Analog or Digital?

[Kazrog]

So vinyl has been making a big comeback in the last few years. What do you guys think?

Check out this article:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5213042/why-we-need-audiophiles

And this video from MTV News in 1993 (which features Dave Mustaine, among others, debating about this issue):



I have my own thoughts on this that I'll post later in the thread, but I don't want to distract from the awesomeness of this article or the video yet.

 

[ahjteam]

Atleast the Finnish IFPI sales statistics still shows that the buyers of new products between cd and vinyl is 6 000 000 vs 3 000, so its really a minority thing.

 

[John_C]

I have to say i'm with the audiophile guy about CD quality. With something like a violin it really just doesn't cut the mustard working at 16 44100

 

[slashvanyoung]

The old debate...

I honestly think that what analog-geeks (as far as music playback goes) miss are things that the analog-medium adds because of its physical characteristics, rather than the CD "taking something away".

So while this alternation/colorization is usually perceived as pleasing, it's still an alternation.

 

[pifos_2]

"its because their suck...."

God, if only they knew people would hardly buy cds 15 years later and that all the kids would CHECK OUT BANDZ ON MYSPACE YO and download mp3s... that makes me laugh.

 

[John_C]

The more i learn to listen harder the more i dislike mp3s

 

[Ermz]

ahaha I generally hate Mustaine, but man that little clip really got him some points in my book.

Honestly as with all things it's people missing the colorations that were added by an inferior medium. Our hearing hardly lends itself to preferring transparency or clarity. We love subtle harmonic distortion, phase shifts, nuances. Analogue was full of those little things because none of the gear was perfect.

The main drawback to digital is our refusal to step up from the 16 bit 44khz rate we're at. If we started releasing at 24-bit 192khz, with great DA conversion, digital wouldn't seem to lack.

 

[John_C]

ahaha I generally hate Mustaine, but man that little clip really got him some points in my book.

Honestly as with all things it's people missing the colorations that were added by an inferior medium. Our hearing hardly lends itself to preferring transparency or clarity. We love subtle harmonic distortion, phase shifts, nuances. Analogue was full of those little things because none of the gear was perfect.

The main drawback to digital is our refusal to step up from the 16 bit 44khz rate we're at. If we started releasing at 24-bit 192khz, with great DA conversion, digital wouldn't seem to lack.

+99

Exactly my point of view

 

[beyond dead]

I agree with ermz as well. but cd`s are more convenient, and easier to rip on your computer. I grew up listening to cd`s, and most of my fav albums (around the fur) were released on cd. my vote is for cd`s!

 

[ze kink]

I'm kinda boring, since I'm just gonna say that I agree with Ermz too If I had a shitload of money, I'd probably use tape for some stuff, but I don't. I also don't get why we're still stuck with the 16bit/44khz, there's just no reason to stick with it really.

 

[WestCoastCrush]

I've taken to a "best of both worlds" approach.

I usually do all the source material to disk at 88.2 KHz/24 bit and then bounce down to 1/2" tape, then master from that to 44.1 KHz/16 bit. It honestly makes a difference.

That is of course, when I have the luxury of budget, these days. Normally, it's 100% all-digital, 85% of the time entirely in-the-box all throughout.

 

[Suicide_As_Alibi]

I agree with ermz as well. but cd`s are more convenient, and easier to rip on your computer. I grew up listening to cd`s, and most of my fav albums (around the fur) were released on cd. my vote is for cd`s!

DVD-Audio goes up to 24bit, 192kHz - and nobody bothers putting anything out on it. And to be honest, I'm fairly sure most people don't have a set-up that will do the difference that much justice.

Personally I'm not so sure the important difference between analogue and digital is colouration, as that only really affects audio - and the fact is that people tend to prefer analogue in ALL fields that use both (eg. photography). The key difference from a technical aspect is aliasing - some people just seem to pick up on discrete data in a bad way.

