Why Analog Audio Sounds better than Digital Audio

[newfuckingwave]

i admit that only anal-retentive people notice a significant difference between digital and analog (anal-og, lol) sound, but i am one of those anal-retentive sons of bitches! personally i like that the average person prefers digital sound, because that means more analog for me (and you, obviously)

[BugsWisely]

Sorry bout multiple post. In my defense the first was only a couple characters short....

You are right @davey4557. Try singing loud in a low voice. Was the beginning of the end when dolby came out. I never used it. It all sounded better before that.

[BugsWisely]

That digital mixing software is EVIL.

[BugsWisely]

Would be nice to be able to afford a bunch of analog recording equipment... You need a large room with high ceiling, and good acoustics for digital files to sound decent. Rooms that large are not generally found in homes.Plus regardless of how you decompress or encode digital files; they only sound as good as the original source. Seems like just the other day everyone was encoding their analog music collections. If the source of the digital file is good; buy a good reel to reel. lmao

[reverandscales]

Ask Dave Grohl if he like analog better than digital.....

[BrewskiBassist]

Why does everyone get mad at you for having an opinion in any of your videos? You provide evidence and explain your point well. Sound is relative, and it really depends on who's hearing it. People do the same thing on your Stew Mac videos!

[davey4557]

@BrewskiBassist

I get a kik out of it

HAHa

[spur610]

i am a musician,owning a 16 track digital studio and i can give my assessment.when i mix a digital signal,signals and play back,it never,ever sounds the way i heard it when i recorded it.give me analog any day of the week. going even further,play a clean copy of a song on reel to reel and put it against a cd.yes,it is cleaner and quieter,but it loses so much depth and feeling.not a recording engineer but.there is no question in my mind. GO!DAVE!!

[88ariesk]

I agree with Dave. Analog is warm smooth and happy. There is depth to the music. Digital seems to be kinda masked, and you don't get the full 100% out of it. and in most digital formats, it has frequency Buffers. and it decides how much is to be converted. and still, you don't get clear perfect wave forms out of it. they are Synthisised and Built into a waveform. so you don't get the detail, and Depth that you do with a natural analog format.

[mwa59104]

This expose of a personal "MY" X =....reminds me of the movie ..The Fly...Where Jeff Goldbloom attempts to teleport a rib eye steak thru a transporter......Now the "steak' gets teleported but after they sample the delivery they find the burnt"Bovine" taste alittle "off"...."My" x = this is seriously off...

[mwa59104]

Get it?...get a shirt on,,,,,

[MucusFelidae]

Haha, funny explanation.

I enjoyed it, despite I disagree.

[Artesound]

I dont agree. Analog is no better than Digital. If analog is better, why the most profi studios use digital recording? Basicly digital is more clean sound than analog - it is only one difference between. Who say digital is shit, only can not set plugins... And inside SW plugins... all are the same, only difference in view and number of knobs. Mainly i must know what, how and why i use.

[davey4557]

@Artesound

I said sounds better not is better

[lavasmokechile]

@davey4557 That's right Davey . . . stick to your guns! AND . . . if analog SOUNDS better it IS better! What else is there? I think digital set ups are for musicians that don't want to put in rehearsal time. They want to see if they'll get lucky and lay down some good tracks without putting in the time.

[QsoftStudios]

@Artesound Studios record it in digital then convert it to analog, Analog has a warmer richer sound then digital and if you have the right equipment its just as clear or even clearer then digital.

[overdriven77]

@Artesound dude, when it comes to music, analog recording pushes artist to perform better, because there is no much editing options......those who use digital stuff,  they just fix things they cannot do, on a computer.....that's why most stuff recorded in analog sounds better than digitally overproduced thin, poor crap!

[pappafly]

@Artesound The reason pro studios use digital, is for them the pro's of digital outweigh the pro's of analog, if they could have the convenience of digital but the sound of analog they most certainly would. Digital is much more practical as far as editing and time efficiency is concerned, that is why they use it.

[Shadowplaytime]

@Artesound

Bi-destilate water with chloride added is surely more clean than your average bottled water.

Now, which one do you drink?

