From: leaver@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Andrew Leaver)
Newsgroups: alt.music.rush
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Analog
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:19:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory, UK
Originator: leaver@thom2.comlab

In article <1k29qdINNmfk@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
> ...as for the Digital vs Analog debate, I personally think Analog is better
>for the following reasons:
>1)  With Digital (computer), the sound is either 1 or 0, while in Analog (real
>    life), sounds vary "infinitely"

The point is that the digital data can be recovered exactly, whereas
the analog data can only be recovered approximately. So this `advantage'
of analog systems does not in practice exist.

>2)  Digital works better with the lower portion of the sound range, while
>    Analog works better with the higher end of the sound range.

Not really true. Digital is better all over (:-) except in that an
expensive turntable + arm + stylus can reproduce frequencies above
20kHz (for the first few plays of the record 'till they are worn off :-).
Seeing as most of us (including me...) can't hear that high, it's a bit
wasted. That's why the upper limit was _chosen_ to be 20kHz on CD.

>3)  Digital systems tend to leave the user at the mercy of the system itself.
>    Analog systems leave more control to the user itself.

Not at all true. A decent piece of audiophile gear won't give
control to the user. Tone controls and graphic equalizers are all very well,
but they degrade sound quality. In fact, digital is _far better_ for this
as digital tone controls would not cause this degradation :).

>An example of the third point is Drum Machines vs Drummer.  
> [...] how many drum machines really know how to swing???

Well, a drum machine is designed then programmed by humans. Blame the
human, not the drum machine :) Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant to the
analog / digital debate. An analog drum machine would suffer from
exactly the same problems.

My reasons for preferring CDs are:
1) No rumble, no crackle & pops, no hiss.
2) You can't scratch them (unless you are really trying!).
3) Longer playing time - and on a single side.
4) More convenient size (but the case design is _stupid_).
5) Much greater dynamic range.
6) Much greater channel separation.
7) No wow & flutter.
8) Can play them many many times without reducing sound quality.
9) Can make _perfect_ copies (e.g. to digital tape).

The one disadvantage is that in the past the sound quality on CDs has been
poor. However, this appears to me to be due to poor mastering 'coz new
recordings like REM's `Automatic For The People' are excellent on CD.
Rush fans do well because the back catalog has been transcribed well onto
CD (at least the ones I've got); some classics, notably the first couple
of Doors CDs, are done so badly that it's painful to listen to.

I've always thought an interesting test would be to compare a vinyl cut
played on a good turntable to the same vinyl cut played on the same
turntable, digitized, recorded on CD and played back from CD.
I wonder whether you'd be able to tell the difference :).

>
>Kamchatka Charlie          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu

Andrew				leaver@prg.ox.ac.uk
--
Newsgroups: alt.music.rush