grahamwimmediatesfa.com Posted October 30, 2001 Share Posted October 30, 2001 disclaimer: I have no desire to ressurrect the analog vs. digital debate, a debate in which every possible point has been made, ad naseum. My question: In light of the fact that digital sound cannot have the resolution of analog (engineeringly speaking), what if today's technology developed analog mediums? A medium could be developed today, using the same priciples as vinyl, harder to scratch, doesn't give in to easy wear, etc. I wouldn't doubt it could even be made much smaller than the vinyl of old. In addition to introducing to a new generation what "alive music" sounds like, it would solve the whole .mp3 and copyright situation. You cannot digitally transmit an infinite resolution. Wouldn't studios embrace this? What are the arguments against it? (besides the horrid task of getting the mainstream to accept a new media) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted October 30, 2001 Share Posted October 30, 2001 [quote]Originally posted by grahamw@immediatesfa.com: [b] My question: In light of the fact that digital sound cannot have the resolution of analog (engineeringly speaking), what if today's technology developed analog mediums? A medium could be developed today, using the same priciples as vinyl, harder to scratch, doesn't give in to easy wear, etc. I wouldn't doubt it could even be made much smaller than the vinyl of old.[/b] Hmmm.... interesting thought, but you still have physics to deal with. You might make SOME improvements on media size, but eventually, you run into the same limits that have plagued analog for years in terms of media size vs. storage capacity. [b]In addition to introducing to a new generation what "alive music" sounds like, it would solve the whole .mp3 and copyright situation. You cannot digitally transmit an infinite resolution. Wouldn't studios embrace this? What are the arguments against it? (besides the horrid task of getting the mainstream to accept a new media)[/b] Uh... analog recordings are not "infinite resolution" either. Take tape. There's only so much data that can be held on a piece of tape. Make the domains smaller, widen the track width, increase the IPS speed - all will increase the number of magnetic particles that the tape head "sees" in a given period of time, but this is still a [i]finite[/i] amount. Don't get me wrong, I know what you're trying to say with regards to the fact that analog isn't quantized like digital is... but "infinite resolution"? I'd disagree with your basic premise. In order to go "all analog" as you propose, you'd have to have a totally analog signal path in the recording, mixing, mastering and playback stages. Many engineers are going to be reluctant to give up the editing capabilities that modern digital systems offer - even if they track analog, many many people edit digitally - not to mention all the currently popular styles wher PT editing is so mandatory (some of which, I'll admit, I wouldn't miss much...) Consumer units would be analog as well... which means physical contact of needle on grooves or tape heads on tape - noise floor issues either way. Not that this potentially couldn't be overcome, but many engineers (myself included) don't care that much for N/R (even Dolby S, which is the best I've heard, has its problems). And consumers, having been "sold" on the "noiseless" properties of CD's are going to hesitate before either going back to a higher noise floor or accepting yet another new "standard". And as far as "digitally transmitting a infinite resolution", people have been digitizing everything under the sun for years... old vinyl records, cassettes, reel to reel tapes (all analog formats), CD's, etc. etc. and even converting [b]that[/b] from PCM to MP3's. Maybe the resolution isn't the same, and they've lowered the resolution even further - from PCM down to MP3's and seem to be satisfied with [b]that[/b]. :eek: If people "like" MP3's with their "lower than PCM" resolution, then it would seem to me that the demand isn't for higher resolution, but for online access, small storage needs, portability and general convienience. Sorry, I like analog too... but digital is here to stay. Essentially we're still in the "early years" of digital... analog's had years to develop and become a "mature" format.... in another 30 years, digital will have grown as much as analog did when it went from mono wire recorders to 2" 24 track. Just my opinions - YMMV! Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com [/quote] [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: pokeefe777@msn.com ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 [quote]Originally posted by grahamw@immediatesfa.com: [b]In addition to introducing to a new generation what "alive music" sounds like, it would solve the whole .mp3 and copyright situation.[/b][/quote] I disagree it would solve the mp3/copyright situation. Physical media with prerecorded music is on its way out, IMO. It might be 15 years until there's virtually no demand for prerecorded CDs, but no hardware media format is going to enjoy widespread success with Joe Public from here on out. At least, not the kind of success that happened with CDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
