why do analog recordings sound better than digital?

[donkey tugger]

And anything that goes up to 11 has to be better than anything that only goes up to 10.

All men play on 10.

[james0tucson]

not sure I agree with all that...I reckon my pod 2.0 live run through my 400 watt power amp might fill that 500 seat room as well as my boogie....perhaps that's why they call it "live". I'm also not sure just because something is all tubes does not mean it is "high quality pro-audio" when compared to some of the high-end line six stuff or other similar products...

The ease of lugging the thing out of the station wagon, on to the stage, and back, has a certain appeal. I'm damn sure not hauling any computer equipment into that environment, believe me. Maybe you guys get gigs in nice clean places where the floors aren't soaked with beer

[tetraplan]

why do analog recordings sound better than digital?

because alot of geezers say so.

Only because they're a little bit whayyyyyy, a little bit whoooa.

Groet, Erik

[Vegetarian]

Of course analogue's warmer, I touched one of those tubes once and the Wicked Old Witch of The West asked me if I'd nicked her spare set of hands took weeks before all those blisters healed!

[Cabinfever]

Who's Steve Albini? Sounds like a plurality of very pale people. Like a flock of sheep...a rinse of Albinis? Did you know a flock of crows is apparently called a murder of crows? Funny that.

And a Parliament of Owls and a Paddling of Ducks

Collective nouns for musicians would be a much more interesting thread...

An Ego of Singers ?
A Dump of Drummers ?

[The Chase]

Steve Albini says so.

Seriously? Wow, that definitely makes it better.

[Foxglove]

BEcasue analog is Warm, full, smooth, saturated, oh and warm, warmer, its just real Warm. Digital is cold, real cold, like ice cold, and harsh yeah harsh, its TOO good..

yeah that's the answer that we've become conditioned to say...but how true is it really?..Instead of the typical cliche answers I'll be honest...it's better in the same way that "the good ol days" were better...nostalgia...however for me production out weighs nostalgia and the "cool" answer...yeah the good ol days...where you could go to a studio, spend about a grand and walk away with 500 45s with a song on each side, the good ol days where yah just finish up a song and while mixing it down the tape breaks, the good ol days where the tape for one song on some of those machines cost more than some hard drives today, the good ol days where the home enthusiast could spend 500 bux and get four tracks on a tiny tape and no noise reduction or effects...where when you were done you had a cassette full of mud....yeah the good ol days...sorry but I won't buy into the hype and I wont apologize for being able to do with digital what I couldn't even dream of when I started...long live digital

I have to agree with what you're saying...there's no doubt that Digital is so much more conveniant than analog...but we are talking sound quality, not conveniance. I like the analogy of photography where in Classic Photography, you have, for instance, an infinate amount of shades between absolute black, and absolute white. Whereas in digital photography, the shades are dependant on what resolution and bit depth you're working in, and no matter what resolution that is, it's still going to be finate.

Now taking the same concept to audio, when you tweak the cutoff on a true analog synth, you're dealing with voltages, and there are an infinate amount of values between the min and the max, whereas in digital, you only have a certain amount of steps between your minimum and maximum values.

Of course it's all relative in the end. Electronic music suits the options that are availible in the Digital domain. Having so many options with VSTi's and MIDI sequencing, it just makes sense. But when I hear Rock, and Alternative music that's been recorded in Digital using a sequencer...I'm sorry, but on most occasions I find it sounds to shiny and new...has no rawness to it whatsoever. Kinda like typical American Country-Rock (no offense to those who like).

If you really want to make a good comparision to the two, take a listen to Modest Mouse's lastest "Good News For People Who Love Bad News". It's done in Pro Tools, lots of VSTi's going on. It sounds great, but it sounds to tame and polite.

After you've given that a go, hunt down The Microphone's "Mount Eerie" (on vinyl preferably). This is true TRUE analog. The first couple of minutes have fog horns going off in the distance, and there's such a sense of dynamic range with the tape hiss so upfront, and the fog horns in the distance, and then all of a sudden he starts making a beat by muting and unmuting the master output bus. So you're going from tape hiss to complete silence, and this obviously isn't being sequenced. He's literally just pushing that button on and off...and the timing isn't perfect, but it sounds AMAZING. And then the drums..you can see those needles smashing into the RED. It's just so beautiful...really it's a must-listen for analog enthuiasts...

... Reading back on what I just wrote, I've kinda noticed that I have this passions for the sound of analog. Kind of a love for all it's subtle details...does that exist in the Digital world?

[Rangtangtang]

But, those who have that golden ear for analog, probably prefer the music of the early 60's to early 70's.

Digital is certaintly alot easier than analog, but the 80's music definatly did lack a lot of warmth. Its harsh and over-commercialised.

[papawillow]

Probably the raised noise floor gives more atmosphere.

[rollasoc]

Because analog is better than digital.

Steve Albini says so.

Thing is, if digital had been invented years before analog everyone would be arguing that Analog is crap, since it colours the sound and you have to EQ it to make it sound like the thing you recorded in the first place.

Personally, the best thing to do is have a mixture of both. Both have plus and minus points.

Rollasoc

[farlukar]

Who's Steve Albini?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_albini

He's a great recording engineer, plays in one of the bestest bands evar, and (although he's not as uptight as this thread might suggest) is a bit of an arrogant c**t.

[duncanparsons]

I like the sound of particles vibrating.

That's good euff for me.

Analogue sounds one way, digital sounds another. I like some music and not others. I've heard brilliant stuff created purely in the digital field, and rubbish on all analogue gear; the converse is true as well.

It depends alot on the creativity of the user and the time they are willing to spend to get the sound they feel is best.

Still, everyone likes to argue, so I'll contribute that fish tastes better out of a newspaper than off a plate.



DSP

[Dunbar]

I remember when it was all fields around here...

... and Steve Albini said "...if it doesn't kill you eventually it'll give you the horn."

[BertKoor]

AND because Steve Albini says so.

Are there any articles or interviews online with his thougths on this?

Oh yeah: http://inmyroom.org/writing/albini.html

Albini has developed a reputation for being against digital recording techniques, but not for reasons of sound quality. "I don't use digital recording because it's inappropriate for the work that I do. I do permanent recording of records that are intended to last forever. They are the history of the band I am working for at the moment, and it is vitally important to them."

He notes that digital formats are relatively impermanent in nature compared to analog formats, and that he has "yet to come across a circumstance where I couldn't accomplish what I needed to do using analog techniques." He concedes that digital recording is fine for most uses, but mostly for "stuff that doesn't matter to me," an admission that brought laughter from the audience.

[Jafo]

Actually, even analog is digital -- it's just that the minimal changes lie so far beyond our threshholds of difference, that they only seem continuous.

Maybe what we should really be arguing about, is what sampling rate and bit-depth we need to use to eliminate obvious digital artifacts. Personally, I find that a decent set of converters at 16/44.1 usually works fine -- although I keep experimenting with 24/88.2!