Analog Or Digital
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21967
Printed Date: April 28 2024 at 11:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Analog Or Digital
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Analog Or Digital
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 12:40
|
I choose analog - It's warm and very detailed and accurate. Digital - is cold and looses a lot of fine detail. |
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 12:53
|
Digital all the way. It's not at all cold and no audible detail is lost - a little bit is lost when using the 16bit/44.1khz CD audio standard, but even then the difference is difficult to hear on standard (read: not ultra high end) equipment. And with the SACD I dare say that there is no difference - and indeed listening tests show that people cannot tell analog from SACD. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 12:55
|
I love playing my vinyl LP's for several reasons; tactile feel, size, album covers, sound, memories, etc. but I cannot deny the 'sound' of the new remasters that are coming out now - for example 70's Gentle Giant, Hackett, VDGG, Yes have vastly improved sound, IMO. Hats off to the sound engineers. ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 12:59
|
Was it my post in the 'Problems' poll that prompted the start of this thread? Anyway, I choose digilog, although anatal is good too |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:06
|
SACD is great and it does come pretty close to analog but it yet still has a BIT feeling like a digital TV pix-elating. It is easier to see improvements form 16 bit to 28bit to 64 bit video graphics. But digital works the same way with muisc. Earlier 8/16 Bit CD's sound bad the newer 24bit sounds better but not close enough to analog and do have to say i have a very good sound system.
|
jonPosted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:07
YES IT WAS |
Visitor13 wrote:Posted By: soundspectrum
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:10
| Digital is more convienient. But remember...digital is like a million tiny pictures of analog...all it does is basically emulate..I dont particularly like the sound. It looses the atmosphere and character of analog recordings. I am going to school for audio technology and i have found out a lot of people are going back to analog...IT just has more creative possibilities. But it is all the possibilities that make analog a pain in the ass. I choose analog though..."nothing worthwhile is achieved suddenly" |
Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:22
|
For me, since I have almost super-human hearing, I can pick out little tiny details in music most people cannot. Having established this, I would like to tell you all that if you're listening exclusively to digital recordings you're missing out on the music in a BIG way. If vinyls were more convenient and tracks could be lined up like my SACD/DTS collection I would use vinyl and nothing else. But alas, quadraphonic vinyls are impossible to find nowadays, so for now I stick to vinyl and the DTS format. |
Posted By: Rust
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:23
|
Can someone please explain to me what analog means? What am I missing out on if I only listen to digital?
------------- We got to pump the stuff to make us tough from the heart Its astart What we need is awareness we cant get careless Mental self defensive fitness Make everybody see in order to fight the powers that be |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:24
|
Let's be glad that - as you admit - most people cannot pick out these details like you can, and therefore can be perfectly happy with digital. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:28
| To tell you the truth I can't tell the difference. |
Posted By: Catholic Flame
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:42
Your voice is analog (sound waves). Your computer is digital (1's and 0's). CD's are, as noted above, a series of pictures of the analog signal. Digital must be turned back into analog for you to be able to hear it. Vinyl records were analog. CD's are digital. ------------- “Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion.” ~Jack Kerouac |
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 13:47
| I agree, to me the arguement between analog and digital is pointless, both have advantages and disadvantages but the differences are very slight and inaudible to me. |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 14:00
|
This belong in the Polls section,NOT prog polls.
-------------  |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 21:54
|
Digital for the albums... Analog for the keyboards... ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 22:59
Is there ANYthing you don't know or can't do?!?! *sheesh* P.S. - My merely human ears find that digital recordings are more _accurate_, which sometimes isn't as pleasing to the human ear. ------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 23:05
Digital because of less distortion and more convenient disks. But vinyl "tastes" better, if you know what I mean
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 23:16
|
digital it saves space |
Posted By: SirPsycho388
Date Posted: April 18 2006 at 23:39
|
ADAT tapes are absolutely perfect! The perfect mix between analog and digital. ------------- Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see is me. And do I take you by the hand and lead you through the land and help me understand the best I can |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 19 2006 at 03:31
|
ADAT tapes are 100% digital. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Zavgorodny
Date Posted: April 19 2006 at 05:59
|
digital. in fact, 99% of time I listen to mp3 (Hi-Q, though). why? because IT'S SIMPLE.