[classicmixes]

@Artesound Let me add something also davey4567, since i work in audio. The sound that coming out from "your" vocal chords to the microphone are analog signals that goes to a converter called ADC or Analog to Digital Converter …now this is the "Recording" process. Digital process are 0's and 1's (i don't want to get in depth about it)…Now, the "Playback". The Digital form is converted back to Analog, better know as "DAC". The sound that's coming out from your speaker is Analog.

[RAVESTATIONWORLDWIDE]

If you're talking about ripping Cd's to a computer, then just rip at a higher rez. Most computers can rip at 9600kHz with a bit depth of 24bits... which is actually higher than the professional studio recording depth of 16bits.

Stop ripping at 3200kHz and 8bits :P

Your music wont sound like shit that way...

[Mortison77577]

His analogy with the paper shredder makes sense, but other than that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The transitions between sound just means that the digital information produces a square wave before it's smoothed out. There's no "guessing", unless he's talking about aliasing, but I think he's just mixing concepts without really thinking about what he's saying.

[KaslarProductions]

With sample rates being as hi as they are nowadays You will have to be superfuckinghuman to hear the difference. my guess is they you can only hear the difference between analog tape and samples is because tape actually alters the color of the sound with harmonic saturation in other words distortion Theres been lots of plugins trying to emulate tape saturation due to this phenomenon (And do quite well at it if you ask me) It has nothing to do with interpolation ,which is what you were describing

[davey4557]

@KaslarProductions

sample rates are still POOR for low warm bass.

This is where digital falls apart for me :(

[Mortison77577]

@davey4557

Digital can produce low, warm bass just as well as analog. Sample rates that at too low can make it impossible to reproduce the higher frequencies, not the lower frequencies.

[zeroblisters]

@Mortison77577

Why would you want "warm" bass?

My preference is to have accurate bass; to reproduce the sound, at any frequency, so that it exactly matches the original, live performance.

Digital cannot, by design, reproduce anything as well as analog (assuming you have quality gear and a quality vinyl pressing).

Maybe in years to come, when both sampling rates, bit depth rates, and the conversion technology matures, digital will overtake analog. But not today.

[Mortison77577]

@zeroblisters

I don't necessarily want "warm" bass. That's what the other poster said. But digital beats vinyl in terms of both fidelity to the master tape and/or the live performance because it has higher fidelity and less noise and harmonic distortion. Vinyl only has frequencies that cannot be heard and are often not on the recording anyway.

[NoEgg4u]

@Mortison77577

The master tape is analog. Therefore, the digital copy that is created cannot sound more accurate than the analog original.

.

Analog sound is superior to anything digital, when analog is done right.

.

If you purchased your gear at a department store, then digital will sound best. If you purchased a high-end pair of Wilson, Vandersteen, Ravel, etc speakers, and a matching hi-end analog front end, you will never want to listen to digital again.

[Mortison77577]

@NoEgg4u

The master tape isn't always analog. But even if it is, if they record it to digital correctly, then you won't be able to tell the difference. CD has higher fidelity to the master tape than vinyl.

[NoEgg4u]

@Mortison77577 Digital introduces problems such as data loss (sampling rate and bit depth), jitter/clock timing (not uniformly playing back all samples w/exact equal timing, analog to digital conversion, digital to analog conversion, etc. You will not likely hear these problems, which are 100% absent on vinyl, on a system you purchased at BestBuy.

I am not knocking mass produced gear. But until you listen to matched and balanced top rated gear, there is no getting through to you.

[misterplops]

@Mortison77577

Nothing beats the live performance. A recording is of the live performance

Frequencies outside of human hearing is irrelevant

Vinyl has infinite resolution, depth, details, tails, sound staging, leading edges, etc, that is in a different (higher) league than digital

Bang for the buck, digital sounds better than vinyl. But intelligently spend enough on a real hi-end setup, and vinyl is far superior. If you think otherwise, then you have not heard a hi-end setup

[Mortison77577]

@misterplops

Have you ever tried listening to vinyl on a high end system, copying the vinyl to CD and then listening to that CD? In that situation they would both sound the same. They can't sound different because the performance of CD surpases the range of human hearing within it's dynamic range and the dynamic range of CD beats vinyl. So for that, CDs will always equal vinyl.

