From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: "Digital Is A Huge Rip-Off" (Neil Young)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:08:57 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <1992Apr14.131537.6357@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> elliott@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Elliott New) writes:
>           
>                 "Digital is a Huge Rip-Off" by Neil Young
>                    (from Guitar Player, May '92, p.14)

> [Gobbly gook about how analog is better than digital]

No kidding!  Of course analog is better than digital for more
reasons than I care to think about but here are a few.

1.  Digital is a time sampled method that samples the "true"
    frequency at regular intervals.  The points in between 
    can be recreated by several algorithms like straight line
    point-to-point or by guessing at what the waveform might
    have looked like in-between points.

    The first method has obvious flaws the greatest being the
    harmonic content is altered changing the sound.

    The second method is both inaccurate and may actually change
    the sound to a point that is not representative of the actual
    harmonic content.

2.  Digital is inconsistent when interfaced with analog.  Digital
    in it's own domain is very predictable but convert an analog
    signal twice and you are very likely to come up with completely
    different signals.

    What does this say?  Well maybe that without hooking a logic
    analyzer and running it through a sophisticated program to 
    "weed out" harmonics at certain volumes that cause discomfort
    to humans (try programming that algorithm) we are left to
    guessing at the final product (converted back to analog).

3.  The many different qualities of components and circuits used
    to convert both from analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog
    provide numerous factors in the quality of the final product.

4.  Finally is the quality of the stereo and speakers used.  These
    variables are so numerous it is impossible to accomodate them
    all.  Even when recording in analog this problem exists (try
    playing a tape on your $2000 home stereo then putting it in 
    your $200 car stereo (whoa is that the same band?).

I agree with him in that analog is better than digital as far as
sound quality goes, there is no denying that.  But the present and
future benefits of digital (convenience, repeatability, longevity,
manipulation of data, transportability to other digital equipment,
reliability, and the constant improvements in both equipment and 
algorithms) far outweigh the "present" shortcomings of digital.

You don't improve something by saying "it's a ripoff" this is the
typical response to something that people don't understand and 
have their feet firmly planted in the cement filled hole of 
"That's the way it's always been".  Ignorance knows no bounds and
this type of discussion has gone on since the dawn of time and will
go on forever.  

Don't forget, in order for progress to move forward it must
encounter some wind in it's face.


"Listen not to those who would stop progress for it has the pedal
 to the metal and a full tank of gas."   --- Kawika 1992


Kawika