i have to write a thesis: is analog better than digital?

poop123 · Post by **poop123** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:30 pm

i just need to know which one is better and why. I think myself that a mix would create a good sound but i need to know the extremes of both.

;ivlunsdystf · Post by **;ivlunsdystf** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:03 pm

FYI, most recordings are mixed (though the reverse is not always true)

Again, good luck with that paper! I'm sure somebody here would be happy to write it for you. What time is it due tomorrow?

Barry Jive · Post by **Barry Jive** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:47 pm

There is no answer to this question. If you want to say digital say it's easy to edit, there are levels of undo, it's cheap and mobile and easy to maintain. If you want to say tape say there is no latency, that whatever kind of harmonic distortion it produces it usually pleasing to the ear. This is the "I-barely-know-anything-about-anything" answer.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:59 pm

Barry Jive wrote:There is no answer to this question. If you want to say digital say it's easy to edit, there are levels of undo, it's cheap and mobile and easy to maintain. If you want to say tape say there is no latency, that whatever kind of harmonic distortion it produces it usually pleasing to the ear. This is the "I-barely-know-anything-about-anything" answer.

True. Also, it's a very deep topic, the discussion of which usually results in extremely passionate debate and heated arguments, and opinions are often as rooted in personal loyalties and emotional attachments as they are in science. It's like a PC/Mac argument, or McDonald's vs. Burger King, or Catholic vs. Protestant, or Star Wars vs. Star Trek.

Nevermind the fact that you first must define what "better" means...which takes you back to Barry's post above. Better for what? In what way?

rwc · Post by **rwc** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:01 pm

Digital is better. None of that hiss, cheap, easy to maintain and edit on, no stupid harmonic distortion, no "warmth" or other analog crap plaguing your recording.

I'm kidding.. did you really, seriously, honestly expect a _LEGIT_ answer to that question? LOLZ

GooberNumber9 · Post by **GooberNumber9** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:03 pm

dwlb wrote:It's like a PC/Mac argument, or McDonald's vs. Burger King, or Catholic vs. Protestant, or Star Wars vs. Star Trek.

Not at all! Everyone knows that Macs, Burger King, and Star Wars are all better. I'm not touching the religion thing with a ten-meter cattle prod.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:10 pm

RWC wrote:Analog is better. None of that sterile "what you record is what you play back" stuff--it adds its own nifty sonic signature to whatever you print it to and over 50 years we've convinced ourselves that's a good thing; and if a certain sound isn't what you want on your music that signature is variable depending on recording level, tape speed, width and brand, all of which makes you a better engineer in the long run because you have to make an educated guess about what things are gonna sound like on playback; plus it's got built-in DRM as every subsequent copy will sound worse than the one before!

I'm kidding.. did you really, seriously, honestly expect a _LEGIT_ answer to that question? LOLZ

See whut I mean?

Knights Who Say Neve · Post by **Knights Who Say Neve** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:10 am

One is a bunch of sine waves mixed together, and the other is a bunch of square waves. Once you know that, it's totally obvious.

;ivlunsdystf · Post by **;ivlunsdystf** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:18 am

But those Roland VS-2480 boxes are a mix, and therefore have cosine waves or something right?

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:34 am

if youre asking that question it doesnt seem like youre ready to write athesis on it.

drumsound · Post by **drumsound** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:02 am

poop123 wrote:i just need to know which one is better and why. I think myself that a mix would create a good sound but i need to know the extremes of both.

Then maybe that should be your thesis...

You're basically asking what's better chocolate or vanilla. ASk 100 peaplo and you'll get about 50/50 answers.

GooberNumber9 · Post by **GooberNumber9** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:08 am

Knights Who Say Neve wrote:One is a bunch of sine waves mixed together, and the other is a bunch of square waves. Once you know that, it's totally obvious.

Totally. Square waves sound fat and rich, sine waves are thin and boring.

;ivlunsdystf · Post by **;ivlunsdystf** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:23 am

A simple analogy: Rock, paper, scissors is to digital as sine, square, sawtooth is to analog.

Analogies are analog. Fingers are digital. Right brain, left brain.

RefD · Post by **RefD** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:30 am

i got your digital right here!

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:23 am

Well, analog will for sure play back after 100 years or so if the medium is stored properly. It's not looking like that's the case with digital.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Message Board

i have to write a thesis: is analog better than digital?

i have to write a thesis: is analog better than digital?

Re: i have to write a thesis: is analog better than digital?

Who is online