Assume sound quality is equal: Digital or Analog?

denjay

Junior Member
Some people are more sticklers about this than others and I was just wondering what other people's opinions on this were. I'm in a band with some friends and one of them is extremely pro-analog. Not necessarily for the sound quality but for the concept of analog. With digital sound is recorded as discrete 1's and 0's then reproduced. This can be interpreted as "fake" audio. Analog converts one type of waveform to another.

A way to think about this is in terms of energy. With analog, vibrations are converted to electrical waves then pressure waves (sound); there's a continuum of energy here. With digital, vibrations are converted to electrical waves and then digitized. Then the digitization is reproduced into electrical then pressure waves (sound). There seems to be this "interruption" of energy.

I'm somewhat convinced that analog seems to be the "purer" type of sound and digital is somehow "fake". I don't really have the confidence to use those words without quotations so I'm on the edge of the argument. I'm trying to convince myself that digital isn't "fake" but I can't seem to do that.

Which do you prefer and why assuming equal sound quality (ie. highest fidelity equipment known to man for each)?
 
Assuming 'perfect' quality, there would be no difference. Both would be perfect.

Digital sound does sample. Hence 44.1KHz sampling rate - 44,100 samples per second, or 48KHz or 96KHz, etc. Analogue sound is theoretically at an infinite sample rate and therefore theoretically 'higher' in quality. The same is true of the bit depth (the number of steps available dynamically) - digital is stepped and analogue is theoretically not stepped.

In practice they are very different. Digital sampling rates (particularly those above CD quality (44.1KHz at 16-Bit)) are so high that the ear cannot distinguish any practical difference between the recorded sound and 'natural' sound.

Analogue on the other hand does have a particular sound. Tapes are often driven hard and produce a slight compression, which is usually pleasing and helps 'glue' the low-end together on a track - the drums and bass can often fit better together than with purely digital recording.

For an analogue system to truly 'outperform' a modern digital system is terms of natural sound, or rather accuracy would be to all intents and purposes impossible. Digital sound is, by it's nature, clean and clinical. What goes in the A/D is what comes out of the D/A converters if no manipulation is applied (and by manipulation, I include downsampling and equipment besides the computer). Analogue sound is inherently transformed by the recording medium.

Furthermore, there are some really great emulators out there that can reproduce the sound of tape within a DAW. In one issue of 'Sound on Sound' magazine they actually conducted a blind experiment to see whether anyone in the studio could tell the difference between a recording done on a 24-track tape recorder (the specific model escapes me but it was essentially the best-regarded machine in the industry) and a modern DAW with software written to emulate the sound of that precise machine. The difference between the two was practically nothing and neither 'won' the contest.

If you want to record on tape, be my guest. I've done it. It's a lot of fun. Practically though, it's much harder to get good-sounding results on tape than it would be on a modern DAW system. There are specific difficulties with tape machines that make them more specialised - setting the azimuth, setting the bias correctly, choosing the type of tape and cleaning the heads. Also, you have to bear in mind that tape degrades so you cannot afford to 'run over' the same section again and again because it will compromise the quality of the recording.

Editing is incomparably more difficult on tape. Honestly? Unless you're very handy with a razorblade and have a lot of practice and time, I wouldn't even bother trying. Editing on a DAW system is quite literally hundreds of times easier.

Analogue (due to the limited track count) does force you to streamline your workflow and make mix decisions early. This is a good thing. It means you end up with a better result most of the time because you're eliminating the unnecessary cruft. Adapting the same technique with a digital system is a good idea if you have the discipline.

A lot of modern studios run a 'hybrid' system whereby they record to tape, dump the tape tracks to digital, edit digitally and then master to tape. That's the best of both Worlds really but still highly specialised.

In an ideal World, I would run the hybrid system. It's not an ideal World though and I don't have the patience to use tape regularly. I also don't want to be moving a 400-pound tape machine from one room to another when I could simply take my laptop. Or deal with the acres of outboard gear, or the setting up of the machine itself. Tape is a pain in the arse, although it does sound very good if you can get it right.

