What Perhaps Is Forgotten in Analog vs. Digital Debates

[Anderton]

Many comparisons that were true were true at one time may no longer be valid. Digital has evolved hugely over the past 40 years or so. 

 

As AROIOS pointed out in the other thread about DAWs, the quality of data compression codecs varies wildly. So do D/A converters, A/D converters, brickwall filters, etc. For example, at one time using sample rate conversion was to be avoided at all costs because it could degrade signal quality. But if you compare today's sample rate conversion algorithms to what was available decades ago, there's no comparison. The accuracy of today's are infinitely better.

 

Even terms like "oversampling" are slippery. "My synth does 16X oversampling! Yay! It must be awesome!"  Well...except oversampling in a synth has to work in real time, which is trickier to pull off than offline oversampling. 

 

So really, the question isn't so much analog vs. digital, but "analog vs. which-digital-technology-by-which-company-from-what-year." 

[KuruPrionz]

Let's complicate things!

How about "which analog technology by which analog company from what year vs. which-digital-technology-by-which-company-from-what-year?" 

 

Obviously, 8 track tape and cassettes cannot win, they didn't sound great. Long ago, a friend's dad had a nice home stereo hi-fi system and his favorite music was played on a 7.5 ips reel to reel tape deck. It did sound better than a worn record, maybe just different than a new, good pressing. 

 

I do remember vividly the day I got to hang out a Maximus Studios in Fresno (Buck Owens used to record there, just for one) and listen to playback from two 24 track Studer 2" reel to reel tape machines synced together and running at 30 ips through a pair of custom built monitors in a large, fully sound conditioned control room from the central monitor position. 

I don't have any real reference point, digital music recording probably did not exist back then. It caused me to to stop trying to make good sounding recordings for decades. I knew I'd never get that level of sound quality without spending money I did not have. 

 

On the other hand, while I don't have the room or the monitors, I am truly happy with the sound of the playback from my humble home recording system at 24 bit and 48 kHz and I'm grateful that I now have an excellent and affordable option to get into the game. 

 

The analog vs digital issue is probably not something that can be resolved yet, perhaps it can be but it isn't quite so simple, eh? 😇

[OG_Dave]

Always an interesting topic. I was in audio engineering school in 1986 when CDs were first becoming a thing. At first, no one in class could wrap their heads around how a laser could read music. While nothing significant had been recorded digitally at that point, one of the instructors said something along the lines of "well you all just wasted your money learning how to record analog, in ten years everything will digital." I can't believe how many things have changed.

 

As the technology developed, there were a lot of engineering surprises that needed resolution - the unknown unknowns, like aliasing and dithering, figuring out what the Nyquist bidnezz was all about in terms of lived experience. Then the issue of emulating the action of atoms and electrons in complex circuits in software on the digitized signal.  Crickey, the thought of the initial modelling done to trace the action of a compressor, for example, on various signal amplitudes makes my brain hurt.

 

There were shortcuts taken in implementations by manufacturers too, mostly out of ignorance I assume, but they had a negative impact on perceptions. AVID comes to mind. No one really grocked (perceptually) how tape compression affected everything - up to the point that it wasn't there anymore and people (audiences and artists alike) reacted negatively to the unfamiliar clarity. Thus the mass drive to add some "analog mojo" back into recording with tape emulations, summing mixers, blah, blah, blah.

 

I have come around to a hybrid studio for a variety of reasons. I won't use and don't miss tape machines, for example, but I do like interacting with rack gear. Compressors and EQ seems more 3D to my ears when done on hardware and I put everything through a hardware chain for final mix and also for mastering. But I do the overwhelming majority of tweaks using plugins, despite their nearly universally horrid design. (Side note developers: some of us wear reading glasses! Please always make font sizing an option!!)

 

Ultimately the trick is to use a tool appropriate for the job. I tend to agree with the premise that the digital ecosystem has evolved to the point where it is easily peer with analog in terms of audio reproduction capability and certainly exceeds analog in certain respects, like recallability, portability, extensibility.

 

However, it also lacks in certain areas, mostly in the ineffable interaction that tactile pots, faders, etc. give, although I'm sure that folks who've never sat at a Neve desk don't miss the tactile thing and would probably be as uncomfortable sitting at an 8' board as I am trying to get my mouse to move that frigging itty bitty GUI to a sensible spot on the dial.

 

[KuruPrionz]

57 minutes ago, OG_Dave said:

Always an interesting topic. I was in audio engineering school in 1986 when CDs were first becoming a thing.

