TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Analog vs Digital

Analog vs Digital

I tried searching the forums but didn't come up with anything succesful (I always have trouble finding things).

Anyways, feel like doing some reading/research. Anyone know links that have information or compare analog vs digital? I'm not talking about preference, but more of the solid information such as sound quality.

Thanks

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&threadid=75921

I only see opinions and preferences in that thread.

Any hard statisitcal facts on which has better sound quality?

Re: Analog vs Digital

quote:

Originally posted by IpLaYWiTLiGhTs I'm not talking about preference, but more of the solid information such as sound quality.

Sound quality can be very much down to preference itself... A lot of people prefer the clean sound of a CD to the warm, slightly distorted sound of vinyl and vice versa.

how do you measure sound quality?

honest question.

Bitrate?

quote:

Originally posted by IpLaYWiTLiGhTs Bitrate?

Analogue signals don't have a bitrate, so that can't be used to compare.



*A bit more depth into your original question...*

Technically, analogue sources can be "perfect" quality, if no noise is present. However, there's always noise and recording defects (scratches, crackles and dust etc on a vinyl pressing for example).

Digital recordings quantise the sound ("round" the signal to fixed values in both time and amplitude), so in this sense lose quality, but are much less susceptible to the effects of noise and smoothing can be used to get the signal nearer to the original analogue signal.

So basically it's just not as simple as one being better quality than the other, it depends on the sample rate and sample depth of the digital recording (how accurate the quantisation is) and how much noise and distortion is present in the analogue signal.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter how do you measure sound quality? honest question.

I suppose the intuitive answer to that would be to measure the likeness of a transmitted signal (i.e. the signal after it's been transmitted through a medium in either analogue or digital format) to the original signal

Those who know about signal processing will know that using a cross-correlation function is one way to do this.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox Analogue signals don't have a bitrate, so that can't be used to compare. *A bit more depth into your original question...* Technically, analogue sources can be "perfect" quality, if no noise is present. However, there's always noise and recording defects (scratches, crackles and dust etc on a vinyl pressing for example). Digital recordings quantise the sound ("round" the signal to fixed values in both time and amplitude), so in this sense lose quality, but are much less susceptible to the effects of noise and smoothing can be used to get the signal nearer to the original analogue signal. So basically it's just not as simple as one being better quality than the other, it depends on the sample rate and sample depth of the digital recording (how accurate the quantisation is) and how much noise and distortion is present in the analogue signal.

This is what I'm looking for, thank you!

I'd like to see readings that explain this and go more depth into it.

Really new to this stuff, I want to learn...

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox So basically it's just not as simple as one being better quality than the other, it depends on the sample rate and sample depth of the digital recording (how accurate the quantisation is) and how much noise and distortion is present in the analogue signal.

It also depends on a person's hearing, and how well they can determine distortion from what's not distortion. At what degree have they ever heard quality recordings, and what was the program in question when they drew to this conclusion.

Sound is too subjective why there is no golden rule of thumb on what's best.

Bottomline. Your ears are the deciding factor, and more people will trust their ears over any research if their ears don't agree with the end result.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox using a cross-correlation function is one way to do this

Beautiful Stu, Eric would be proud.

Go to the Wikipedia link for more reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_vs._Digital

quote:

Originally posted by andydavey Beautiful Stu, Eric would be proud.

Haha

Anal Log?

quote:

Originally posted by Zoso Go to the Wikipedia link for more reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_vs._Digital

By all means use that as one point of view, but as the talk page says the article is pretty poorly written and a lot of the information is unfounded and seems to be assumed, rather than verified as accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by andydavey Beautiful Stu, Eric would be proud.

HAHAHA

I think he should get a ban for mentioning the cross correlation function though, wanker

quote:

Originally posted by IpLaYWiTLiGhTs Bitrate?

Not at all, bitrate only gives you an idea of an mp3s quality. Different mp3 encoders will give you different percieved audio quality for the same bitrate. And anyway, if you seriously want to compare digital and analogue you should be using wavs, not compressed mp3s etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox By all means use that as one point of view, but as the talk page says the article is pretty poorly written and a lot of the information is unfounded and seems to be assumed, rather than verified as accurate.