[NoEgg4u]

No CD player, at any price, comes close to the sound of a high end analog setup. Recording studios would provide such stellar digital recordings if it were possible.

If you believe that copying a vinyl record to a CD makes them equal in sound, then you believe that all CD players sound the same.

I believe that you believe that it is all about dynamic range. There is much more to it, and not enough room here to explain. Do your test on matched $100k+ gear for a reality check.

[Mortison77577]

@NoEgg4u

I don't think it's all about dynamic range. I also think it's about dynamic resolution, frequency response, frequency resolution, noise, and distortion.

[Mortison77577]

@davey4557

What you're hearing is probably just something that was recorded better independent of whether or not it was analog or digital.

[Oneness100]

Get some DAD converters, some decent playback monitors, and a good console and learn how to use them, along with a great sounding room with some decent musicians.

[Oneness100]

Well, there is so much that can affect both types of recordings. I guess it comes down to the mics, Micing techniques, types of converters, mic Pre amps, etc., etc. etc. The biggest problem w/ analog is that tape degrades over time and you still have to convert it to digital since most of us don't use turntables and tape recorders at home like some of us used to.

[puppiesinspace]

This dude is full of trailer trash bull shit... Blowing diagrams out of proportion like some Al Gore documentary. DO NOT!!! I REPEAT, DO NOT TAKE THIS GUY SERIOUSLY!!!!!

[davey4557]

@puppiesinspace

what the fuk have you recorded?

[RAVESTATIONWORLDWIDE]

Digital to analog converters... Gotta get me one of those...

[Mortison77577]

@RAVESTATIONWORLDWIDE

If you've got a CD player or a computer you've already got one. I don't know if you were joking or not when you posted that.

[RAVESTATIONWORLDWIDE]

@Mortison77577 It's analog to digital... he said it digital to analog, talking about the recording of sound to the computer.

I knew that already... and I was joking about my last post, because it was in reference to the reverse action of the conversion :P

[RAVESTATIONWORLDWIDE]

LMFAO this is the funniest fucking thing I've ever seen and it's SOOOOO off.

[1983petepete]

@LedZepfilm

I thought you were some kind of authority on Led Zeppelin tape machine track counts.

[1983petepete]

@LedZepfilm, @zachmcfatridge

So Led Zeppelin never touched a 16 track or 24 track tape machine either?

[LedZepfilm]

@1983petepete Not sure.

[zachmcfatridge]

I love how all of the digital supporters are all dicks. While the analog supporters are laid back and support what they know is right.

Keep rockin' Dave!

[WorkflowBeats]

8 tracks should always be enough i think.

[RadioKilla07]

ANALOG 4 LYFE

[cjcookie]

dukat

[XYtoTheDoubleG]

That was fun! Love the unique presentation!

[theblahman]

The problem with this is that the file sizes become massive, so what do people do they compress them, to make them smaller, its this compression that really kills sound, and its unfortunate that the word "mp3" is so widely important today, mp3 generally have reduced quality, at 320 kbps they aint to bad, but most mp3 are not.

People need to become aware of these things so that we can convert and record effectively.

Analog is still king in this world of compressed, sampled and bit rate audio.

[Mortison77577]

@theblahman

Analog isn't king. It takes up a hell out a lot more space than digital that isn't compressed.

[theblahman]

@Mortison77577 Ive no problem with digital as long as the guy handling the sample rate, bit rate and compression knows whats hed doing,

[theblahman]

This is actually true, a few points however is that 1. human hearing at it highest can hear about is about 20,000 HZ, a sampling rate must be double this for a human to not hear any difference, sampling therefore at 44,100 HZ means that we are well covered, 2. A bit rate is going to be the amplitude or loudness of the the individual sample, the higher the bit depth the more accuratly the computer can position it, this is why we need at least 16 bit.

[Sygorg]

I would very much like it if you could tell us the names of the books.

Thank you!

[girotube]

buddy! record at 32bit float.... smooth sampling..