Here's a great article about the different steps that analogue systems use in recording:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm

It's very complicated. It's highly specialised. It's difficult and if I were home recording, I wouldn't be touching tape with a ten-foot barge pole. I would only consider doing it in a 'real' studio with 'real' money and a lot of time - and I have a good idea of what I'm doing.
 
Last edited:
This argument consistently cracks me up. In the 1960's I guarantee not one person said "Man, I really wish we still recorded to a copper plate like we did fifty years ago!"

Put your superstition aside and appreciate the technological advancements in recording you are living to experience. I promise they do nothing but make your life/workflow easier.
 
Excellent write-up, Duncan.

IMO, the practical benefits far outweigh any relatively small sonic advantages you *might* get - it's not as easy to find analog hold-outs as it used to be so the pool of expertise is an ever shrinking one.

BTW, I don't see digital as being fake in any way. It won't mask a poor performance or make a bad one sound good. There's not any smoke and mirrors going on; on man behind the curtain so to speak. At the end of the day, all those zeros and ones are voltage signals. The translation uses a different principal but it's no less valid. As long as the resolution is tighter than what you can hear, I don't see how it can be fundamentally inferior.

I can see how the words "digital" and "analog" evoke different emotional responses, but historically that's never been a good gauge of something's worth.
 
I always incorporate analog into recordings that I do in my studio, whether it be tracking on tape or mastering, or even just a tube compression plug in. Editing always happens in the digital realm, though.

You can't assume the sound quality is the same. If it were, there would be NO contest--digital for the win. The fact remains that there is a world of difference in the sound. I like using the best of both worlds.
 
Analog is cool if you didn't know any other way of working. Once you start working, if an easier way came up to be able to do it, you would.

Your statement was if "all things were equal", then they'd be equal. The question is how you work within each mediums' parameters.

I know an older gentleman who was an analog synthesist pioneer in the 60s and actually produced the music for Disney's Electrical Parade which debuted in 1972, and we were talking about digital, and he asked me, "would you go back to analog after knowing what you know now?" And the answer was "of course not". He's always looking for newer better ways to do things, and the man has done them. Les Paul said it too to a group of engineers at an audio convention: "You'd think with all those bald heads out there you'd come up with a better way to record and reproduce sound than by dragging a diamond needle in vinyl grooves or running rust over a metal head". And he was right.

Obviously, the op owns a computer. I'm wondering if you partake of the joys of downloading music and carrying all your library in an iPod (or something similar) - or better - you have all of it on your phone. If you are going to commit to analog, I think you should do it all the way ;)
 
Both - of course!! (Like matched vs. traditional grip.)
But either way make sure you're using the best stuff you can afford!

You know what added to the 'analog is better/smoother' hype? The fact that in those days technology simply wasn't any better than it was - not saying it was bad - it was... limited from today's perspective but on the other hand folks at that time manufactured gear to sometimes _higher_ technical specifications (component selection, overall build quality) than nowadays! Those components were more 'forgiving' in terms of signal processing and the signal flow within the equipment was 'slower' than nowadays. This resulted in the overall sound being less harsh (having less or smoother high frequencies) and the transients (fast level bursts which by far exceed the average level) were more prone to being reduced simply by the components, not by design.

Nowadays gear tends to sound cleaner or, if you want, 'harsh'. But that's not because the gear is crappy but because there's more left of the original sound than there was in the past. That's a somewhat simplified version. We _do_ have crappy gear nowadays but you get the idea.

