Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Nsgarch, FWIW we are in total agreement. Beyond a certain level of reproduction I for one, and I'm confident there are many others, just don't want to be obsessing about audio minutia...I want to be really listening to and hearing the music. Its fun to fiddle with audio, but its not so fun when it gets in the way of music appreciation.

"I believe it's up to individuals to inform themselves on the merits and then make a personal value-judgement as to how much (extra?) time and money they're willing to allot to a particular pursuit. And no one else should question their decision."

Nsgarch - We are in agreement on this point. It should also be noted the in order to make the best overall decision, one should be willing to examine both sides of the "fence." If your decision is analog, then great. However, if you decision is analog because: 1)digital is not the audiophile way, 2) I can't completely comprehend digital as I can analog, or 3) a bunch of audio guys said I should do analog because they don't care for digital; then there is something wrong.

Its all about making the best, educated decision based on the full scope of things, not just one side. This requires one to look past the warm glow, welcoming rhetoric or lack of understanding. This further requires one to investigate the pros and cons of all aspects of both sides. Without this, its just follow the lead or Simon says.

And on that note, I'm done.

You Know as I do that the word record is slang for Phonograph Recording. A recording is a moment in time frozen to be recreated and enjoyed by the listener in their own environment at their own convienence repeatadly as they will. 78's ep's, 45's, and 33 & 1/3 recordings or another slang term Albums are concieved to represent that moment in time.

Now Digital recording has been established long enough to expose its own warts and wonders much like any other studio instrument ie Microphones, producers, and the mastering process. And this information can be stored digitally or as analog information and then pressed as vinyl or compact disc with any amount of processing in the chain along the way.

A purists point of view can be kept ambient and use only period instruments from the age of enlightenment, next tubed electronics with ribbon microphones is another choice, maybe ala Walter Carlos and Robert Moog with synthesized generated waveforms. We even can thank Lou Reed for Metal Machine Music in BInaural Sound (I can't believe thats been reissued!)

Whether it has been a wire recording of Memphis Minnie, a cassette of Reverend Gary Davis or an eight track of Derek and the Dominoes; the thing is it is a collection of recordings of a performance that can Never no Never be repoduced to the same effect as sitting in the last row of the Fillmore East. Having the train rumble underneath your feet at a Stravinsky concert at Carnigie Hall, seeing Lou Reed sing with his back to the audience while he recorded Rock and Roll Animal at the Academy of Music, or hearing horns that where not there upstairs at Max's at a Big Star concert while Alex Chilton sings Bang a Gong and the sound slaps off the wall and hits you on the back of the head.
Now close your eyes and think about being at the Lennox Lounge and sitting across from Lady Day as she waited to go up and sing with the Prez while he stepped into that last riff of Perdido and tell me if you care if its digital or analog or MemoreX or a wire recording that scratches like a hundred a day Jones.

Listening to Earth Wind and Fire Gratitude Live Columbia Original Vinyl

Groovey Records

Well since my original post it seems that a lot has changed. We now know that there seems to be this division between analog and digital. But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog.

Since I am currently taking a Black and White photography class and yes I am processing and printing my film and photographs. I guess that puts me in a position to judge this debate as I also have moved on to a Digital SLR.

When printing lint is the enemy it leaves these ugly white spots on your prints. Oh I almost forgot one must be sure and clean your negative thoroughly before printing. Sound familiar. We can use what is called dodging and burning on our prints to make them look better. But remember the utmost care must be taken when handling a negitive you don't want to scratch it.

Now we have digital, now my camera shoots in 4 different digital densities, RAW, Fine JPG, Medium JPG and Low JPG. So lets see that would be CD or .WAV, FLAC or ACC, MP3 128k and MP3 32k. And lets not forget photoshop for all those touchup duties.

Ok lets see I have hard work, dedication and schooling to be able to take, process, and print film.

For digital I put in auto mode (Only because I am still learning hot to use my camera) point and shoot a little touchup with the prefered photo shop and I am done.

So which is Better Film or Digital. The conclusion I have come to is I like both.

And for those of you that are curious my film camera is a Nikon as well as my digital SLR. You can take that for what it is worth as my DX lenses are Nikor and my manual film lenses are Nikon, couldn't afford Nikor ar the time.

So I think we finaly have an answer as to wether Digital is actually better than Analog. :))

Good night I have enjoyed this thread

Artizen -

"But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog."

Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary.

Glad you've come to your own conclusions. : ))