 

However, it also lacks in certain areas, mostly in the ineffable interaction that tactile pots, faders, etc. give, although I'm sure that folks who've never sat at a Neve desk don't miss the tactile thing and would probably be as uncomfortable sitting at an 8' board as I am trying to get my mouse to move that frigging itty bitty GUI to a sensible spot on the dial.

 

You've touched on one of my pet peeves!

So many useful and good sounding plugins are burdened with a GUI that looks like the original device that the plugin is emulating. Marketing wins over practicality. 

Gimme sliders for EVERYTHING!!!! If there needs to be text, make the sliders horizontal and put the words above each slider. You can put pretty stuff on the background if you must but let's get mouse friendly here. Ugh...

[Sundown]

Despite any theoretical or perceived differences in sound quality, is anyone really working with analog tape anymore? At best, I would think it’s a hybrid situation (maybe analog taped tracks, transferred to Pro Tools, and perhaps mixed-down and summed back to 2-track analog tape). From an editing/recall perspective, there’s just no going back to the days of cutting and splicing tape, etc. I can’t fathom a modern professional working that way.

 

Todd

[RABid]

How important is a quality, exact copy and backup of your work? With digital it is easy to get an exact copy and keep multiple copies for years without degradation. With a tape master there is always a worry.

[Anderton]

15 hours ago, Sundown said:

Despite any theoretical or perceived differences in sound quality, is anyone really working with analog tape anymore? At best, I would think it’s a hybrid situation (maybe analog taped tracks, transferred to Pro Tools, and perhaps mixed-down and summed back to 2-track analog tape). From an editing/recall perspective, there’s just no going back to the days of cutting and splicing tape, etc. I can’t fathom a modern professional working that way.

 

I did a seminar once with Bruce Swedien, and he was extolling the virtues of tape's character. BUT the first thing he did after capturing the sound in analog was to transfer it to digital so it wouldn't deteriorate.

 

These days, tape plug-ins are pretty good. I use the Waves J37. The biggest limitation compared to "the real thing" is that although it has different bias settings, they're fixed and the EQ isn't adjustable. A lot of what made tape sound like tape was how individual engineers tweaked the parameters. 

 

Waves asked me to do an analysis of their J37 and Kramer Master Tape plug-ins...so I did, and they posted it on their blog. There are some interesting graphs of the response where it's clear that Waves modeled different tape formulations as tweaked by different engineers. Here's the link if you want to find out more.

[David Emm]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

I did a seminar once with Bruce Swedien, and he was extolling the virtues of tape's character. BUT the first thing he did after capturing the sound in analog was to transfer it to digital so it wouldn't deteriorate.

 

This has been a welcome constant for me. I had Pioneer and Onkyo double decks that made near-pristine copies, even from tapes used for the first play of an LP. While I have no illusions about cassettes, its hard to deny the merits of just having safeties that good. BTW, I taped a lot, but I was also buying a mini-mass of the source LPs every month, so it was archiving rather than ripping.    

 

I also used a workhorse Revox B77 for a few things, as well as a big ol' honker of an Otari that would have been fine for Windham Hill sessions. The detail and subtle warmth were uncanny. I get it. I just tend to grin at these debates; I've been there since 'fidelity' mainly meant a good marriage.

[Notes_Norton]

I remember hearing an obvious difference in the early days of CDs. But things have improved a lot since then. The difference is more subtle, and depending on what/who is being recorded, sometimes very difficult to hear.

 

Fact: Every recording medium distorts the original sound. So which distortion do you prefer?

 

Microphones, tape heads, the tape itself, D/A - A/D converters, amplifiers, preamps, and everything else in the chain all add some distortion to the process.

 

I like Stan Getz' tone on LP better than any digital medium. I've heard him live, back in the day, and the LP tone is closer to his live tone. Stan sounds a bit more like Zoot Sims on digital media.

 

I have duplicates of my favorite Getz titles, but I tend to listen on CD. Why? The saxophone tone is harsher, a little edgier, but there is no surface noise on the CD.

 

One thing for sure, Cassettes and 8-tracks were absolutely worse than vinyl or digital.

 

And if you record something in a digital studio, republishing it on LP will not take away the distortions caused by digital, just add some more to the mix.

 

In the end, how much does it matter. When I was young, we listened to 45s, then cassettes, and now mp3s or whatever compression the Internet provider is using. Most people care more about the music and the expression than the finer points of tone.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Sundown]

On 3/13/2023 at 3:04 PM, Anderton said:

 

I did a seminar once with Bruce Swedien, and he was extolling the virtues of tape's character. BUT the first thing he did after capturing the sound in analog was to transfer it to digital so it wouldn't deteriorate.

