3 ms·
I'm in audio too, and while what you say is true, it feels kind of like saying digital photography is worse than film if everyone's shooting with their exposure
by Nition 10y ago
I'm in audio too, and while what you say is true, it feels kind of like saying digital photography is worse than film if everyone's shooting with their exposure set five stops up. Then you can say "digital's clearly worse - look how blown out it all is!"
The loudness war is unfortunate, but a CD can be used properly to have plenty more dynamic range and plenty less noise than a record.
There are other benefits to analogue formats though, like soft clipping.
- beat 10y agoWell, yeah. But that's a different issue than the "accuracy" line that's brought up by dudes who don't play instruments and have never mixed a song (or alternately, have little experience at professional-level photography and couldn't tell you the three factors of exposure if you asked).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- thatcat 10y ago>There are other benefits to analogue formats though, like soft clipping. Couldnt soft clipping be applied after digitalsignal is converted back to analogue for playback. My NAD amp does this. It seems the major differences are introduced by playback equiptment rather than the storage media itself. Its quite a bit easier to 100% accurately rip a cd, but idk if this is due to some additional metadata saved on the disc (checksums) or just better software existing for imaging cds than for vinyl.