Personally I like using (hi-end) analog gear as front-end (signal -> mics -> analog pre-amps), then (if needed but usually yes) I'd add EQ and/or compression (analog also), then convert the signal. After A/D conversion I'd either use digital stuff or sometimes add another D/A stage for further analog processing. While there are stunning plugins if you once set your hands on really great analog gear and learn what analog stuff can do to the signal (literally within a few seconds you can have noticeable improvements when e.g. using an EQ and turning real knobs instead of fumbling with a mouse at the PC) analog does provide a sound quality to dream of and gives you a great feel of having control over a sound. Plus having real knobs at one's fingertips is just different from clicking in menues.

Provided you have decent gear there's not much of a sonic difference. The difference becomes really obvious when you compare so-so gear (from both worlds).

Converters are a critical component because regardless of the processing quality of the gear itself a crappy D/A converter will make you think that piece of equipment is crap. And modern converters are extremely high standard (money provided).

Just recently I've bought the very best guitar modeling/fx processor around (Fractal Audio Axe-Fx II) and for the first time I really feel I'm not playing a modeling device but a real instrument/amp. In fact I'm considering selling some of my guitar/analog processors/effects because that digital thingy makes so many things extremely easy (endless routing/editing/saving options, all within _one_ unit - plus MIDI footcontroller). I do have a decent Mesa/Boogie tube head sitting at my homestudio but the sound difference is shockingly tiny if inaudible (provided you have a minimum of talent getting settings right/reasonable). I'll keep the amp, at least for now - not really because of any sound difference but because I've paid good money for it, it's decent analog/tube gear and it looks cool! (But weighs a ton...) Haha.

Ultimately I'd rather go with great analog front-end plus mediocre A/D converters than crappy digital.
 
I'm in a band with some friends and one of them is extremely pro-analog. Not necessarily for the sound quality but for the concept of analog

Following on from something that was alluded to earlier in this thread - one of my considerations would be for whom the recording in question is intended. I mean, if one is making a recording for personal amusement where time and money is no object and the finished product will be pressed onto a vinyl LP and played exclusively to me and my band mates on a high-end record player through big floor-standing speakers then yeah - old-school all the way.

On the other hand if you have a limited budget and anticipate the majority of your audience listening to your recordings through tiny ear-bud headphones connected to an mp3 player then time and money spent on analogue mics, pre-amps, desks, tape reorders, and the rest of it would seem a little superfluous wouldn't it?
 
Analog Rush albums vs. digital age Rush albums. You decide.

I'm the Analog Man. 100%. No comparison.
 
No problem or preference with either, the resulting sound is what's important and digital has come a long way since its relatively brittle roots a few decades ago. Mics, rooms, and mic preamps make more of a difference than ever now. Al's new tracks are all digital, but have the sound we had for our first several albums, which were all recorded and mixed to tape. Of course, the advantages of production and mixing in ProTools (or DP, Logic, Sonar, etc) cannot be denied. Even if somebody wants to track to tape, it's dumped to digital before much else will happen.

And that's another thing... it's all digital, isn't. Record all you want in the analog domain, transfer it at 24/192 for integrity, and in the end it becomes a CD at 16/44.1 anyway. Or worse and more common, a streamable/downloadable format.

But back to the sound... if done right, there doesn't have to be a difference. And if done wrong, neither format is very forgiving.

Bermuda
 
Bermuda, just to add.

I have held the view for a long time that CD 44.1/16 is hopelessly outdated and has been for at least a decade. CDs sound fine for most applications and they are honestly a good-quality format but in countries with high-bandwidth Internet access (like mine, we have a decent fibre connection in my house) that lossless audio or FLAC is definitely the way forward. The sound quality is better and 24-bit audio definitely and noticeably improves the dynamic range of digital recordings.

Above 192 Kb/S, Mp3 is good enough for 99% of listeners, even. Even at lower bitrates, Mp3 is a good codec and I doubt there are a huge number of laypeople that can differentiate between 128 Kb/S and 192 Kb/S. I can (definitely) but amongst the general public? Not so much.

Digital, high-quality downloads are the future and it's only the inherent conservatism of distributors and labels that has prevented this from becoming the 'standard' method of delivery. iTunes has come a long way in providing quality downloads and other places offer lossless or FLAC files for a little more money, I just wish it had become more mainstream in record shops.