[analyzingfunny]

Hi, I stumbled upon this. I own 1 of about 100 of the Scull-280-8. It is a 1 inch 8 track. It is a very similar machine used to record Bostons More That a Feeling, and Led Zeppelin Whole lotta Love. It is great, professional machine. The Boston album was down on a Scully 280-12. A 12 track 1 inch, and that same format was used for Jimi Hendrix Little Wing. Believe it or not, a lot of stuff was recorded on 12 track. The rarest was a Stevens 2 inch 48 track used to record Bohemian Rhapsody.

[analyzingfunny]

@analyzingfunny (2) There are a lot of pictures of the Scully 280. The machine that I think sounds the best id the Ampex mm1200 or any Studer. I also have a 1959 Ampex 1/4 inch 4 track. It is the ONLY "consumer" machine, that sounds professional. It is the same electronics as a Ampex350. And the physics of tape is a mystery, we can only presume how it works. It is just a wonderful anomaly. Some say as the imprint does not happen until well past the head. At that speed, it must warp some.

[19BARD85]

lol u shut it.. MAMAS BOY

[19BARD85]

alright the dude in this video #1 is drunk #2 has no shirt on #3 can't stop looking at himself. #4 speaks in an incoherent/obnoxious/way too slow/drunk fashion.. bla bla bla woah led zeplin greatest band ever alive woah bro straw hat no shirt

[davey4557]

@19BARD85

and I made you comment

so shut it Dude

[TheeAldeen]

@davey4557 "Sampling" is this dudes brain on drugs

[davey4557]

@19BARD85

and I made you comment

so shut it Dude

[19BARD85]

ur a narcisist. stop looking at yourself in the playback window

[RetroCaptain]

Good day

Very good...the shredder does imitate digitizing analog sound!

I'm a die-hard Vinyl fan, but do of course own/play CD's also. Some Vinyl is CRAP right out of the sleeve, due to cheap material, or pressing problem.

Also found decent sounding CD... I offer that the amount of compression determines the final quality of sound.

Many MODERN vinyl records were sourced from DIG info!! Not Analog.. so you don't "Win". Should be Analog from recording to pressing.

[johnathanhowlett]

oh there it is.. narrrrrrr sampling !! narrr hahahaha.. quality

[glassprison01]

It's not impossible to record easily at a high sample rate/bit depth if you have a powerful enough computer (obviously). If you visually look at waveform zoomed in, those higher sample rates prove to be damn close to the original sound wave. I use both and it really just depends what your trying to achieve/what the budget is.

[hendrixlp1970]

High as ffuck..

[MrDemilord]

So true!

[PattyWhomperOFFICIAL]

interesting. but with more and more record labels expecting bands to sell on their own to get signed, these bands want to sound like commercial bought loops and samples and say basic engineers and their vintage gear are only good for making demos. and more and more music fans are getting upset that real bands never fill their speakers the way stuff like lady gaga would. this is how vintage audio is dieing. just saying...

[jumpinjake]

@3:13

The computer has a whole bunch a lil bits.

[NoEgg4u]

@3:35

"It's all in there"

.

The computer can put back together only that which is available. When the analog to digital conversion is made, countless samples are not there (sampling rate), and each sample is missing information (bit rate).

.

And when the file is (created and) played back, each sample must be played back uniformly in time. Anything less results in jitter.

[trevnty]

To the uploader: You're doing it so wrong... You have no clue what you're talking about and your face is annoying. @NoEgg4u wrong wrong, sooooo motherfucking wrong... Try reading a thing or two about the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem... A sampling rate of twice the bandwidth of the signal is all that's needed to be able to (in theory), perfectly replicate the signal... All audio is analog, and when the waveform is reconstructed by your DAC, the samples are connected like dots...

[misterplops]

@trevnty A sampling rate of 1/2 the bandwidth has 1/4 of the samples of double the bandwidth, etc. In other words, digital is flawed by design. You can double the sampling rate forever, meaning previous sampling rates were missing, at minimum, half of the samples of the higher rate. Equally important is the bit rate, as well as the transport, ADC, and DAC, all of which are nonexistent in properly pressed vinyl.