To switch away from audio for a second: no matter what megapixel a camera works at (right up to bleeding-edge 50 megapixel backs), some people can spot the difference instantly - whereas the average person looking at snapshots has no idea. It's the same with audio - some people just seem to have a natural love for the contiguous data of an analogue source.

Steve

 

[egan.]

DVD-Audio goes up to 24bit, 192kHz - and nobody bothers putting anything out on it. And to be honest, I'm fairly sure most people don't have a set-up that will do the difference that much justice.

Personally I'm not so sure the important difference between analogue and digital is colouration, as that only really affects audio - and the fact is that people tend to prefer analogue in ALL fields that use both (eg. photography). The key difference from a technical aspect is aliasing - some people just seem to pick up on discrete data in a bad way.

To switch away from audio for a second: no matter what megapixel a camera works at (right up to bleeding-edge 50 megapixel backs), some people can spot the difference instantly - whereas the average person looking at snapshots has no idea. It's the same with audio - some people just seem to have a natural love for the contiguous data of an analogue source.

Steve

Interesting post. I've always been disappointed that the hybrid SACD never caught on. For those unfamiliar, that format offered 2 versions of an album on a single disc....a high def version and a 16/44.1 version that would play on regular CD players. It would increase cost (2 masterings, higher repro cost) but for people who crave quality it would be invaluable.

I think that vinyl is cool, but I think that the sales bump has more to do with trendiness than with audiophile quality. I think that the greatest thing about vinyl is in it's limitation: It's form factor basically forces you to sit and pay attention to it.
Still, as the article states, the vast majority of folks aren't interested in a physical medium at all.

 

[slashvanyoung]

It's the same with audio - some people just seem to have a natural love for the contiguous data of an analogue source.

Steve

What I find to be very ironic, are vinyl-gurus preaching about how much better their time-continuous signal from their vinyl is in comparison to the time-discrete signal from CDs that has to go through D/A conversion before becoming continuous again... when in fact more than 90% (rough estimation, probably even more) of the vinyl being put out nowadays has been digitally recorded in the first place and has therefore been (usually) through exactly as much A/D-D/A conversions as listening to the CD-version (though the vinyl master could have been done with a higher resolution than the CD master, but still)....

= Bullshit.

 

[egan.]

What I find to be very ironic, are vinyl-gurus preaching about how much better their time-continuous signal from their vinyl is in comparison to the time-discrete signal from CDs that has to go through D/A conversion before becoming continuous again... when in fact more than 90% (rough estimation, probably even more) of the vinyl being put out nowadays has been digitally recorded in the first place and has therefore been (usually) through exactly as much A/D-D/A conversions as listening to the CD-version (though the vinyl master could have been doen with a higher resolution than the CD master, but still)....

= Bullshit.

...and lots of labels press them off the exact same CD master.

 

[NickL]

I enjoy listening to vinyl more. It feels more musical and tends to hold my attention much easier. I don't really think I need any other reason than that I enjoy it.

 

[slashvanyoung]

...and lots of labels press them off the exact same CD master.

Just so true, Egan.

 

[Saculus]

CD's however were a forced medium. Records like books that don't sell at a book store could be returned to the publisher. When CD's came out the only reason they were stocked is because Vinyl had its return option removed. If you want returning overstock as part of your record stores business model you had to move to returnable CDs.

 

[John_C]

This is just as a point of interest, not really arguing any side

When my grandfather died we found 6 inch square photographs of bombed out cities in his house. They are arial reconnaissance photos from world war 2 and the pictures we have are original prints of the negatives. The interesting thing is that no upscaling has occured, the negatives were 6 inch squares.

This means that although a particular picture is roughly 6 inches to the mile, if you get a powerful magnifying glass out you can see detail of the clothes people in the streets are wearing

and that's analogue for you

 

[MetalJonesy]

interesting post, and these debate will go on and on, even when were all recording at 192/32 i love digging out my old vinyls, but even with my decent deck, they have dust noise, scratches, pops. this is even with mint vinyls. guess id have to listen to the stereo master reel ro reel to make a proper judgement!