# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the final installment of the "Why Vinyl?" series, we shed some light on the issue of analog vs. digital recordings. Subjects touched on are the differences between the two, the problem with digitally sourced vinyl, reissues, and 33 vs 45 rpm! Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments!

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a difference between analog and digital music?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I wrote an article in January titled " 10 things the tech world should leave behind." In my piece I lampooned several examples of technological elements or trends which should be put out to pasture, including java problems, lost data and password aggravations.

One element in particular provoked something of a firestorm: "In my view there are many other candidates for

the museum: digital/video cameras, MP3 players, CDs, DVDs, radios, cassette players, calculators, alarm clocks, and vinyl/turntables. Your mobile device can perform many of these functions and more." That produced many comments and emails from readers who urged me to reconsider my preference for digital over analog music, assuring me that the sound quality from records and cassettes was far preferable to that of MP3s.

Some of the remarks I took with a grain of salt, such as the email from a reader who admitted her partner ran a record shop, which signified she had a personal financial stake in the promotion of analog music. The bulk of my replies on the topic focused on the fact I don't detect any deterioration in sound quality when listening to MP3s, and I find the manufacturing and transportation of analog media to be a waste of resources. Being a minimalist, however, I will admit my "eliminate all unnecessary possessions" mantra does influence my preferences.

These exchanges have had me wondering ever since then: is there really a difference between analog and digital music, and do I just have a tin ear and can't detect it? Keep in mind I'm pushing 45 and have been listening to loud music for over 25 years, so it's possible my eardrums are less sophisticated than yours.

And so without further ado I decided to research the facts behind what until now has been an opinion vs. opinion battleground, at least in my experience.

First I want to talk about how analog and digital music works. While there are many complicated factors involved, in a nutshell here are the basics between the two:

Analog music represents the actual, continuous sound waves generated by the artists and their equipment (in most cases, but sometimes records are based upon digital recordings being converted back to analog format), recorded on vinyl as grooves via metal stampers or on cassettes as magnetic impulses. Every time a record or cassette is played a physical toll is taken upon it due to friction, wear and tear. Over time the sound quality will deteriorate. Furthermore, the sound is generally better at the beginning of a vinyl recording as opposed to the end, because the smaller circumference can impact the ability of the record needle to follow the groove with 100% accuracy. And for those of us who grew up in the 1970's, the "crackle and pop" factor of records - not to mention the proverbial skipping or looping the same few seconds of music over and over - could be quite distracting.

Digital music is a COPY of analog music and it is not a continuous recording. Rather, the sounds are captured using samples (generally several thousand times per second). For instance, a CD is usually sampled at a rate of about 44.1 kHz, which translates to over 44,000 times a second, but sampling levels can run higher. The music is recorded in bits of information; a CD will usually feature 16-bit music, and as with sampling more bits can be used for better quality. The bit rate (the amount of data played per second) is also a factor; CDs often play at 128 Kbps, but this can increase as well. There is also a factor of compression; shrinking the music file to fit on the medium for which it is intended, which can impact playback. However, a type of compression called "lossless" is intended to combat this issue.

In essence, there are a lot of variables at play when it comes to digital music (fidelity and frequency are also part of this equation), but the fact remain digital music is usually a conversion of analog music and some quality loss can occur if this is done poorly or the sampling, bits, and bit rate are inferior. It's also a fact that a vinyl record will contain more musical data than an MP3. However, a digital recording can be played over and over with no deterioration in quality.

HowStuffWorks.com said: "Early digital recordings sacrificed fidelity, or sound quality, in favor of reliability.... today, technology in the audio recording industry is so advanced that many audio engineers will tell you there's no detectable difference between analog and digital recordings. Even if you were to use the best stereo equipment, you shouldn't be able to identify one medium versus the other just by listening to the sound. Many audiophiles disagree and claim that the analog format is still supreme."

Other elements which can impact your listening experience involve the quality of the sound system involved, the environment in which you're listening (a vehicle with the windows down will be vastly different from a quiet living room) as well as the recording being played. A 1980's Eddie Murphy comedy routine will probably sound the same in either analog or digital format, but a jazz recording of Miles Davis may sound better in vinyl format - or at least, may foster a perception thereof. Perception plays a large role here.

The article's author, Jonathan Strickland, said:

"I knew I'd be walking on thin ice with this article. If there's one thing guaranteed to launch a shouting match among music fans, it's the old digital-versus-analog debate. While there are audiophiles who will protest to the grave that analog formats like vinyl records provide a truer, richer sound than digital formats, there's not much hard evidence to support the claim. Sure, if you listen to music on a substandard system, it's not going to sound very good. And if you encode digital music using a low bitrate, the sounds you get as a result may be less than pleasing to the ear. But if you're using a lossless digital format and a decent sound system, it's very difficult - perhaps even impossible - to tell the difference between analog and digital. I believe that what some audiophiles truly value is the ritual of listening to analog music. Taking a vinyl album from a sleeve, placing it on the turntable and delicately positioning the needle gives the experience of listening to music a gravity it might not otherwise possess. How could that not sound better?"

