That's simple. Like it or not, the future of recorded music is digital. "Hanging on" to analog is useful (for the future) only for ways to continually look for further sonic improvements in digital recording techniques and methods. Some of the stuff opus111 and jkeny have been posting, specifically about ways to improve the A>D and D>A processes, demonstrates this. I know there are people who might not agree with this, but really that's their loss.
The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
That's simple. Like it or not, the future of recorded music is digital. "Hanging on" to analog is useful (for the future) only for ways to continually look for further sonic improvements in digital recording techniques and methods. Some of the stuff opus111 and jkeny have been posting, specifically about ways to improve the A>D and D>A processes, demonstrates this. I know there are people who might not agree with this, but really that's their loss.
-- Analog is like sex; it is very sexy indeed. ...To look at, smell of the vinyl, and touching those records and all those turntables jazz ....
And digital is like a drug; an adrenaline's rush, going through your veins and heart.
---- :b
BTW, where's Tim?
And digital is like a drug; an adrenaline's rush, going through your veins and heart.
---- :b
BTW, where's Tim?
The only thing "perfect" about digital audio is its ability to make accurate copies of the data. The problems come in how that data is first generated (A>D) and then read (D>A).
-- ...And 'bout analog? ...Is the process of making the perfect acetate for making a quality record, from perfectly clean machines, 100% up to it?
From reading about the places where they make records (vinyls); it ain't all Black & White. ...Meaning perfect.
...Applications, replications, duplications? ...A very extensive and complicated process; you need all the operations to be perfectly executed.
Some albums cost over fifty dollars a piece, and even then you have an approximate rate of 10% manufacturing defects. ...Plus you need to clean them ALL, very good, even brand new! ...And store them good too, with new specially designed inside plastics (cost money too).
Hey, I'm just sayin' as I am fully aware of everything analog/digital essentials. :b
From reading about the places where they make records (vinyls); it ain't all Black & White. ...Meaning perfect.
...Applications, replications, duplications? ...A very extensive and complicated process; you need all the operations to be perfectly executed.
Some albums cost over fifty dollars a piece, and even then you have an approximate rate of 10% manufacturing defects. ...Plus you need to clean them ALL, very good, even brand new! ...And store them good too, with new specially designed inside plastics (cost money too).
Hey, I'm just sayin' as I am fully aware of everything analog/digital essentials. :b
Last edited:
No, because I'm talking in the case of copying, of being able to copy the data, bit-perfect. That's not the same thing as making a copy of the medium. If (and I'm unclear if this is your meaning) you're saying that something's 'imperfect' because its unable to be perfectly copied, then that also goes for the medium when used digitally. The medium can't be perfectly copied in either (digital or analog) case.
@Gregadd - why do you think that? It doesn't happen with software so why would audio data be a special case?
Are you kidding me? Nothing is ever settled. We can't agree on anything. We have analog that is really digital, digital that is really analog, and analogies that make no sense in order to try and make sense of the nonsensical. Wait a minute, I think I just saw a digital pig with lipstick flying through my backyard carrying an analog monkey on her back. What the hell?
Last edited:
Well, when posters equate fractals with noise*, or claim audio tape and LP's are not data storage media**, it's not likely we'll even have a constructive discussion, much less agreement
*fractals have structure that remains qualitatively similar no matter how deeply one looks, hence are the opposite of noise
**I'm not sure how else they can be characterized; what do we retrieve when we play them?
Last edited:
Congratulations. But I think that the objective of the thread is debating the remaining 5%. And IMHO the best way of doing it is finding a way of avoiding the recording differences.
The fast way you refer to analog and digital also helps confusion. I am assuming your sentence means "I still say 95% of the difference between analog recordings and digital recordings is in the recording technique itself". But I do not know exactly what the 95% means. 95% of the times? 95% of an imaginary subjective sound quality scale?
Yes, I imagine that 'fundamentaly' we disagree, and that was rather obvious
A big difference between us is that I work with both media on the record side as I run a studio that also has an LP mastering operation. We are using our own amps to drive the cutterhead on the lathe.
I am well aware that there are programs that can create fractal images. The point of the comment was that no matter how small your 'bumps' were, there are still smaller ones and they are all different from each other. Thus fundamentally not digital on a microscopic scale.
Similar threads
