Reply With Quote
The point of that article was just common sense. Nothing new or all that thoughtful.
The point of that article was just common sense. Nothing new or all that thoughtful.
Analog equipment is still preferable to digital in many applications where fidelity is of top priority (video, audio, photography). Digital is almost always cheaper, easier to store, edit, and share, but is lower fidelity.
This is true. Digital equipment suffers from quantization error.
Analog is certainly not making a 'comeback' as far as a massive medium. It will fill the gap for those that require premium quality until digital can actually catchup to the best sampling rates of us mere mortals.
While WC is right that digital suffers from quantization, we humans also suffer from basically the same effect. Maybe the best ear in the world can perceive a 200khz tone on 2 billion amplitude steps, but there's nothing stopping digital to eventually be able to capture and reproduce at 400khz or even 800khz and 32 bit (4 billion steps). Vision is not different. The best eye can perhaps perceive 1200 dpi and 16 bit color components (a stretch). There are no tech barriers for digital tech to get there eventually.
Right now is just simply not cost-effective.
I can't really address the analog vs digital aspects of film other than to toss out that to me, film appears richer in content.
But in the music world, the OP is severely flawed. In particular, I found the quote "Sound is inherently analog; converting sound waves to grooves on a record does not involve the same loss of information as their conversion to digital data."
While he's technically correct, converting soundwaves to grooves on a record involves loss of information....He's completely ignoring the common practice of introducing the RIAA equalization curve when cutting masters for vinyl. The reason the RIAA was used? Because the practice of cutting grooves in a platter is not exactly an optimum medium for recording audio. His ascertation that early CDs sounded "thin" or "brittle" was an early reaction to hearing audio not filtered thru the RIAA curve. Early CD's were brutally accurate and their far superior signal to noise ratio absolutely revealed elements that were lost in some vinyl recordings.
I've been involved with recording both as a hobbyist and a professional for 3 decades. I've owned some incredible analog gear over the years including an MCI 2" 24 track. I love tape/analog for the simple reason that it has a kinetic appeal to me. But, years ago I went over to the dark side of digital recording...first thru Alesis ADAT's then ultimately to a computer based DAW.
I can say, with conviction, that digital recording is superior to analog in almost every measureable way. But, my generation grew up accustomed to the RIAA curve, or the effects of tape saturation. We also never, ever, recorded/mixed/mastered with the volume levels that are the norm today. In that sense, I would agree with the OP in that today's digital recordings are almost unlistenable to me.....not because of the recording media, but because of the brick wall compression used to master these recordings in the insane pursuit of volume.
To address WC's point of quantization error, you get that with every instance of signal transduction be it analog or digital. You don't really think that a microphone, even an extremely high quality one, actually captures every aspect of a performance? It doesn't. It cannot..and it will never be able to. Some of the most desireable mics in the world are used because of the way they color the sound.
WOW. Very informative. Bravo. Thank you for the contribution.
lol...thanks. That was kinda in my wheelhouse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