 

I forgot where I read it (and I can’t recall the engineer who did it), but he/she would immediately take the vocal tape and duplicate it, and then the duplicate would be used for all tracking and mixing. When they finally had the mix right, they would swap-out the duplicate with the original.

 

All of the playback would degrade the vocal, and by setting aside the “master” tape and sacrificing the duplicate, the final cut would be more vibrant and clear. 

 

I wish I could remember where I saw that.

 

Todd

[Nathanael_I]

On 3/12/2023 at 8:45 PM, Sundown said:

Despite any theoretical or perceived differences in sound quality, is anyone really working with analog tape anymore? At best, I would think it’s a hybrid situation (maybe analog taped tracks, transferred to Pro Tools, and perhaps mixed-down and summed back to 2-track analog tape). From an editing/recall perspective, there’s just no going back to the days of cutting and splicing tape, etc. I can’t fathom a modern professional working that way.

 

Todd

The cost is high. A single reel is $365. It gives 15 min of recording time. Tape cost for a album is thousands of dollars above studio and engineer time. And you can’t mix outside the studio.  I have a friend with a gorgeous studio right out of the 70s.  Trident console all refurbished. Studer 2”. How often does he use the tape deck?  Almost never. He figured out how to hit it and get “that sound” on drums, but it’s easy to get with plugins. Local bands can absolutely not afford tape costs. He is happy for the experience of learning it. But he grew up recording digital. 

[Anderton]

Aside from all of the above, the thing that bugged me about tape was the maintenance required. When people complain about software updates, I can only assume they never had to check head azimuth, relap heads, or spend big $$$ on test tapes.

[Notes_Norton]

9 hours ago, Anderton said:

Aside from all of the above, the thing that bugged me about tape was the maintenance required. When people complain about software updates, I can only assume they never had to check head azimuth, relap heads, or spend big $$$ on test tapes.

Fortunately, I was almost always on the other side of the glass. I've been in studios with big tape machines, ADATS, and full digital. But always as a player.

 

When I started making backing tracks for my duo, I bought a Teac A3440 4-track, and by the time I got 100 or so songs up, MIDI came around and I bought an Atari computer. I never looked back.

 

Now I make my backing tracks on a computer with a half dozen MIDI modules and a hardware sample player. I can't imagine doing this with tape. I have unlimited tracks with no hiss, the ability to correct a wrong note in a MIDI sequence, I can cut and paste without splicing tape, and even change keys if I decide to stretch my vocal range.

 

Notes ♫

[ProfD]

On 3/14/2023 at 9:12 AM, Notes_Norton said:

In the end, how much does it matter. When I was young, we listened to 45s, then cassettes, and now mp3s or whatever compression the Internet provider is using. Most people care more about the music and the expression than the finer points of tone.

Bingo. 

 

Musicians, audiophiles and recording enthusiasts enjoy discussing the finer points of the technological details.  That's why these fine forums exist. 😁

Many great recordings were produced using 4-8 tracks and a ton of overdubs and bouncing prior to 2-track mix down. 

 

It was the talent (musicians and singers) who delivered the final results that we listen to over and over again to this day. 

 

Therein lie the real secret to recording.  Start with great talent and tone.  It makes the recording process easier.   Lesser talent requires more technological *tricks*.

 

Musicians have been able to learn tunes albeit in the wrong keys from listening to degraded recordings.  It was all about learning the tunes.

 

Hip-Hop music producers purposefully used lo-fi samples to rough up the sterility of digital 'cleanliness' in order to create sonic masterpieces.

 

As evidenced by the aforementioned playback formats, the *average* listener doesn't know any better whatsoever. 

 

A *good* piece of music or song 'cuts through' regardless of the recording and playback technology involved.😎

[KenElevenShadows]

Given what you say, it's amazing how many people here get hung up on the sound quality of 320kbps MP3s. 

[Anderton]

50 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Given what you say, it's amazing how many people here get hung up on the sound quality of 320kbps MP3s. 

 

I think part of the problem is that people don't pay attention to true peak values. Data compression transcoding can produce peaks that exceed 0 DBFS, even if the source material didn't. If you don't get true peak right, there can be an annoying, yet audible, hint of distortion.

[Notes_Norton]

IMO MP3s are a compromise. On the other hand, for casual listening they are OK if the bit rate is high enough. For me, high enough depends on the source material.