------------- yes, I know, my English is far from perfect. I comfortable with it. |
Posted By: MrHiccup
Date Posted: April 19 2006 at 19:12
|
Digital. I'm sure nobody would be able to tell the difference between analog and digital in the future... ------------- Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends... |
Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: April 19 2006 at 21:29
|
I thought this was about watches, until I read some posts ------------- "The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa |
Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: April 19 2006 at 21:59
It was an exaggeration; I have VERY good hearing, but not so good that I can hear EVERYTHING around me. But I can definitely hear the difference between digital and analog. Take 'Wish You Were Here' for instance. On vinyl, the drums are represented fairly. The sound is in no way 'sharp' or 'brash'. On CD or MP3, I have to turn it off because it sounds so... pixellated. Yes. It sounds digitized and it's the equivalent of having a pixellated JPEG. Digital music can only be so accurate in how it represents certain tones, sounds, volume levels... Listen to a live record on LP, and listen to the same recording on CD. I guarantee you will be spoiled after hearing the LP. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 03:29
|
I've been listening to vinyl at the beginning of the 1990s - on a decent system (dual turntable + musical fidelity amp + magnat speakers), and I did not hear a striking difference between vinyl and CD. Come on! Do you honestly believe that CD would have replaced vinyl that quickly and persistently if it really sounds "pixellated"? I have good hearing, I'm a trained musician and I even created some recordings in a home studio back then - we had a small studio (small like: equipment for 10,000 EUR) in our basement, with professional monitors and all. No sir, there is no striking difference between analog and CD ... unless you're a dog or a cat with hypersonic hearing. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 12:41
Well, you can hold that opinion. I still say analog sounds infinitely better. My dad says it too --- he can tell the difference easily. He says digital music 'just sounds awful'. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 12:45
A good definiton indeed. You can say the same about Solid state versus Tubes (at least in the highs). |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 12:46
Digital will allways be inferior cause it affects the signal's integrity. Now digital can work a minimum with a lot of money. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 12:47
Cause you've never heard a good system. |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 13:55
^ Oh boy, here we go again... 
------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 15:30
You're such an incredible audio snob oliver ... You may continue on your quest for the perfect sound with my blessing. Too bad that there will always be a better system than yours, so you'll never ever be able to enjoy music. I can enjoy music to the fullest with my 70 EUR Logitech speakers, and I wouldn't trade that ability for ANY audiophile system. And NO, that does not imply that I admit that such a system would sound much better. OF course it would be cool to have some chromium plated shiny sparkling tube gizmo with gold plated connectors, silver cables and it's own atom-bomb proof power generator. I'm sure my friends would all go "wow" and come to my place and listen to it at wall-shaking volume, and together with some incense (stencher) and esoteric room interior they would finally agree that it sounds superior to their own system. All that doesn't matter ... the music is what really matters, and you can enjoy it on ANY system. And yes, you can even enjoy listening to internet radio on 24kbps mono. Music is the best!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Viajero Astral
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 16:20
|
What about the DVD-Audio and the SACD ? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 20 2006 at 16:28
"Cold and lifeless" ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 02:05
| It doesn't works yet. Or at least, there are not devices which work yet. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 02:26
|
No, the difference is not in the device's appearence and this is not snobism, but a quest for the absolute sound. And yes, it's infinite, cause there'll always be a better system indeed. But, once you have try good tubes amps, excellent sources (both analog and big digital), preamps, power amps, good speakers of course; experienced the enhancement due to excellent cables, power optimization and vib'cancelling, it's like a (hard) drug, cause each time you upgrade, you re-discover your fav records, hearing things you never heard on pieces you listened to hundreds of times... here's the magic of high end audio...  Very musical french speakers (JM Reynaud Concorde)     PS: And yes, Musical fidelity integrated amps are not bad, this is a good brand moreover. Magnat speakers are not as good as their sub ( i have one BTW) but that's not too bad. But simply put these two elements together is not enough to have a good or even decent system. Ther's much more to do! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 02:44
Why do you always have to post the pictures of these devices? I'm sure that they look great and impressive ... but the impact on the sound is surely not worth the cost.
My biggest points are:
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 05:34
|
"Why do you always have to post the pictures of these "devices? I'm sure that they look great and impressive ... but the impact on the sound is surely not worth the cost." Consolate yourself as you can. "My biggest points are: * The records weren't made for systems like that. They were made for any system - big or small. IF there really was such a huge difference between top-end systems and bottom-end systems, I'm sure that you could buy such systems in regular stores. But they don't even offer these brands ... that clearly shows that there is no market. And that they're scared of offering these systems in an open way, like setting one up in the store and allowing you to listen to it before you buy." Indeed, big systems reveals that most CD are bad -especially in rock- and these days most CD rock releases are bumped in order to give a false low and dynamic for Mr Everybody bad system. Fortunatly, there are a few good ones, even in rock. "* Most new releases are on CD only ... why would the musicians do that, if it really sounds like crap?" Really a poor argument. They don't have the choice! And most don't know, moreover. But i think you don't need high end hifi to listen to trash metal, like you. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 05:45
 Ok, maybe you're smarter and have better ears than the artists. The DO have the choice though - there is always a market for high quality consumer electronics. That's why computers, TVs (HDTV, anybody?) get constantly better. SACD is much superior to CD because it really removes all the previous points of criticism regarding CD audio (aliasing, dynamics, jitter). Yet there is NO real demand from the consumers. Reason: Nobody hears a difference.
