - Massenburg was criticizing the quality of digital audio (generally).

One could pretty successfully argue that high-speed internet access ruined the music industry, but not digital audio. In the first 12 years that CDs were commonplace (say 1987 to 1999), the industry grew tremendously. The average consumer has never cared about audio quality, and any argument to the contrary would require sufficient evidence beyond an appeal to authority.

Let's not get too extreme in forecasting the death of the industry; sure it's down from $14B in 1999 to $10B last year, but further contraction is not forecast to be extreme, and $10B is still quite a lot of change. That is larger than the pre-CD industry, although I don't have real (inflation-adjusted) figures.

Also, one can't ignore the value of the live music industry, which has grown steadily and is larger than the recorded music industry.

Back in 1850 there were probably musicians grumbling about the sheet music industry putting professionals out of work . . . then the record industry killed the sheet music industry. Now we are returning to live music again, hard to see that as a bad thing.

Also, while we are on the topic of consumer audio quality, the only way for a consumer to enjoy the supposed benefits of LPs is to spend about 10x what a digital system would cost. At least my Sony turntable is nowhere comparable to CD sound quality, even if I am generous enough to ignore noise, and back in the day most consumers didn't have a turntable that was even that nice.

 

[ofajen]

To the original poster: forewarned is forearmed. While there is no sense arguing over matters of taste, a person might make the following (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) counterproposal:

Why Analog is Superior to Digital:

Analog produces better musical sound
(Analog reduces crest factor, compresses peaks, adds distortion that increases sense of musical "intensity" and generally provides a subjectively pleasing musical effect)

Analog promotes better musicianship
(Play parts all the way through, rather than cut and paste; focus on playing, practice and tone, not endless tweaking of "OK" parts)

Analog simplifies the recording process
(No need to search for more plug-ins when things already sound good; no latency; gear ready to go when you turn it on, right where you left off)

Analog has better metering
(Peak meters only protect you from "overs", don't give good feedback on loudness; VU meters provide useful info on perceived loudness of tracks)

Analog fosters better, easier level practices
(Concept of 0 VU reference level provides simple, intuitive way to match levels of gear, with variations for "pro level" and "consumer")

Analog creates better musical mixes
(Additional compression of peaks provides simple, musical way to reasonably increase loudness)

Analog failures are easier to manage
(Digital audio failures tend to be catastrophic, "overs" sound subjectively bad; analog distortion increases smoothly, failure of console or recorder may only be one or two channels which often doesn't interfere with completion of projects)


Of course, digital does have advantages when recording, and the original poster mentioned many of them, and digital has obvious advantages on the distribution side, once program content is created: cheap, easy duplication, transmission over networks, etc.

Just thought I'd throw this in for fun. As I said, there is no point in arguing over matters of taste.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[NYMorningstar]

Analogue gives you much more head room.

How do you figure?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Now we are returning to live music again, hard to see that as a bad thing.

Jon, excellent post! Just a comment on this part of it, if I may (since the original topic is already beat to death anyway)...

You're right that it's all about the live show nowdays. It used to be that live shows were used to sell albums. Now that has turned inside out and the albums are used to sell the live shows, because that's where the money is (for LiveNation and the label, anyway).

But I'd modify one word in the above quote and change the word "music" to "performance". There is an increasing trend in the A-List (money- and demographic-wise) artists to turn the live shows into live versions of the video, with a stronger emphasis as we go on on the artist as physical "performer" and a de-emphasis on the music itself, to the point where live Britney concerts are largely lip synched and where Miley actually uses a stage double to pretend she's singing instead of backstage changing into a new costume. I was reading Richard Koz talking about the Britney thing and he was saying that he was amazed that the audience *knew* that it was lip synced and that they simply did not mind or care, they just wanted to see the show.

I know, I'm talking Britney and Miley, which many will simply dismiss, but this is the top of the commercial mountain from which trends trickle into the public consciousness. What's being done by the cha-ching names today is what is emulated by the up-and-comers.

And it's not limited to them; this trend is bleeding into country, what passes for R&B these days, and other genres as well, where the music is becoming subservient to the show itself; rather like the inter-act piano player in a Vaudeville show, who nobody actually came to see.

This is a trend that started back in the early 60s. The beginning of the end of music started with the Beatles on Ed Sullivan (Did anybody actually hear them play that day or in *any* of their concerts? Did anybody who went actually care?), but the slope has been getting precipitously steep of late.

The music industry will survive, it's music that worries me.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Can't find any online links - Massenburg was criticizing the quality of digital audio (generally).

That's because Massenburg is old. And old people like old stuff because they can't wrap their head around new technology, because their ability to learn diminishes througout the years.

 

[miroslav]

Hasn't GM been using/embracing digital as his recording/editing format for a long time now...?

 

[mshilarious]

The music industry will survive, it's music that worries me.

G.

Yeah, when you look at the big names on the money list it's faux shows or dinosaur bands. But right below that are the jam bands (Phish, DMB, etc.), which personally I cannot stand but they sell a lot of tickets to fans that go to a lot of shows. I have taper customers who do three shows a week and digital recording is a big reason why they go to the shows in the first place. I don't record any show I don't get paid to do (and since I sold my mobile rig, that would be zero), but they love it. They probably spend, on average, $500 on their recording rigs and $500 per month on tickets! Not just jam bands, they tend to want to see and record everything.

What would happen to homereccers if they spend $500 on a recording rig and $500 per month on better instruments, renting a better space (take your $500 portable rig with you!), music lessons, composition seminars, etc? We probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

As for me, I spend about $200 per year on tickets and nothing anymore on gear, I am a strange example though.

Let's say if I didn't do the gear-building thing, I could be very happy with three microphones and a three-channel input recorder with a stereo mix bus to ADC and stereo out. That can be done for $500. I like my UAD plugs but four years later the free ones are just fine, and the Cubase SX2.2 I picked up for $50 works great.

The amount I spend on instruments varies with how much money I have, although pipe organ construction has now entered high gear!



.
.
.

Here's one giant advantage to digital not yet mentioned: power consumption is much lower. Well, it SHOULD be much lower, but because of legacy analog standards and procedures a lot of power is wasted. I am working on a comprehensive three-channel system from mics to ADC and USB interface with target power consumption of less than 1W. You have to add the recording system (PC or standalone recorder) power consumption to that, but that can be very small as well. I think the future is general purpose portable computing devices (iPhone and its successors), and nobody will be thinking about standalone recording devices, just interfaces. Also higher quality audio for video, since everybody loves video (something else I despise). Imagine a tablet PC running Reaper with a high-end but very small and efficient interface, the power of that is incredible. No more will people worry about treating their rooms because they will just go somewhere that the acoustics are already good--or interesting!

It's the wave of the future!

 

[Dogman]

Music was meant to be SEEN not heard......

 

[NL5]

I'd like to see that. Any on-line parts of the interview, or the whole thing?

Until we see what he's talking about, we wouldn't know what he means. Did he talk about illegal file sharing or sonic issues, or something else? In what way did he say digital has ruined the music industry?

Can't find any online links - Massenburg was criticizing the quality of digital audio (generally).

George Massenburg posted an interview in Audio Technology magazine recently which offers a succinct counter-argument (he claims digital music has ruined the music industry).

George's authority outweighs yours by about a billionfold

Interesting. Especially since George did JJR - considered one of the better sounding records EVER - and he did it on crappy 16 bit digital recorders.........

 

[miroslav]

Music was meant to be SEEN not heard......

Nice mix!

It LOOKS great!