5 ms·

I'm one of the people that this article (and book) romanticizing The Analog should appeal to but my overall experience with the digital revolution has been a ne

by jasode 10y ago

I'm one of the people that this article (and book) romanticizing The Analog should appeal to but my overall experience with the digital revolution has been a net positive. This applies to both digital photography and digital music. I had a collection of vinyl records & cassettes growing up but I've gotten more enjoyment and revelations from listening to Foobar software accessing thousands of flac/mp3 files instantly on demand. I can jump from pop to classical to jazz without the tediousness of manipulating analog media. Digital has allowed me to appreciate music even more. The vast majority of articles of analog-vs-digital seem to favor analog and it downplays how digital can engage people in ways that analog can't replicate. As an example, the first time I heard the Star Wars soundtrack was on a reel-to-reel tape machine.[1] Analog nostalgia. However, with digital technology, a skilled person with a computer workstation can use virtual instruments to recreate the orchestral arrangement one instrument at a time.[2] The listener can then hear the gradual build up of how all the various parts interact and appreciate the music even more than the old analog tape. That demonstration is not economically possible with analog. Sure, one could make a 24-track analog tape of isolated parts but typical listeners will not have the money to own a 24-track player at home. Also, David Das in the video is experimenting with various combinations of articulations, tempo, and volume and that combinatorial explosion exceeds the capacity of 24 tracks. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=star+wars+soundtrack+reel+reel+4+track&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=star+wars+soundtrack+reel+re... [2] deep link showing adding an instrument and then a playback payoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYfbm3qHRLI&feature=youtu.be&t=23m51s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYfbm3qHRLI&feature=youtu.be...