 

I generally don't rip over 192kbps, if I want to get better quality than that, I go uncompressed.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Anderton]

The big mystery to me is why more companies didn't flock to Ogg Vorbis. Better quality than MP3 for a given bit rate, and no license fees.

[Notes_Norton]

21 hours ago, Anderton said:

The big mystery to me is why more companies didn't flock to Ogg Vorbis. Better quality than MP3 for a given bit rate, and no license fees.

Why didn't typists flock to the Dvorak keyboard system? It's much faster, and early Windows computers had a QWERTY/Dvorak switch built into the control pane.

 

There have been some transposing alternatives to the black and white traditional piano keyboard for synths. Why weren't they adopted?

 

Why didn't SACDs replace CDs? They sound much better.

 

I think once people are entrenched into a system, it's easier to stay with the existing system instead of relearning how to use the new one.

 

If they came up with a different fingering system for a wind synthesizer, that wasn't saxophone based, I'd probably ignore it, even if it was somewhat better. After all, I don't have to think about sax fingerings, my fingers know them quite well.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Stokely]

On 3/21/2023 at 9:22 PM, KenElevenShadows said:

Given what you say, it's amazing how many people here get hung up on the sound quality of 320kbps MP3s. 

I've taken a 320 mp3 and compared it to wav versions I purchased from HDtracks--pretty big difference when you A/B.   For casual listening, you wouldn't notice.  I was using the album for referencing with my mix, so those differences were pretty important to me.  The mp3 high and low end was "smeared" for lack of a better term, the cymbals kind of jammed together as one thing, whereas in the wavs they were very distinct.   I could hear the effects on the track better, things like the reverb tails.   These small things are what I'm tweaking in my own mix, so the more clarity in the referencing material the better.   

As an aside, I'd always heard that QWERTY was invented to slow down the people so they didn't outrun typesetting, but looking it up now i see conflicting thoughts on that.  Won't matter soon between dictation and then AI doing all our writing for us  

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, Stokely said:

I've taken a 320 mp3 and compared it to wav versions I purchased from HDtracks--pretty big difference when you A/B.   For casual listening, you wouldn't notice.  I was using the album for referencing with my mix, so those differences were pretty important to me.  The mp3 high and low end was "smeared" for lack of a better term, the cymbals kind of jammed together as one thing, whereas in the wavs they were very distinct.   I could hear the effects on the track better, things like the reverb tails.   These small things are what I'm tweaking in my own mix, so the more clarity in the referencing material the better.   

I've often converted my final mixes (in .wav format) into 320 mp3 files so they are easy to email to some of my opinionated friends who bring perspective to my projects. 

The cold, hard fact is that the .mp3 doesn't sound nearly as good if you are listening to studio monitors. 

They've simply discarded too much important data. 

[Stokely]

No doubt the mp3s are handy for shooting around, as the wavs are going to be way too big for email.  My friend and I in Tokyo use google drive and/or amazon storage, but if you just need to know "hey is this solo what you are looking for on this track" you don't need pristine quality!

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, Notes_Norton said:

There have been some transposing alternatives to the black and white traditional piano keyboard for synths. Why weren't they adopted?

 

I'm still looking for a piano keyboard for left-handers. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

 

1 hour ago, Stokely said:

As an aside, I'd always heard that QWERTY was invented to slow down the people so they didn't outrun typesetting, but looking it up now i see conflicting thoughts on that.  Won't matter soon between dictation and then AI doing all our writing for us  

 

The QWERTY keyboard was designed to prevent typewriters from jamming from mechanical issues. Be that as it may, the Dvorak keyboard is faster once you get used to it. Wendy Carlos adopted the Dvorak keyboard years ago, and swears by it. 

 

And while we're on the subject - whatever happened to Esperanto?

[KuruPrionz]

10 minutes ago, Anderton said:

I'm still looking for a piano keyboard for left-handers. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

I am also left handed and I play right handed because choices in left handed guitars have always been few and far between in local markets. 

On guitar, it's a mixed bag. My left hand is more adept than my right and it is on the fretboard. My right hand was always playing "catch up" over there plucking away at the strings. Something lost and something gained. Yet another of the nearly infinite ways to play the instrument. The good part is I mostly sound just like me. 

 

One of the weirdest things I've ever seen was a "featured act" at a local open mic. Singer songwriter, very good fingerpicker and he was playing a right handed acoustic guitar left handed with the string upside down. So his left hand thumb was doing what most guitarists fingers would be doing and his left hand fingers were doing what most guitarists thumbs would be doing. I spoke with him after his set and he said he was right handed! Weird, truly. 