Madam, there is not enough room here to go into how misguided you are.

[trevnty]

@misterplops Wow, you are fucking clueless... I'm not going to explain to you what the bandwidth of an audio signal is... You obviously have no clue what you are talking about though because you make absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as "bit rate" when it comes to .wav and .aif files... Maybe you're thinking about "Bit Depth"? Which is a whole nother story... Please educate yourself you stupid fool. MP3's are not considered high-quality audio...

[zeroblisters]

@trevnty Madam, all audio files have a bit rate. It is how much information is in each sample.

As to your other rants...

You are a paper genius. I doubt you have ever listened to a high end stereo, with properly matched components, that was professionally installed with power and room treatments, etc. Since you can't have the candy, you'll educate everyone on their ignorance. You come across as envious and arrogant. The icing on the cake is how misinformed you are.

[trevnty]

@zeroblisters Funny how you think you know what you're talking about when you don't even know the simple difference between "Bit Rate" and "Bit Depth"... Please google the words "Bit Depth" so you can stop embarrassing yourself already... I actually produce electronic music for a living and have been doing this for many years... I study all aspects of audio in my free time. I'm not just your average listener like you probably are? People's willfully ignorant comments amuse me...

[Mortison77577]

@misterplops

Misterplops, you are so wrong it's not funny. If you have a sampling rate double that of the highest audible frequency then you've got all the sound you need. So digital is not flawed by design. Same thing with the bit depth. Digital has everything within the range of human hearing.

[UHaveAgreatDay]

@trevnty Vinyl has unlimited resolution. Sure, most vinyl sucks because quality control was low on the record company's list of priorities. But vinyl, when properly pressed, is in an entirely different league than digital.

Bang for the buck, digital is best. But if you have the time, resources, and cash, nothing comes close to analog

The above is true regardless of whether or not someone read about a theory, calls someone's looks annoying, or asserts their ignorance with foul language

[trevnty]

@UHaveAgreatDay I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying the uploader is clueless and sharing bad information. If you truly believe this is true, then you just don't understand the basics of digital audio... Most noobs don't understand how an audio signal is reconstructed in the DAC. Knowing we cannot hear frequencies above ~20 khz, A theoretical sample rate of double the highest freq. in the audio signal is sufficient to perfectly reconstruct the sound...

[Mortison77577]

@UHaveAgreatDay

We don't need the unlimited resolution of vinyl because we can't hear those differences. 44.1/16 is perfect for the audible range.

[distortiondetector]

@trevnty The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is based on several assumptions. All of the assumptions notwithstanding, it works only on paper.

Digital is the absence of sound; it is zeros and ones representing sound. There is no getting around needing hardware to produce sound, from complete silence, based on the zeros and ones. The transport and DAC change the sound.

Analog has issues, too. But its potential is far and away superior to anything digital.

[trevnty]

@distortiondetector Actually, it is the basis (and foundation for) all means of digital audio to date. All digital audio works off this sampling theorem and it most certainly to does work (we wouldn't have digital audio if it didn't lol). AFAIK, the reason people love analog so much is because of it's subtleties. Natural compression-like characteristics of tape, and the subtle distortions and imperfections of a vinyl record. Digital Audio is very sterile, I take no sides..

[Mortison77577]

@NoEgg4u

The missing information is outside the range of human hearing and it's often missing from analog recordings for lots of reasons. For example, the microphones don't go that high.

[zeroblisters]

@Mortison77577

If you remove frames from a movie, is that outside your range of seeing?

As to the microphone...

Sure, if the microphone does not go that high, then any recording medium will not have the information. But digital, by design, tosses out information. And, yes, you can hear it, if you are listening on quality gear.

[Mortison77577]

@zeroblisters

If you remove frames from a movie, then it would look terrible because it would be so jerky, but what they've removed with digital recording isn't something that anyone can hear. I think what confuses people on this is they use too many visual analogies and they don't really think in temporal terms. How can anyone hearing the information that has been torn out if almost nobody can hear a sound higher than 20k hz? Music is meant for humans, not bats or dogs.

