Experts report on the topic of analog vs. Digital
Which is better: the vinyl record or the CD, analog or digital? Generations of music lovers argue on this topic, but so do self-proclaimed experts. At this point, I’d like to let some real experts in your field speak up: sound engineers or sound engineers, people who deal with the subject on a daily basis. Here are some truths about record technology and how it really came about.
ABOUT DISCS, CDS AND RECORDINGS
First of all, a short note that the question asked at the beginning cannot be answered in this way. On the one hand, it has to be structured from a technical point of view, and on the other hand, it makes no sense to seriously compare two fundamentally different systems. However, there are approaches by many music lovers to compare the end results as a sound carrier.
In the end, I would like to return to the fact that there are many obstacles, most of which you have no idea. First, however, I will let the experts express their opinion, who know much more about the subject than the consumers. And in doing so, amazing aspects come to light that mainly illuminate the development of a vinyl recording, right from the beginning!
“The analog vs. digital discussion has been with me for many years, to be precise since 1982. That was when the CD was introduced. There was probably no sound engineer at the time who was not relieved that the CD arrived. Because in almost all technical respects, digital recording, assuming reasonable sampling accuracy, is clearly better.
Let’s take the signal-to-noise ratio: with the LP, you can consider yourself lucky to achieve 50 dB, with the CD – 80 dB. Or the wow and flutter: with the LP, it’s enough that the center hole is a bit too large (but still within the norm!), And a clear egg can be heard. With CD: neither measurable nor audible. Or take the channel separation: with the LP maybe 30 dB, with the CD 80 dB. And so. The exception may be the frequency response, the CD cuts hard at 20 kHz, the LP comes out “soft” and transmits perhaps up to 30 or 40 kHz, but much quieter.
The fact that many listeners and, meanwhile, many sound professionals, from musicians to sound engineers / technicians / teachers, turn to the LP again, has aesthetic and fundamental reasons, also philosophical. And there are many good ones. Digital is, for example, B. much more manipulable. Up to 100 cuts were found on an analog recording, mostly less, rarely more. 500 cuts are not uncommon on CD. Pitch correction, velocity change, sound manipulation, post-processing of individual tracks, synthetic spaces or even natural spaces, but artificially added, etc. etc.
It is also digitally interchangeable. An LP is unique, due to supposedly damaging technical weaknesses like creak, eggs, and noise. But what does technical weakness really mean in something like art? Isn’t it rather an advantage that not everything is so smooth and reproducible and that you have to fight hard to get a good result? The “clinical, sterile” sound of the CD is often criticized, it is not the weakness of the CD, but that of the LP, only that this incorruptibility also means lack of life.
Digital also means zack – track 17 and zack – track 9, while LP first means holding record in hand (haptic!), Admiring the cover / maybe running fingers over it, carefully removing record ( music is vulnerable and precious!), the hanging ceremony, taking your time and listening. In contrast, digital: next door, in the car, without emotions and without love.
Still, I find it difficult to say that one is better than the other. Like many others, I feel at home in both worlds. Digital can be intoxicating and addictive (if done right), analog too, just completely different. When it comes to my TACET label, we are pursuing a twofold approach: Producing with fervor and devotion to satisfy LP listeners. And equally fascinated and enthusiastic, working in a completely different way, suitable for digital sound carriers. “