I don't mind buying CDs and I continue to do so because they're just about good enough but it's high time that physical disks were upgraded to 96/24. It annoys me that DVDs often have higher-quality sound than CDs and in a lot of cases are much cheaper to buy. Using a DVD format for music would alleviate most of the issues with people needing to buy new equipment. SACD was a good idea but required specialised players to take advantage of the format and there weren't ever enough good new releases taking advantage of the format.

When it comes to my own listening, I like to listen to vinyl. I like the imperfections and I like the sound but for the sake of convenience, at least 80% of my listening is digital and usually lossy.

The industry need to sit down and discuss a new physical format and get behind it. The Red Book needs updating badly. CDs have been around 30 years (as of this year) commercially and are not the best that we could do any more.
 
Good input from everyone (who supported their stance). Unfortunately the "it all ends up digital" argument doesn't necessarily apply in this situation since we're more in the punk/noise music world where its very common to release something on vinyl. Then again there's always a streaming/downloading system used as well. Right now budget is a HUGE determining factor so digital/analog together it is.

Thinking about it more, later on (with money) I could produce an EP or LP with only analog devices. This analog concept would tie into the album and be meaningful but I think for general purposes, a hybrid system might be the way to go. There's seems to be some inherent quality of analog that makes it seem more.. alive. I'm not sure what it is really. Maybe the imperfections bring in an aspect of randomness that makes it have its own personality of sorts... Too much time spent thinking about analog or digital, not enough time spent making music.
 
And that's another thing... it's all digital, isn't. Record all you want in the analog domain, transfer it at 24/192 for integrity, and in the end it becomes a CD at 16/44.1 anyway. Or worse and more common, a streamable/downloadable format.

Here's a thought...once it's got to the transducers, it's all analogue. No such thing as a digital speaker, is there? There's got to be movement of the drivers between each sample, each 16-bit increment...the digital gaps are smoothed over due to having to be reproduced in the real world of air and vibration.
 
As long as I never turn out like this guy:

midas-xl8-rihanna-2.jpg


God help me if I ever end up running one of those.
 
I don't mind buying CDs and I continue to do so because they're just about good enough but it's high time that physical disks were upgraded to 96/24. It annoys me that DVDs often have higher-quality sound than CDs and in a lot of cases are much cheaper to buy. Using a DVD format for music would alleviate most of the issues with people needing to buy new equipment. SACD was a good idea but required specialised players to take advantage of the format and there weren't ever enough good new releases taking advantage of the format.

At that time, listeners didn't really get the concept of hi-def audio, and CDs certainly sounded good enough and presented an obvious advantage to vinyl's frailties and lack of portability. Ever see a Discman for an LP? Actually, there was one way back... also an attempt or two at a car player. Just silly and gimmicky really.

But in just the last 5 years, the advatages of "hi def" have become quite clear in the visual context with better screens and content for TVs and devices. Perhaps there's a better understanding and a new willingness to accept hi-def audio again. Agreed that a DVD player has already replaced CD players for many people, and BD movies are often cheaper than CDs as well.

Our most recent album was released as a CD, LP, and BD with uncompressed audio. Happily, there were videos for every song on the album, so there's something to see in addition to just listening. But it's that kind of value added benefit that will make such a format attractive for those who might otherwise just buy the CD or downloads. And it's an introduction to the use of a BD player as a hi-def audio player.

I'm ready, my hearing is still good enough to tell the difference!

Bermuda
 
I think it depends on what type of equipment we're talking about, generally I like Analog synths more than soft synths, but usually I find that Pro Tools gives a better sound than analog recording methods, even modern analog recordings, but I do see both sides there. And vinyl, which could be considered analog of sorts, is of course better than cd's or Mp3/flac ect.

But in the end it just depends on the sound you are looking for.

just my 2 cents.
 
Back
Top