Analog vs Digital Recordings?

[adion]

I was in Newbury Comics the other day browsing the vinyl section for some material to use with my newly acquired stereo setup. Some friendly fellow overheard my girlfriend and I wondering aloud what some terms meant (both of us being new to vinyl). I think the question at hand was regarding a sticker exclaiming "pure analog recording!" on some album sleeves. This guy chimes in with information about recording format, quality, etc. He says that most albums these days are recorded in digital and sound inferior on vinyl compared to analog recordings ("analog recordings sound 20 times better," he says).

Hold on a second. I'm just getting used to the idea that with a proper rig, analog has the potential to top digital in sound quality, and now I'm being told it all depends on if it was recorded in analog versus digital?

I can understand most of today's music being recorded in digital format. I do have a bunch of records of my dad's (all of which were surely recorded analog-ly) and they sound pretty good to my ears - critical listening still in development - but I guess my question is, would it still be worth buying NEW music with the chance that it was recorded in digital format?

After hearing that guy's shpiel I ended up replacing the record I had originally gone there to find simply because it didn't bear a "pure analog recording! becausesoundmatters.com" sticker. Side question: anyone know what that website's deal is? It can't be an all-inclusive list of artists that record albums in analog, there seems to be too few...

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adion /img/forum/go_quote.gif but I guess my question is, would it still be worth buying NEW music with the chance that it was recorded in digital format?

In a word yes. One of the main problems with digital music formats that people have today is that they are compressed. The degree to which depends on whether you are buying from Itunes or on a CD.

In the former case you are paying for probably the lowest quality format ever sold, AAC, capable of worse resolution than any analogue format but OK on Ipod ear buds. In the case of CD the compression commonly takes the form of aggressive peak limiting at the mastering stage which can afflict recordings made from analogue or digital masters. Google "Loudness Wars" for a fuller explanation.


Vinyl records generally require more skilled mastering than CD so often they sound better even if derived from the same digital cuts. In the worse case a record of the same material from a digital master will sound the same, but many find they prefer the vinyl.

To make things more complex, recording of course can be a complicated process involving multiple analogue and digital sources and recording formats. Methods obviously vary depending on what kind of music you are talking about. Rock musicians like the White Stripes for instance, stick to completely analogue methods, as were used prior to the 1980s, because they are looking for a more "authentic" rock sound. But then again the guitar sound of "rock" bands like U2 is very dependent on digital delay pedals.

Classical fans often can't abide the noise levels of vinyl but despite this vinyl offers a wider possible frequency range so can capture the nuances in the upper registers of instruments like the violin, or high hat cymbals more realistically. So it also depends on what kind of music you listen to...

 

[Michgelsen]

A lot of (older) classical recordings have a SPARS Code that tell you whether the original recording was analog or digital. I prefer when it's digital, because that often means less hiss and better definition. There are of course plenty of AAD CDs that sound superb, so it's not a rule that DDD is always better.

I don't think it matters when you buy vinyl that came from a digital recording, because the original digital recordings are of a much higher fidelity than the final digital result that is on the CD. In other words: it's unlikely that you would notice in what way the original recording was made. From a purist's point of view: once the recording is digital, some 'analog' qualities could maybe perhaps might be lost forever. Of course, the strong point of digital is the resistance to signal degradation. The longer an analog signal path, the more prone it is to degradation.
On a side note, it's very likely that between the moment the music was recorded and the moment it's pressed to CD, the signal has been converted back and forth between analog and digital multiple times.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adion /img/forum/go_quote.gif He says that most albums these days are recorded in digital and sound inferior on vinyl compared to analog recordings ("analog recordings sound 20 times better," he says).

The recording quality is dependent on the engineering. A poor engineer can mangle anything but a good engineer can make anything listenable

.

In general though analog recordings are noisier but even this is context dependent. I have several Lute recordings that are relatively noisy despite being DDD recordings and Some Analog recordings such as a 1967 Mahler 2 that is admirably quiet.

My latest purchase is a recording of the Praetorius Magnificat on NAXOS and the quality is stunning (DDD)


Quote:

Hold on a second. I'm just getting used to the idea that with a proper rig, analog has the potential to top digital in sound quality, and now I'm being told it all depends on if it was recorded in analog versus digital?

No, it depends on the skill of the engineer !

 

[Michgelsen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Classical fans often can't abide the noise levels of vinyl but despite this vinyl offers a wider possible frequency range so can capture the nuances in the upper registers of instruments like the violin, or high hat cymbals more realistically. So it also depends on what kind of music you listen to...

Even if one believes that ultrasound can be perceived, it is not strictly an advantage of analog recordings, as SACD for example can carry this information too.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michgelsen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if one believes that ultrasound can be perceived, it is not strictly an advantage of analog recordings, as SACD for example can carry this information too.

And some of the sounding SACDs were recorded using pure analog equipment....i.e. RCA Living Stereo SACD series

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michgelsen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if one believes that ultrasound can be perceived, it is not strictly an advantage of analog recordings, as SACD for example can carry this information too.

I fear pretty much dead in the water unfortunately, but yes you are right with regard to DSD or high rez PCM in the studio of course.