why do analog recordings sound better than digital?

[djdorian]

One also has to factor in "dynamics" and "clipping." While there are differences in the abilities of anlog and digital equipment to reproduce accurately the original sound, there are also differences in how dynamic and how distorted, on average, the music of today and of the past are.

Generally speaking, today's "music" is more clipped (digital clipping is considered worse than its analog counterpart) and way more compressed (ruining the "natural-ness" of instruments.)

The sounds that are recorded have as large an effect as the medium itself.

[djdorian]

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!

Indeed. Analog and digital are each better at reproducing different aspects of the original sound.

How high does the resolution of the sound have to become before we can't tell the dif. between and digital/real-life? I'm thinking that we'd have to go beyond even 192khz and 32-bit for those with sensitive ears and attention to detail.

There are people who hear the differences at super-high frequencies; Web articles may shed more light on this, but I can't think of any links at the moment.

There are also speaker systems that go beyond the unfortunate industry standard of 20-22 kHz. They could make good use of 192 kHz processing and 96 kHz out put.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Generally speaking, today's "music" is more clipped (digital clipping is considered worse than its analog counterpart)

you may need to explain this a little better...if there is digital clipping, it is unusable....

[kritikon]

I followed the link to Wikipedia to see who this pale Steve person is. Never heard of any of his bands... Although admittedly I have heard of some of the bands he's been associated with (but not of).

Reading between the lines, I gather he is what one would previously in another city, in another country, have called...an attention-whore gobshite?

Sounds to me like he tags onto decent bands and gathers glory for himself. And he reckons analogue has to be be better than digital...


...sorry, but where did this untanned person come into it and why is he relevant. If I were ever to think digital is much much much better than analogue...he is exactly the type of person that would confirm me in this view.


So, is he a gobshite, then? Did I get it right?

[farlukar]

So, is he a gobshite, then? Did I get it right?

yyyeno... he does have some... ego issues, but it's more that he's just narrow-minded in a weird way. Both his common recording strategy and his own music aren't exactly conventional, but he only works in his own studio and bands hire him because they like his method. So anything other than that just isn't for him. Not that it's bad per se, he just doesn't care.

I never met the guy so I wouldn't know, but he doesn't exactly have the reputation of a nice person. But I bet that compared to most other people in the music biz he's OK

[Chuck E. Jesus]

i've seen shellac live, they are pretty damn powerful....i think if page and plant, nirvana, etc, ask for you, you must know your shit...

EDIT: if there's only one Albini song you listen to, it should be "Kerosene" by Big Black...

cracks me up how just because everybody uses digital they are so close-minded about analog, seems to be the flip side of the same elitist coin to me

[djdorian]

i've seen shellac live, they are pretty damn powerful....i think if page and plant, nirvana, etc, ask for you, you must know your shit...

Agreed. Pro producers tend to have the magical ability to imprint pleasant (or unpleasant, if that's what you're going for) characterisitcs on the sound of recordings with seeming ease.

I will pay $$$ for his spellbook.

...cracks me up how just because everybody uses digital they are so close-minded about analog, seems to be the flip side of the same elitist coin to me

Indeed; ALTHOUGH... with digital it might be possible to improve the technology to the point where all digital artifacts are eleminated; In fact, maybe even until there's no discernable differences between recorded and real-life sounds.

I don't think that's going to happen with analog. But it might with digital.

[multree]

the main reason is that in the times of analog recording the people had to know what they're doing or otherwise they wouldn't have been hired (it's too expensive to own that stuff anyway) nowadays even people like me can make records (well could) and you don't need skills to put something out there... although they might help

[JeffSanders]

(What Mully said.)

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Indeed; ALTHOUGH... with digital it might be possible to improve the technology to the point where all digital artifacts are eleminated; In fact, maybe even until there's no discernable differences between recorded and real-life sounds.