videoeditor1 Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Like Phil said... 1. Analog too has it's limits. Today, those limits are MORE pronounced than digital. This is a contributing factor to the "alive" sound of analog. In life, all things can be "quantized". Even analog. 2. It is my estimation that more research dollars & hours are being spent on DIGITAL rather than analog systems. When I listen to a ...."live" vinyl album, and then check out an act, I can easily see/feel the limitations of the medium. These limitations are less pronounced with digital media. Hence, I propose that (the best) digital (systems), being "sterile" and "lacking in warmth" is more "alive" than the best analog systems designed. My opinion. My 2 bits. NYC Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP3 Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 I think DF had a laser turntable on his forum about a year ago. Quite expensive, but uses parts of the viynl never touched by the stylus. This could be cool for a retro analog movement if the price came down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamwimmediatesfa.com Posted November 2, 2001 Author Share Posted November 2, 2001 Phil: You make good points. I knew that there's a "sampling rate" even with tape, hence higher ips brings better sound. I guess my references to inifinite resolution were strictly from an engineering perspective, not regarding any media it's recorded on to (and therefore, moot to the discussion). But certainly didn't want to suggest tape as the final medium. I find tape, even to some extent digital tape, frustrating. I also know about people's expectations regarding sound quality. But I've held the theory that this analogless-generation trading the .mp3's simply don't know what they're missing. 16 bit music is already so lifeless to me, I don't mind reducing the sound quality more myself. Popmusic: You missed some of the elements of my argument. I don't argue that prerecorded CD's are on the way out, and the whole theory that someday we'll buy/obtain most of our music online, if not all of it. My argument revolves around showing people what they're missing with a durable rebirth of the analog medium, a new type of vinyl. My theory, is if they were to hear how alive their favorite music can sound, they would seek out the new analog medium for purchase, because that cannot be obtained electronically without losing the life. Phil brings up points that surround my skepticism on this, first that the entire recording process would have to be revamped or there would be no benefit, and second that the public doesn't have the ears to appreciate the difference. I'm not so sure about the latter, but the former is the ultimate killer to this idea. Tinderarts: I thought about mentioning in my first post that the new consumer models could read the new vinyl with a laser, which would allow the grooves to stack, as in DVD's, and thus shrink the vinyl medium considerably. But although I don't know this for certain, it seems logical to me that reading vinyl with a laser would produce the same results as a CD. But I'm unfamiliar with the inherit properties of lasers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 [quote]Originally posted by grahamw@immediatesfa.com: [b]My argument revolves around showing people what they're missing with a durable rebirth of the analog medium, a new type of vinyl. My theory, is if they were to hear how alive their favorite music can sound, they would seek out the new analog medium for purchase, because that cannot be obtained electronically without losing the life.[/b][/quote] I might be in the minority for saying this, but... I grew up listening to records and I *hated* them once I got into cassette tapes. I can handle the inherent hiss with cassette tapes, but I [i]can't stand[/i] pops, scratches, and skips on vinyl. Later on, I discovered just how little dynamic range vinyl contains... And now I'm spoiled by 80 contiguous minutes on a CD... I'd take the advantages of a 16-bit CD any day over vinyl. Also, there's the convenience factor... You can't really put a vinyl record in a Walkman or in your car. Unless there's some way to shrink down the size of a record and somehow make it have better sound quality than a CD, then such a system could only be marketed towards those who have a home entertainment system and only listen to the music in that one spot. That's the kind of customer DVD-A is aimed at, and that's probably why that format won't ever be more than a niche market... Even if it somewhat catches on, I doubt it will replace CDs. Consumers need to be able to listen to music on the go, wherever they want. Unless you can shrink a vinyl disc down to a CD size and have it read by a laser... But then you'd pretty much have a CD, right? Honestly, the only thing I miss about vinyl is the artwork. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFOracle Posted November 3, 2001 Share Posted November 3, 2001 To be honest, I think the vast majority of the listening public can easily identify the improved sound quality (noise) of CDs over vinyl or magnetic tape, but would be hard pressed to hear the difference in between 15KHz FM broadcast, compressed MP3, 16 bit CD audio and 24 bit DVD audio. I'm sure this makes the audiophile types with the $300 speaker cables feel pretty smug, but other than them, analog is long dead. For the future, the Internet is a strictly digital media - you can't download or stream an analog source. Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong: James Bryce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.