[Anderton]

14 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

I am also left handed and I play right handed because choices in left handed guitars have always been few and far between in local markets. 

 

I also play right-handed. My grandfather called me a "cripple" because of being left-handed, and my classical guitar teacher had a meltdown when I asked about left-handed guitars.

 

So I play really cool chords...really slowly

[KuruPrionz]

7 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

I also play right-handed. My grandfather called me a "cripple" because of being left-handed, and my classical guitar teacher had a meltdown when I asked about left-handed guitars.

 

So I play really cool chords...really slowly

There is a HUGE cultural dis-connect regarding left-handedness and it goes back centuries (if not eons). 

The word "Sinister" meant left-handed in ancient Roman civilization. 

 

My teachers in elementary school wanted to make me be right handed. Both of my parents had left handed brothers and they told the principal that the teachers should stop trying to change me. I am eternally grateful for that! 

 

I've gotten my right hand up to speed and learned my fretboard up, down and sideways. That said, I never really "think" in verbal terms when I play, I just play. It's like a dream-world, I don't know where the music comes from. 

 

One of my left handed uncles handed me his ukulele when I was five. He played it right handed, handed it to me right handed and I just went with it. 

[ProfD]

57 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

There is a HUGE cultural dis-connect regarding left-handedness and it goes back centuries (if not eons). 

 

My teachers in elementary school wanted to make me be right handed.

Some studies have suggested that left-handed people tend to be more intelligent.😁

 

 @KuruPrionz, those teachers were jealous of you mayne.🤣😎

[KenElevenShadows]

4 hours ago, Stokely said:

I've taken a 320 mp3 and compared it to wav versions I purchased from HDtracks--pretty big difference when you A/B.   For casual listening, you wouldn't notice.  I was using the album for referencing with my mix, so those differences were pretty important to me.  The mp3 high and low end was "smeared" for lack of a better term, the cymbals kind of jammed together as one thing, whereas in the wavs they were very distinct.   I could hear the effects on the track better, things like the reverb tails.   These small things are what I'm tweaking in my own mix, so the more clarity in the referencing material the better.   

As an aside, I'd always heard that QWERTY was invented to slow down the people so they didn't outrun typesetting, but looking it up now i see conflicting thoughts on that.  Won't matter soon between dictation and then AI doing all our writing for us  

 

To be clear, I'm referencing what the other person says about all the myriad ways of creating artifacts and such. I can hear the difference between what you describe as well, but it was in direct reference to the other things. 

 

But since we're talking about 320mbps and not all the analog artifacts anymore, to me, the biggest difference between 320mbps MP3s (the highest quality MP3) and a high-quality WAV file (say, 24-bit or 32-bit and at least 96kHz) is depth and sense of space. 

 

Don't get me wrong. I think 320mbps MP3s are very impressive. They sound considerably better than a crappy CD, and light years ahead of cassette tapes. But since we're discussing it, that's the differences I hear.

[Notes_Norton]

10 hours ago, Anderton said:

I'm still looking for a piano keyboard for left-handers. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

I'm looking for a right-handed saxophone. The left hand works much harder, and there are a half dozen notes where the right hand isn't needed at all. But the left hand is needed on all the notes but one of the C# notes in the lower but not lowest octave.

 

I played in a band with a left-handed guitarist. He learned lefty, and years later taught himself right-handed. He could play either way.

 

He swore the normal, so-called right-handed guitar was actually the left-handed guitar. After all, he would say, on the standard guitar, the left hand does most of the work, making weird shapes, stretching fingers, doing double-stops, bending strings, and so on, while the right hand just had to pick and strum.

 

So although he learned lefty first and did that for years before he learned the standard guitar, he played better on the standard, because it was his left hand doing all the work.

 

Not being left-handed, I really can't say, but it makes a bit of sense to me.

 

I read that Jimi Hendrix ate and wrote with his right hand. Could it be that he chose the lefty guitar because it's really the right-handed one?

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Theo Verelst]

There's a big difference in theoretical limits and "processing power". Resampling "live" requires processing power, but more importantly, there are theoretical limits which are independent of CPU strength, so there's a need for considerable time latency for a high quality resample to be done, completely independent of technology.

 

Like lossy compression schemes, all kinds of digital processing change the sound to some extend, which in some cases could be preferable, but the thing with sampling/digital audio processing is that almost nothing sounds nice, so to make something work, precautions and lots of work and in cases also a lot of processing power may be required.

 

T