I don't think that's going to happen with analog. But it might with digital.

one thing that did happen in response to digital was the tape companies came out with hotter, less noisey tape that with dolby sounded really great..Ampex and Agfa both, can't remember the names...analog stuff ain't going anywhere be it tape, outboard gear, boards and SYNTHS but it all comes down to one thing: price, bang for buck...

[Hink]

Indeed; ALTHOUGH... with digital it might be possible to improve the technology to the point where all digital artifacts are eleminated; In fact, maybe even until there's no discernable differences between recorded and real-life sounds.

I don't think that's going to happen with analog. But it might with digital.

one thing that did happen in response to digital was the tape companies came out with hotter, less noisey tape that with dolby sounded really great..Ampex and Agfa both, can't remember the names...analog stuff ain't going anywhere be it tape, outboard gear, boards and SYNTHS but it all comes down to one thing: price, bang for buck...

BASF destroyed my hometown's water supply when I was a kid...

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Indeed; ALTHOUGH... with digital it might be possible to improve the technology to the point where all digital artifacts are eleminated; In fact, maybe even until there's no discernable differences between recorded and real-life sounds.

I don't think that's going to happen with analog. But it might with digital.

one thing that did happen in response to digital was the tape companies came out with hotter, less noisey tape that with dolby sounded really great..Ampex and Agfa both, can't remember the names...analog stuff ain't going anywhere be it tape, outboard gear, boards and SYNTHS but it all comes down to one thing: price, bang for buck...

BASF destroyed my hometown's water supply when I was a kid...

man, you just have bad luck with utilities.....

[deaf dunderkwac]

Is this an opinion thingy?
Great!
I *never* *ever* was fooled into believing something was real with analog recording equipment.
I've been fooled with digital recordings. But this only happened with surround playback.
Which one sounds better is whatever you believe in.

[djdorian]

Is this an opinion thingy?
Great!
I *never* *ever* was fooled into believing something was real with analog recording equipment.
I've been fooled with digital recordings. But this only happened with surround playback.
Which one sounds better is whatever you believe in.

thank you.

Oh, I should probably add that you'd also need good speakers (such as the "JBL LSR4328" or "Event ASP8" near-field monitors) in order to be truly tricked. They both sound very close to real life; Like a ghost is in the room singing.

[herodotus]

I followed the link to Wikipedia to see who this pale Steve person is. Never heard of any of his bands... Although admittedly I have heard of some of the bands he's been associated with (but not of).

Reading between the lines, I gather he is what one would previously in another city, in another country, have called...an attention-whore gobshite?

Sounds to me like he tags onto decent bands and gathers glory for himself. And he reckons analogue has to be be better than digital...


...sorry, but where did this untanned person come into it and why is he relevant. If I were ever to think digital is much much much better than analogue...he is exactly the type of person that would confirm me in this view.


So, is he a gobshite, then? Did I get it right?

Well I was being frivolous when mentioning Mr Albini, as I think that the A vs D debate to be generally silly.

But a few corrections are in order:

Mr Albini doesn't seek bands out, they seek him out.

He is not so much the big thing these days, but in the mid 90s there was a (IMO) refreshing trend among indie-rockers to go for a less pro-tooled, artificial, 'airbrushed' sound in their recordings.

Mr Albini was the king of this sort of recording, and so he was very popular among artists like PJ Harvey, Nirvana, and the Pixies.

Mr Albini got known as a musician many years before he became known as an engineer. You might never have heard of any of his bands, but the above mentioned artists and many more were all fans of Big Black and Rapeman, which is where they realized that they liked how he made recordings.

Finally, his preference for analog recording principles are based on his belief that digital media is less permanent.

Look at the monetary/use value of a computer made 20 years ago and compare it with the monetary/use value of a 16 track tape deck made 20 years ago and you will see that while he is a bit of a flake, he is not completely nuts in believing that the digital world is not exactly stable. In fact things change yearly, as we all know.