Touche 10y ago
> I can jump from pop to classical to jazz without the tediousness of manipulating analog media. Digital has allowed me to appreciate music even more. Has it? You're jumping from one thing to another rather than just playing one thing, sitting back, and enjoying.
- jasode 10y ago
  Yes it has! I used to listen to the entire 20-minute side of a vinyl or cassette. Now that I use software to play music (Foobar, and Winamp before that), I realized that I my old listening habit was a dictated by the physical analog format. That's actually not how I prefer to listen to music. I like to jump around from genre to genre and the convenience of digital technology revealed that preference to me. Reducing friction lets me listen to more music. Put a different way, a real-life radio station has to constrain itself to one genre. Because of the economics of advertisers/demographics, a media conglomerate can't create a radio station that plays pop+classical+jazz. However, with digital (Spotify or desktop Foobar), I can create my own "multi-genre radio station" for my listening pleasure.
criddell 10y ago
> I can jump from pop to classical to jazz without the tediousness of manipulating analog media. I think you are ignoring the fact that for some people, the manipulation of the analog media is part of the joy. Whenever something new overtakes something old, that's going to happen. I'm excited about self-driving cars relieving me from having to drive while other people are still buying manual transmission cars because they love the direct manipulation of the machine. When I want a cup of tea, I dump hot water over a tea bag while other people go through an elaborate ritual. I don't have a record player, but I do have fond memories of sitting in my room with headphones on while a record played, looking at the large format cover art and studying the sleeve. I'm not a collector of anything, but I think I understand the joy of artifacts. One thing I am somewhat surprised is that the streaming music services haven't borrowed the idea of filters from Instagram to apply to music. Would anybody be interested in simulating playback through a tube amp? Through a suitcase record player? Through a high quality turntable? Or a low quality turntable that can't quite turn at 33-1/3 RPMs?
- macspoofing 10y ago
  I agree. We're emotional creatures and our emotions are driven by perception. A wine that is thought to be expensive in a beautiful setting will be enjoyed more than that same wine thought to be inexpensive, drank out of a plastic cup in the back of MacDonald's. Same wine - different emotional experience. Also, there is something to delaying gratification that can enhance the experience, and adding a certain kind of ceremony around the act will help too. In "Jiro Dreams of Sushi", it isn't just about the sushi. It's about the experience of knowing that you're being served by a craftsman who dedicated his life to perfecting his craft and being served in the way that he deems enhances the flavor. Rationally, it's silly, but we're emotional beings most of the time. Trump won largely because of emotion - it wasn't really a rational decision that the electorate took.
- jasode 10y ago
  >I think you are ignoring the fact that for some people, the manipulation of the analog media is part of the joy. No, I'm not ignoring that aspect and I understand that physical touch of media can add enjoyment for some people. What I disagree with is the constant biased narrative from writers that emphasizes analog media's attributes. That perspective presents a one-sided view favoring analog such as: 1) physical media you can touch is better than digital bits you can't touch 2) ownership is better than subscription (Spotify streaming) 3) listening in 20-minute side of 1 album is better than instantly jumping around a large music library ... ergo, analog is overall better than digital consumption. (As I stated before, I disagree as a person who straddles both the vinyl and digital eras. I've had extensive experience with both formats and the digital experience is better in my case. Many people besides me have come to this same conclusion.) Yes, holding in your hand a vinyl album's cover art and reading its lyrics can add joy to music but there's also the opposite view that seems uncool to write about: there's also joy in not handling physical media. It's this second perspective I'm emphasizing and it doesn't take away from anyone who prefers their vinyl records.
bitwize 10y ago
If you are a fan of music, especially guitar-based music like classic rock, there is no substitute for a vinyl record created through a 100% analog mastering process. Analog captures harmonics that digital simply can't. Analog mastering also has much wider dynamic range than does digital mastering. As for virtual instruments, those are like video game emulators: they give future generations some semblance of what the original was like, but it's just not the same as actual hardware.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The frequency response of microphones generally plummets at (or below) 20 kilohertz. Digital sampling can capture 20 kilohertz just fine. An analog recording pathway isn't really going to capture much more information than a digital one.
  - xorcist 10y ago
    Not only that, filtering above the audible range is a feature. Ultrasound can give audible artifacts, for example intermodulation between close tones. And all sorts of high frequency noise exists even from the equipment itself. (This is just one reason 96 kHz material doesn't make sense for the consumer. Any good playback chain would filter it out.)
- aidenn0 10y ago
  > If you are a fan of music, especially guitar-based music like classic rock, there is no substitute for a vinyl record created through a 100% analog mastering process. Analog captures harmonics that digital simply can't. Analog mastering also has much wider dynamic range than does digital mastering. Analog mastering doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic range of digital; a CD with its paltry 16 bit has a noise floor below -90dB. There are staggeringly few analog mastering setups that can do that. Move to 20+ bits (i.e. all pro digital mastering setups) and you are getting to the point where an analog setup might be able to maintain the SNR, but would be astronomically expensive. As far as the harmonics, there is little evidence that humans can detect 22kHz+ sound at safe listening levels, and once you talk about 96 samples/s most speakers can't reproduce anything like the original signal at 40kHz+. It might make a physical difference if you have a $20k electrostatic setup, but you won't be able to hear it.
sandworm101 10y ago
One cannot appreciate an orchestra one piece at a time. It is an interesting acedemic exercise but there are good reasons that such pieces are still recorded in one room, in one grand take. Digital cannot mimic the communication and timing between instruments playing in the same room.
- djeikyb 10y ago
  I appreciate your argument of the whole vs sum, but might it also be more expensive? Even if each member played perfectly in a single take, you'd need lots more recording time; member*lengthOfPiece instead of just lengthOfPiece
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    But that is how it is done. One big room with potentially dozens of mics covering the orchestra. I ask this: if each records individually, why bother with a conductor? That job cannot be replaced by a blinking light.
corvos 10y ago
I agree with you that digital has expanded my ability to enjoy music. When I read the line "Spotify shows people coming back to the same tunes over and over" I was surprised. I'm probably younger than you, I only had a few CD's before I started listening to all my music on an iPod Shuffle in Jr. High but I remember being elated to buy 20 new songs on iTunes and listen to them over and over. After making the jump to Spotify and later Apple Music I've found the desire to seek out new music grow exponentially, in fact I almost never come back to the same music, I can't help but find new songs The other side is that sites like Soundcloud are a godsend for bedroom producers. I've found an incredible diversity of sounds from there also
anigbrowl 10y ago
Music for playback is one thing. If you make music, analog and digital are worlds apart. Digital can do great things, but the one thing it can't do is fail gracefully. It's too consistent; because it's always perfectly accurate, it's never yours. Take two analog devices that came off the production line together; over time, they will end up sounding different from each other. This is what musicians like. It's the individuality and texture of things that appeal to artists as much as the overarching form; that's why people still put paint on canvas with brushes or other tools despite the vast possibilities offered by graphics software.
- ReidZB 10y ago
  I am very skeptical of your argument. Musicians like that their carefully-planned tracks are warped & distorted in unexpected ways by analog playback devices - as opposed to digital distribution, where the listener hears precisely what the musician intended each time and every time? Even if I agreed with that notion, it still isn't an argument against digital distribution per se. Digitally, we can add (in software) distortion that is similar to that you'd encounter with vinyl. I have some digitally produced tracks that are done this way, actually: even end-to-end digital, the tracks sound as though they are coming off a vinyl record. The aesthetic is maintained and played back exactly as the artist intended. Some folks even introduce distortion after the conversion back to analog, e.g. with "warm sounding" tube amps.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    That's not the argument I'm making.

by jasode 10y ago

Touche 10y ago

> I can jump from pop to classical to jazz without the tediousness of manipulating analog media. Digital has allowed me to appreciate music even more. Has it? You're jumping from one thing to another rather than just playing one thing, sitting back, and enjoying.