[williebeaty]

i'm a digital man, down to player/cable/whatnot but i havent had  much experience with many vinyl recordings. guess i need to compare

[megaohmz]

Perfect. You should see the arguments I get into with people who think that CDs are perfection incarnate! Digital is great, but the life is taken out of the music. LPs sound way more beautiful. People still don't get this concept, probably because it is so simple they get confused. Nice Vid! Real funny.

[TheItalianPerson]

digital will beat analog eventually. 

[MrDemilord]

@TheItalianPerson

In the end its all analog!

Why record it digital to put it back analog out of the speakers.. Will always lose depth and small nuances

[Mortison77577]

@TheItalianPerson

Digital already beats that pants off analog.

[garethparton]

this is hysterically bad.....

sort of well intentioned but way off the mark.

[davey4557]

@garethparton

where's yer video Mr knows it all?

[fatcatbuzz]

@davey4557 Could you list some of those books? Have you ever read The Beatles Complete Recording?

[jimg0007]

@davey4557 biggest myth in audio!!!!!!!! you know only the myths not the truth!!

[rawfflecakes]

actually the old zeplin n beatles stuff were all recorded on two 4 tracks

[davey4557]

@rawfflecakes

beatles maybe

Zep ?

i would want some reference about that one

[1983petepete]

@davey4557

rawfflecakes is right.

Led Zeppelin recorded most of their records via a combination of the Rolling Stone's mobile recording studio truck and various professional recording studios. The technology at the time was 4 track and they figured out how you run two together at that point. You didn't know that? Not trying to rag on you.

[zachmcfatridge]

@1983petepete Zeppelin recorded with 8-track, not 4.

[LedZepfilm]

@1983petepete Multitracks that recently surfaced prove that LZ recorded on 8 track.

[zachmcfatridge]

@davey4557 Hey Dave, what books do you recommend for analog recording?

[FRUUBIES]

@rawfflecakes You are correct about The Beatles. For example, they would record 2 tracks on one 4-track recorder, and then record those 2 tracks onto 1 track on the other 4-track recorder, basically making it so they had 8 tracks available. Or possibly more if needed.

[fatcatbuzz]

@rawfflecakes Actually, only the first record from Led Zepplin was recorded on 4 track. After that, they switched to 8 track until Physical Graffiti, which was done on 16 track. All The Beatles recording were done on 4 track until The White Album, when they got an 8 track half way through the sessions. Abbey Road was recorded on 8 track.

[guitarguy2691]

well, "this sounds better than that" is absolutely subjectiv. to some, digital will sound better than analog

[infinitesimotel]

Things you cant hear also have an effect but on a subtle level and contributes to the overall quality of the music.

[OmwanaX]

Thanks, davey4557 and bbryant0620, for your explanations. They have cleared up my confusion and given me resolve and reason to acquire a digital-to-analog converter, or DAC.

[Meteotrance]

Good analogy, but at higher sampling rate for example 96khz 24 bit we are close enough to the analog signal, for me vinyl is far superior in only reproduce the sensation of warm and smooth bass and mid range sound, and that specifique vibration of the stylus make this sound so good, even if the master of the vinyl was made digitaly, and i return to LP, finaly the sound is only bad because of loudness war, i remember the first cd i ever heard and it was far superior from today digital standard.

[davey4557]

@Meteotrance

very true

cd's have many errors and are made poorly today

early cd's had better quality and less errors

Cheers :)

[jjamendoza]

@Meteotrance Is that just playing the Lossless file @ 96khz/24bit without EQ or when playing digital files EQ is a must?

[Meteotrance]

@jjamendoza a vinyl without EQ is ok but a good EQ on an original downmix is always more pleasent to the hear, if you record a raw material with microphone you must EQ.

[willeng84]

For sure, Every time I have recorded in an analog format it comes across amazing, Thick fat nothing shitty about it. Where as the Digital recording sessions I have had did not have the same quality. Same studio, same tech, same everything. Analog was awesome and required no real adjustments as far as eq after the fact (Guitar). Digital the exact opposite can be said and it just never sounded as big or round on stereo's.