It's Thrash metal, oliver. Only prejudiced people deliberately call it "trash" metal, and the others just prove that they don't think about their posts too much. BTW: You just have to look at my signature to know that I listen to far more styles than Metal. My top three artists according to playtime are Mike Keneally (Avant-Prog/Jazz-Fusion), Karrin Allyson (Retro-Jazz) and Blind Guardian (Metal). Go figure. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 05:58
|
You really need a big sl***!! Keep on ruining the site with your bad bands which ar enot prog at all! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 06:36
What's the matter with you ... having a bad day? BTW: Mike Keneally is as prog as prog can get. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 09:14
...i wondered how long it would take mike and oliver to lock horns on this subject!! i use analogue and digital so i will sit firmly on the fence and say it's all down to personal taste..!! -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 09:32
Hey, a healthy debate is one thing, but there's no need to get personal or overly emotional about it. ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 15:50
hearing ability, like vision, depends on your age - people under 25 usually have perfect hearing, after that it deteriorates over the years without you realising it. ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 15:57
That's assuming that they don't damage their ears ... but in reality, with concerts/disco/walkman, you can be sure that most people who do these things can not hear anything above 18khz. And from 30 and upward: 16khz tops. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:10
Thanks, you really improved my mood, Mike!   ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:17
Sorry to break it to you!  But knowing that you can hear less detail than you could 5 years ago shouldn't affect your listening experience. Well, knowing that you will die shouldn't affect your quality of life either (in theory)!------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 18:57
Not in actual terms; MP3 is like a pixellated JPEG but a CD is like a bitmap. And to extend a metaphor rather too far, FLAC is like a PNG..! 
I need to use the nerd emoticon but it's not there |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 19:02
|
"Not in actual terms; MP3 is like a pixellated JPEG but a CD is like a bitmap. And to extend a metaphor rather too far, FLAC is like a PNG"
True. But audiophiles claim that even the PNG is not enough ... the ridiculous thing about it is that they say that it's not enough regardless of resolution. Twice as much, ten times as much ... no, they say that analog has infinite resolution and is therefore always superior. Unfortunately the human ear/eye also has a finite resolution. If not, what would we need microscopes for?
The ULTIMATE solution to solving such disputes are ... listening tests. People are presented with two samples and are asked to pick the better one. The test is repeated many times ... in the abx type of tests they even get three samples ... a (e.g. analog), b (e.g. digital) and x (one of the other two, test subject doesn't know which) and then the user is asked to say whether x is a or b. The user can switch between all three as often as he likes.
In theory (AND in common sense) it's obvious that if the result is 50:50, the two samples a and b are identical as perceived by the subject.
Simple, completely objective test ... yet neither audiophiles nor the manufacturers of audiophile equipment conduct these tests.
I wonder why ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 01:53
|
All things being equal analog is better for sound reproduction, however that being said. I can tell you that some systems incorporating digital techniques are excellent.
Many people listen to music on their computers and that's fine, but a far cry from a home stereo system costing thousands of dollars or whatever your currency is.
The system I have now is far better than any other system I have ever owned and that includes the systems that had turntables to spin vinyl on. The music system I have now uses a very good CD player, pre-amp, power amp, and speakers. The sound is anything but so called "digital sounding" but you have to spend a lot of money to get it.
One advantage that digital gives you is reduced noise floor. Old analog tape had a habit of giving you tape hiss. Many of the digital remasters of the music produced in the 70's are very good. Digital sound processors can be used to shape modify or eliminate noise, thus giving a cleaner sound and a "blacker" soundstage. |
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 02:24
|
Volume War ! When digital is treated with respect and the "volume war" is not in progress and there is no trace of clipping I prefer Digital, but nine times out of ten this isn`t the case. Digital is superior but technology has been abused in the "volume war" (they do it for radio stations etc .. to try and make their song louder, its stupid because radio stations compress what they broadcast anyway) that brings the quality down to try and peak out the digital recordings. if the Gain limitations are kept within analog specifications and no "volume war" is being battled, digital wins everytime. A good example of what I am talking about is Vapor Trails by Rush , thats what I mean by "volume war" Digital like Analog has gain limitions but analog gain limtations are slightly more forgiving but also slightly more inferior . |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 04:49
| Digital is superior?!! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 03:02
13:15 ... nothing's decided yet. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|