Good point. I was simply trying to give the OP a nod in the Wikipedia direction, as it seems to go overlooked as a starting point more often than not. I didn't mean to imply that the link was the gospel on the subject. Sorry if that is now it came across.

quote:

Originally posted by djdk HAHAHA I think he should get a ban for mentioning the cross correlation function though, wanker

cunt


At least it is actually relevant... maybe you should get a ban for know what the fuck I'm talking about Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Zoso Good point. I was simply trying to give the OP a nod in the Wikipedia direction, as it seems to go overlooked as a starting point more often than not. I didn't mean to imply that the link was the gospel on the subject. Sorry if that is now it came across.

Don't get me wrong, if it wasn't for Wikipedia I'd be failing my degree even more than I am

You just have to be careful... you obviously know this, I'm just making sure anyone else who reads this thread is a little bit cautious, although there is still some good info in that article.

In terms of what sounds best it's definately in the ears of the beholder.

The way that actual wave forms work are different, if this makes a big over all difference on a dance floor is debatable.

The one thing that I have found noticable even in quality MP3s is that the encoding process is not as kind to the bass in a track as it is to the high end.

MP3 takes out parts that it does not feel is necessary to the overall signal and naturally as something is removed you are going to get deteriation in sound.

Anything that is digital is going to be broken up in tiny fragments that sound as one when they are played back. This is true also for Wav but not for analogue, which in theory should be a continuous wave form depending on the source given that the majority of studios these days have digital somewhere in the process.

A lot of people will joke and say that our music is digital anyway but that's slightly missunderstood as it doesn't quite work that way.

As stated before, anytime you encode something the source material is critical and needs to be of the highest quality possible.

Cheers
Nem

Well the whole "it's all digitally produced music" "kind of" does apply... of course mastering a track changes the sound significantly... but the reality is, we ARE playing digitally produced music...

As others have said, one is not better than the other if either is done properly.

It is a sad fact that we are today using MP3 as a defacto standard. Sure it sounds "pretty good" at 320Kbps, but WHY settle for pretty good?

We take snapshots using 8 mega pixel digital cameras (and view them on our iPods), but can't be bothered to use music formats with greater bitrates than CD-quality (which was developed in the 1970's)? CDJ's should support SACD/DVD Audio, and sites like Beatport should offer higher bitrate (than CD's) quality files compressed with lossless codecs.

quote:

Originally posted by Nemesis44 In terms of what sounds best it's definately in the ears of the beholder. The way that actual wave forms work are different, if this makes a big over all difference on a dance floor is debatable. The one thing that I have found noticable even in quality MP3s is that the encoding process is not as kind to the bass in a track as it is to the high end. MP3 takes out parts that it does not feel is necessary to the overall signal and naturally as something is removed you are going to get deteriation in sound. Anything that is digital is going to be broken up in tiny fragments that sound as one when they are played back. This is true also for Wav but not for analogue, which in theory should be a continuous wave form depending on the source given that the majority of studios these days have digital somewhere in the process. A lot of people will joke and say that our music is digital anyway but that's slightly missunderstood as it doesn't quite work that way. As stated before, anytime you encode something the source material is critical and needs to be of the highest quality possible. Cheers Nem

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 Well the whole "it's all digitally produced music" "kind of" does apply... of course mastering a track changes the sound significantly... but the reality is, we ARE playing digitally produced music... As others have said, one is not better than the other if either is done properly. It is a sad fact that we are today using MP3 as a defacto standard. Sure it sounds "pretty good" at 320Kbps, but WHY settle for pretty good? We take snapshots using 8 mega pixel digital cameras (and view them on our iPods), but can't be bothered to use music formats with greater bitrates than CD-quality (which was developed in the 1970's)? CDJ's should support SACD/DVD Audio, and sites like Beatport should offer higher bitrate (than CD's) quality files compressed with lossless codecs.

Well digitally produced or not, it's straight from the source.

Ultimately I'm still a vinyl fan and in my ears this sounds the best to me. I belive I can hear the difference both in a club and definately at home. I probably didn't make that clear in my post.

I am not really a big fan of MP3 but do believe that Wav or better is good enough. Sadly I am forced to play MP3 more often in terms of availability of music.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.