[TheRedeyesurfman]

Put a shirt on Davey!

[kenneydriver]

too much tech stuff and not enough beer

[theedrstrangelove]

Remember; Sergeant Pepper's was recorded within the limitation of four track.

Even my fostex 4 track cassette studio is better than digital.

[bbryant0620]

Your analogy is great Mr. Davey and I'm glad you are helping people understand this sort of thing.  I think you are a genius dude, and I hope you keep rocking the videos - and Bass : )

[davey4557]

@bbryant0620

Thanks man

Cheers !!!

[bbryant0620]

But if you look at a sound wave (closely enough) that is digital it will look like stair steps. Same thing with a circle on a computer monitor, if you look closely enough all of the sudden it's not smooth it will look like a bunch of squares. But when zoomed out the squares are small enough that they appear to make a round edge. It's all about the amount of squares in a given area, the more the better looking/sounding.

--Continued in next and FINAL post--

[bbryant0620]

Analog will always technically be better because humans hear in that fashion. But I think you can get a sampling rate high enough to make the difference between analog and digital imperceptible.

If you ever look at an oscilloscope showing some sound waves you will notice it's very smooth. Like waves of water that are nice and round. And if you look at a circle on a computer monitor it will look nice and smooth also.

--Continued in next post--

[herrfilm]

now I get it

[RobsterJay]

24 bit has more than enough resolution in terms of amplitude, to represent any analog source well! Sampling frequency is a different matter... 44.1khz being cd standard... which is chosen as it is has acceptable distortion for frequencies upto behond our range of hearing, in terms of pitch. The sampling rate will only affect the accuracy of the sound for upper register material. (Nyquist-Shannon Sampling theorem). 44k.1 as it's twice 22k!

[RobsterJay]

@RobsterJay

But your A/D... D/A conversion will definitely colour the sound in a way that is not good... shred some data! :D nice analogy....

The inconsistancies of Analog circuits and mediums add non linear colouring and characteristics, as in nature... nothing is perfect... our ear is used to imperfection. :) These imperfections are being modelled now, and in blind tests.. people barely notice the difference... check out universal audio man!

Analog is in the digital domain! sounds ace!!

[BarneyFife00]

And you don't have to worry about getting paper cuts from playing the shredded paper. I hate paper cuts.

[NapoleanXV]

ther are a lot of bad analog recordings too though. digital recording provides crisp clean and accurate reproduction of what was played Im certain if any of those huge artists could have had that they would have. whether you like analog over digitalis a matter of conditioning if your favorite artists recorded on digital Im sure youwould be vouching for it

in regards for sampling the only rounding that is done is on in audible frequenciesthat wouldnt have been heard anyway Mp3 is highly condensed

[NapoleanXV]

and mp3 is a very bad representation of the audio in the digital recording world. the only reason that anybody uses analog guitar amps is because thats all they had and that became the standard. same goes for recording.

(these messages are poorly worded and put together)

[davey4557]

@NapoleanXV

Sound waves are analog in there natural form. In my opinion that's why an analog recording is an accurate representation. MP3 are garbage from an audiophile point of view. After listening to the same song in many digital formats the analog version just seems more pleasing to my ears.Microphones are analog devices and that's the start of the chain. Digital recording has great signal to noise quality.After that I'm not sure what else is so great about it.

[NapoleanXV]

@davey4557 you cant listen to the same song digitally and from a vinyl as the digital cleanliness makes many of those in audible discrepancies me apparent. digital modeling is getting insanely accurate, many of todays recordings of guitar/bass arnt even done with amps/speakers. many of them sound absolutely incredible.

other advantages of digital recording are louder masters, easy and quick editing, wide range of different production styles.

[NapoleanXV]

@davey4557 I think a good example would be to compare rush albums as they have been around for so long. I wouldnt say 2112 sounds better than snakes and arrows production wise.

[davey4557]

@NapoleanXV

Technically I'm sure you're correct, but my personal tastes always take me back to a good ol' analog recording

[NapoleanXV]

@davey4557 that is what it really comes down to! I cant say I dont enjoy a bit of vinyl myself