2. analog
  3. 1159837156

Is Digital actually better than Analog?

I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music.
Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
128x128musicaudio
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.

If you check pro audio forums you will see that recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's.

The recording art and technology is not dying (although with all the available tricks in pro tools today there is a growing tendency to over-engineer things). The problem is that artists and producers are demanding loud in your face recordings, stuff that grabs attention but is easily tiresome to the ears! To me that is the problem.

Bob Katz has a web page that explains all the issues.
pauly
1,012 posts
 
“recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's”

Compressed music is my pet peeve. I simply cannot listen to any music if it has been compressed. Sadly, most of the rock and roll/pop genre is compressed. Damn shame I think.
aball
2,018 posts
 
Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.

Agreed. We definitely agree.

The problem is not the dying of the "art"; skilled people who know what they are doing. Indeed, as you say, the "powers that be" demand what they "think" sells.

Do consumers even realize that this loudness escalation has been going on in the music industry since the 50's..."powers that be" deciding that loud and compressed sells better?

....let's not shoot the messenger (the recording/mastering engineers who are just doing their job and giving clients what they want)

...perhaps the decline in CD sales is parly a reflection of poor quality "hot" music.....after all why bother buying a CD if it so heavily compressed/awful sounding and only suitable for an iPod, Car or PC system....might as well download a lossy mp3 as it is cheaper, more convenient and the quality is often just as good compared to an awful compressed CD.
d_edwards
204 posts
 
"Compressed music is my pet peeve."

The number of recordings that use no compression is incredibly small, like .001%. Compression is a signal to noise reality that must be addressed and not ignored. Compression is a good thing if you like vinyl.

Compression is a pop music/commercial issue. Most of the music I buy is essentially unnaffected by the "radio track" mentality. Peter Gabriel "So" is a perfect example of "Radio Edit" versus "Album edit"....Big Time and Sledgehammer mixed for Radio, the rest of the album is simply excellent and natural.

Video Killed the Radio Star, technology cannot replace talent as many of today's "pop" producers are asked to do. Now singers have to look good first, before they even get a chance to sing.

The reverse from the 40's and 50's where there was more talent than technology and no MTV metality that lumped your looks in as "talent".
More to discover