In the end, while the facts may point to higher analog sound quality (depending on circumstances), the premise remains largely subjective. Is listening to a digital recording of Miles Davis song truly going to adversely impact your experience and cause you to pine for the vinyl instead? I can't answer that - only you can. I'm just happy that at any given moment I have the capability to play my favorite Led Zeppelin albums without worrying about lugging media around, thanks to my trusty old Blackberry. You see, I can find value in things commonly considered outdated and obsolete!
Also see: How to make music on a Chromebook Cloud sounds: What the latest tech revolution means for the future of making music Get started using Google Play Music A guide to Apple Pro Apps for professional audio and video production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analog versus digital music: Is there a difference?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I wrote an article in January titled " 10 things the tech world should leave behind." In my piece I lampooned several examples of technological elements or trends which should be put out to pasture, including java problems, lost data and password aggravations.

# data[].attributes.body
What's the Difference Between Digital and Analog?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question of analog vs. digital audio is one of the more hotly debated questions in the world of music, film and media today. Does digital sound better? Does analog sound better? Is there even a noticeable difference?

It's impossible to understand the difference completely without understanding what distinguishes analog audio from digital audio. A full discussion of these terms is best left to your curriculum and discussions with your mentor in the studio. For now, though, here's a brief explanation of what these two words mean, and the differences between them.

Analog refers to a continuously changing representation of a continuously variable quantity. Digital, however, refers to representing these variable quantities in terms of actual numbers, or digits. The last two sentences seem a bit complex, but let's try to simplify them with an example. If you consider the numbers 1 and 2 on a number line, there are actually an infinite number of points between 1 and 2. This is what analog represents-the infinite number of possibilities between 1 and 2. Digital, on the other hand, only looks at certain number of fixed points along the line between 1 and 2 (for example, 1 ¼, 1 ½, 1 ¾, and 2).

Can you see the difference? Digital takes a few "snapshots" of the number line, while analog takes the whole line into account.

As another example, think of analog vs. digital as the difference between seeing something in real life and watching it on film. When we see something happen in real life, there are no "spaces" between what we see, so we're watching it happen in analog. Film, however, is actually a series of still photographs that are taken in rapid-fire intervals, and when we see them in succession, it tricks our minds into thinking we're seeing a continuous flow of movement. So in a manner of speaking, when we watch the event happen on film, we're watching it digitally, because we're watching increments of the event, rather than the whole thing in fluid motion. (Not to be confused with digital video vs. film, which is another discussion completely!)

Let's bring this idea into audio, music, and the studio. Sound occurs naturally in analog-that is to say, sound occurs in a continuous set of waves that we hear with the human ear. (Think of it as a "wavy" line with an infinite number of points along it.) When we capture that sound in a way that represents all the possible frequencies, we're recording in analog; when we use computers to translate the sound into a series of numbers that approximate what we're hearing, we're recording in digital.

Thus, a purely analog recording would be something that was recorded on tape and produced using manual equipment to mix, master and press into a vinyl LP. A purely digital recording would be recorded on a computer program such as Pro Tools, mixed, mastered and produced digitally, and eventually burned onto a CD as an MP3 or audio file.

The most ironic aspect of the debate about digital vs. analog recording is that nowadays a lot of music is a combination of the two. For example, you might record a song onto analog tape, but mix and master it digitally, or release it on the Internet as an MP3.

So what's the difference in quality between analog and digital? The idea between digital recording is that our ears and brains technically can't determine the spaces between the digital values, just like our brains interpret film as continuous motion. However, to many people, analog sound tends to be warmer, has more texture and is thought to capture a truer representation of the actual sound. Digital is felt to be somewhat cold, technical and perhaps lacking in analog's nuance.

However digital is much cheaper. Recording an album with analog technology can require a whole studio full of equipment, but with digital recording technology, it's possible to record a whole album in a bedroom on a laptop. And whereas analog technology can wear out or be damaged, digital media can last for an indefinite length of time.

Today many recording artists, both major and independent, record using a mixture of digital and analog techniques. While analog audio does give warmth and a truer sound quality, digital is cheaper to work with and offers more control over the finished product.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analog, Digital, What is the Difference?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of analog vs. digital audio is one of the more hotly debated questions in the world of music, film and media today. Does digital sound better? Does analog sound better? Is there even a noticeable difference? It's impossible to understand the difference completely without understanding what distinguishes analog audio from digital audio.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some Pros and Cons of Digital and Analog Music

# data[].attributes.subject
Some Pros and Cons of Digital and Analog Music

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sound is naturally an analog signal. An analog signal is continuous, meaning that there are no breaks or interruptions. One moment flows into the next. If you were to hum a descending note, people hearing you would be able to detect the change in pitch, but not point to specific moments when the pitch jumped from one note to the next.

Digital signals are not continuous. They use specific values to represent information. In the case of sound, that means representing a sound wave as a series of values that represent pitch and volume over the length of the recording. In a primitive digital recording of that descending note you hummed, you'd hear a single long sound as a collection of shorter sounds.

