Hey gang,

A friend of mine just forwarded this to me and I thought it was an interesting way to present the analog vs. digital debate in a sort of non-scientific way. Hope you enjoy...

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/video/212-audio_files_preview_.html

Very cool.  Thanks Jim!

One thing that I wish they would have hit on is the point that most major studios today utilize a hybrid of analog and digital gear, such as using a Digidesign/Pro Tools rig as a tape and editing machine while mixing on an analog desk.  Even though Ken is recording through a Digidesign rig (doing basically everything in the computer, the Digi ICON control surface that he uses doesn't pass audio, it's basically a $70,000 mouse), he was still using some analog outboard gear.

If you listen closely to the song test they do, you can hear that the digital recording is a bit more bright on the upper end of vocals and the sibilance on the guitars is brought out a lot more.  While on the analog, the bass and drums feel like they mesh together and the guitar and vocals are a bit more subdued.  With proper utilization of your tools, you can achieve the same result with digital, however analog will give you that quality without having to ";fake"; it.

What is kind of interesting is how a lot of strictly analog companies are starting to embrace digital processing.  At the end when they are talking about plugins, you can see one of the Solid State Logic 4000G series mix buss compressor plugins, which are an emulation of the stereo buss compressor on an SSL 4000G analog console.  I do most of my more commercial mixing on an SSL 4000G when the band has the money (that type of console has either tracked or mixed roughly 85% of all #1 hits), and I also own the Waves plugin emulators of the hardware.  The Waves Plugs are pretty darn close to achieving the same qualities that the original analog versions add to the audio.

The important thing about digital is file management quality wise.  There really is not much of a quality difference between a mix on tape and an 88.2k/24-bit AIFF audio file.  However there is a major difference (to me at least) between a mid quality MP3 and a higher end format (be that either tape or a lossless digital format).  In the end, most consumers can't tell the difference anyways.

Really cool feature.

Good video- confirms that ";audiophiles"; and even the original musicians could only [u]guess[/u] which was which.       

[quote]
If you listen closely to the song test they do, you can hear that the digital recording is a bit more bright on the upper end of vocals and the sibilance on the guitars is brought out a lot more. [/quote]

Yeah right.  If the 4 people in the video couldn't tell the difference listening through high quality headphones in the studio, how can you say you can tell watching a highly compressed flash video?     

Well for one, we're being told which is what.  Listen for yourself.  In a blind test it's much harder, because a lot of those qualities are mix decisions that can be achieved with either format if you know what you're doing.

I've done those types of tests numerous times, on my own and in school.  You get about the same results as they did in a blind test, around half right.  When you have a reference, if you sit down and listen to a song (with no processing whatsoever on it) that was both recorded on tape and digital, you will hear the difference.

I also think they've mixed apples and oranges here.  The discussion always degrades to MP3.  I think everyone will agree that MP3 is inferior to the product of a good analog or digital recording, and that's the shame in the discussion.  My FLAC library obviously is acceptable, but for the MP3 files I do have, they are ok.  They are, however, not comparable to either master quality level.

A high-quality m4a is indistinguishable.  MP3 will live on a long, long time because the format itself cannot be DRM'd.  That's the key.

But to watch that guy cut tape...  that just hurts my sensibilities.  The only real advantage to analog is that the recording takes on the characteristic of the medium.  In digital, that's nothing.  In analog, that's the tape, or the vinyl.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029
Here's more cute Wired stuff.

For me, analog is a flavor.  If you want to do something analog to achieve said flavor, that's the same as any other effect to me.  If you want to talk quality, and then toss out ";mp3"; as a benchmark, you're immediately throwing a monkeywrench into the conversation.  If you take a final product, and release it on mp3, you do so at the risk of sounding like poo to an influential 1% of people.  If you don't care, 99% will be happy anyhow.

I don't know anyone else that can ABX a 320 mp3 and a wav, and get it right, of my friends and family that don't do digital audio as a hobby.  It passes the stink test. 

But let's not jump up and say that digital sucks because it doesn't add noise into the final outcome, and because the consumer format is inferior to the master.  Digital audio at a modern level is technically superior in every way.  Consumer formats have *always* been inferior to masters.  Analog degrades, and no one debates that.  To hear that guy say that analog was superior as a storage format is just laughable.  The real crime is all the effort that goes into producing audio, and the common denominator always seems to come down to [u]those awful, $5 white ipod headphones[/u]. 

[quote author=drumcat link=topic=2079.msg10698#msg10698 date=1194904097]
But to watch that guy cut tape...  that just hurts my sensibilities.  The only real advantage to analog is that the recording takes on the characteristic of the medium.  In digital, that's nothing.  In analog, that's the tape, or the vinyl.
[/quote]

The guy that they talked to about analog (Albini) is fervently against anything digital, and has made quite an ass out of himself at AES conventions and other get togethers.  He's misleading about being able to make the kinds of edits with tape that you can with digital.  If you do over a hundred cuts on a reel of tape, there's a strong chance that eventually one of those cuts will break and ruin the reel.  So to prevent that, you have to make another copy which goes down a generation in quality.

[quote author=drumcat link=topic=2079.msg10698#msg10698 date=1194904097]
For me, analog is a flavor.  If you want to do something analog to achieve said flavor, that's the same as any other effect to me.  If you want to talk quality, and then toss out ";mp3"; as a benchmark, you're immediately throwing a monkeywrench into the conversation.  If you take a final product, and release it on mp3, you do so at the risk of sounding like poo to an influential 1% of people.  If you don't care, 99% will be happy anyhow.

I don't know anyone else that can ABX a 320 mp3 and a wav, and get it right, of my friends and family that don't do digital audio as a hobby.  It passes the stink test. 
[/quote]

I don't think low-mid quality MP3's will even be a factor in a few years (or even MP3 in general) with how storage is growing.

[quote author=drumcat link=topic=2079.msg10698#msg10698 date=1194904097]
But let's not jump up and say that digital sucks because it doesn't add noise into the final outcome, and because the consumer format is inferior to the master.  Digital audio at a modern level is technically superior in every way.  Consumer formats have *always* been inferior to masters.  Analog degrades, and no one debates that.  To hear that guy say that analog was superior as a storage format is just laughable.  The real crime is all the effort that goes into producing audio, and the common denominator always seems to come down to [u]those awful, $5 white ipod headphones[/u]. 
[/quote]

I don't think anyone on here is saying digital sucks, with the kinds of products that we all generally use...

Albini's deceiving on that one too.  If you let tape sit for 20 years, it'll fall apart when you try and put it on the machine.  So you have to literally bake it in the oven, and after that you might get once pass before it breaks.  Where do they usually transfer it to?  A computer.

Most of the people still using tape machines end up transferring it all into Pro Tools anyways to edit and mix, using the tape as an effect.

I agree with that completely, Tyler...