Some audiophiles argue that because analog recording methods are continuous, they are better at capturing a true representation of sound. Digital recordings can miss subtle nuances. But as digital recording processes improve, digital devices can use higher sampling rates with greater precision. Although the signal still isn't continuous, the high sampling rate can create a sound similar to the original source.

Before the 1970s, musicians recorded their performances on analog recording equipment. Microphones recording the sound generated an analog wave that other devices would then transfer directly to the proper media (usually magnetic tape). Assuming the recording artist used reliable equipment, the sound recorded was an accurate representation of the original sound.

With digital recording, audio engineers convert analog waves into digital signals. There are many different kinds of equipment that can convert analog to digital. Some audio studios record a performance on an analog master tape first, then transfer the sound to a digital format. Others will use special equipment to record directly to digital.

Early digital recordings sacrificed fidelity, or sound quality, in favor of reliability. One of the drawbacks of an analog format is that analog media tends to wear down. Vinyl albums can warp or get scratched, which can dramatically impact sound quality. Magnetic tape eventually wears out and is vulnerable to magnets, which can erase or destroy information stored on the tape. Digital media like compact discs can reproduce sound indefinitely.

Another advantage digital media has over analog is that you can make as many copies of the original sound file as you like without hurting it. Eventually, even an analog master recording isn't going to sound as good as the original performance. As long as nothing corrupts a digital file, it will stay the same no matter how much time has passed or how many copies engineers make.

Today, technology in the audio recording industry is so advanced that many audio engineers will tell you there's no detectable difference between analog and digital recordings. Even if you were to use the best stereo equipment, you shouldn't be able to identify one medium versus the other just by listening to the sound. Many audiophiles disagree and claim that the analog format is still supreme.

So what are the arguments that audiophiles use to support their love of the analog format? Find out in the next section.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sound is naturally an analog signal. An analog signal is continuous, meaning that there are no breaks or interruptions. One moment flows into the next. If you were to hum a descending note, people hearing you would be able to detect the change in pitch, but not point to specific moments when the pitch jumped from one note to the next.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, both digital analog recording have their merits.

We felt it necessary to break down the two recording methods to give you a better understanding - so the next time you're in a heated audiophile debate, you will have more ammo to hold your position.

Digital vs Analog Recording Processes

No matter which recording process used, analog or digital, both are created by a microphone turning air pressure (sound) into an electrical analog signal.

An analog recording is made by then imprinting that signal directly onto the master tape (via magnetization) or master record (via grooves) - from which copies can be made into cassette tapes and vinyl records.

Digital recordings take that analog signal and convert it into a digital representation of the sound, which is essentially a series of numbers for digital software to interpret.

After the analog signal is digitalized, the recording can be copied and placed onto a compact disc, hard drive or streamed online.

Audio Bandwidth

Bandwidth is the ability of a recorded signal to be reproduced at varying degrees of resolution. Think of it like enlarging a low-resolution image versus a high-resolution image. After a certain point, enlarging a lower-resolution image will become pixelated and difficult to see, where the hi-resolution image will resize clearly.

Like images, audio signals can have a limited bandwidth if recorded digitally. Once a digital recording is made, the bandwidth is set in place.

An analog recording is considered unlimited. Therefore, it can move to a higher and higher resolution without losing its original quality.

Why does bandwidth matter? It really depends on what you're listening to your music with. If you have a pair of overpriced earbuds that cost $8 to make but you paid $200 to cover the company's advertising budget, then you're probably ok with any mediocre bandwidth.

On the contrary, if you've invested in quality audio reproduction speakers (like the Klipsch Reference Premiere series speakers) - the greater the bandwidth, the greater potential you have for sound.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio

The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is the amount of noise generated by the recording's signal to your speakers. Digital recordings can have a greater signal-to-noise ratio depending on the bit depth of the recording.

What the hell is bit depth, you say? Think of a sound wave in a digital recording format to looking more like a set of stairs, rather than smooth hills

The digital wave must walk up and down stairs, as opposed to smoothly roll over hills. This jump in elevation can create a digital noise.

The smooth analog signal matches the recorded sound wave better than the steps of a digital recording. However, the analog medium (vinyl or magnetized tape) the recording is imprinted on can have tiny imperfections that cause cracking and popping noise.

Mobility of Media

Digital music can be stored, played and streamed on multiple transportable digital products (CD's, phones, mp3 players, etc.). Outside of tape players, analog-recorded music is fairly immobile.

Loss of Audio Quality

Digital recordings can be played and copied endlessly without ever losing their original quality. Over time, vinyl records and tapes can lose their audible value when being played or copied.

So where do you stand on the matter of digital vs. analog recording? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Tags:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital vs Analog Audio: An Overview | Klipsch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, both digital analog recording have their merits. We felt it necessary to break down the two recording methods to give you a better understanding - so the next time you're in a heated audiophile debate, you will have more ammo to hold your position.