jasode 10y ago
Yes it has! I used to listen to the entire 20-minute side of a vinyl or cassette. Now that I use software to play music (Foobar, and Winamp before that), I realized that I my old listening habit was a dictated by the physical analog format. That's actually not how I prefer to listen to music. I like to jump around from genre to genre and the convenience of digital technology revealed that preference to me. Reducing friction lets me listen to more music. Put a different way, a real-life radio station has to constrain itself to one genre. Because of the economics of advertisers/demographics, a media conglomerate can't create a radio station that plays pop+classical+jazz. However, with digital (Spotify or desktop Foobar), I can create my own "multi-genre radio station" for my listening pleasure.

criddell 10y ago

> I can jump from pop to classical to jazz without the tediousness of manipulating analog media. I think you are ignoring the fact that for some people, the manipulation of the analog media is part of the joy. Whenever something new overtakes something old, that's going to happen. I'm excited about self-driving cars relieving me from having to drive while other people are still buying manual transmission cars because they love the direct manipulation of the machine. When I want a cup of tea, I dump hot water over a tea bag while other people go through an elaborate ritual. I don't have a record player, but I do have fond memories of sitting in my room with headphones on while a record played, looking at the large format cover art and studying the sleeve. I'm not a collector of anything, but I think I understand the joy of artifacts. One thing I am somewhat surprised is that the streaming music services haven't borrowed the idea of filters from Instagram to apply to music. Would anybody be interested in simulating playback through a tube amp? Through a suitcase record player? Through a high quality turntable? Or a low quality turntable that can't quite turn at 33-1/3 RPMs?

macspoofing 10y ago
I agree. We're emotional creatures and our emotions are driven by perception. A wine that is thought to be expensive in a beautiful setting will be enjoyed more than that same wine thought to be inexpensive, drank out of a plastic cup in the back of MacDonald's. Same wine - different emotional experience. Also, there is something to delaying gratification that can enhance the experience, and adding a certain kind of ceremony around the act will help too. In "Jiro Dreams of Sushi", it isn't just about the sushi. It's about the experience of knowing that you're being served by a craftsman who dedicated his life to perfecting his craft and being served in the way that he deems enhances the flavor. Rationally, it's silly, but we're emotional beings most of the time. Trump won largely because of emotion - it wasn't really a rational decision that the electorate took.
jasode 10y ago
>I think you are ignoring the fact that for some people, the manipulation of the analog media is part of the joy. No, I'm not ignoring that aspect and I understand that physical touch of media can add enjoyment for some people. What I disagree with is the constant biased narrative from writers that emphasizes analog media's attributes. That perspective presents a one-sided view favoring analog such as: 1) physical media you can touch is better than digital bits you can't touch 2) ownership is better than subscription (Spotify streaming) 3) listening in 20-minute side of 1 album is better than instantly jumping around a large music library ... ergo, analog is overall better than digital consumption. (As I stated before, I disagree as a person who straddles both the vinyl and digital eras. I've had extensive experience with both formats and the digital experience is better in my case. Many people besides me have come to this same conclusion.) Yes, holding in your hand a vinyl album's cover art and reading its lyrics can add joy to music but there's also the opposite view that seems uncool to write about: there's also joy in not handling physical media. It's this second perspective I'm emphasizing and it doesn't take away from anyone who prefers their vinyl records.

bitwize 10y ago

If you are a fan of music, especially guitar-based music like classic rock, there is no substitute for a vinyl record created through a 100% analog mastering process. Analog captures harmonics that digital simply can't. Analog mastering also has much wider dynamic range than does digital mastering. As for virtual instruments, those are like video game emulators: they give future generations some semblance of what the original was like, but it's just not the same as actual hardware.

maxerickson 10y ago
The frequency response of microphones generally plummets at (or below) 20 kilohertz. Digital sampling can capture 20 kilohertz just fine. An analog recording pathway isn't really going to capture much more information than a digital one.
- xorcist 10y ago
  Not only that, filtering above the audible range is a feature. Ultrasound can give audible artifacts, for example intermodulation between close tones. And all sorts of high frequency noise exists even from the equipment itself. (This is just one reason 96 kHz material doesn't make sense for the consumer. Any good playback chain would filter it out.)
aidenn0 10y ago
> If you are a fan of music, especially guitar-based music like classic rock, there is no substitute for a vinyl record created through a 100% analog mastering process. Analog captures harmonics that digital simply can't. Analog mastering also has much wider dynamic range than does digital mastering. Analog mastering doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic range of digital; a CD with its paltry 16 bit has a noise floor below -90dB. There are staggeringly few analog mastering setups that can do that. Move to 20+ bits (i.e. all pro digital mastering setups) and you are getting to the point where an analog setup might be able to maintain the SNR, but would be astronomically expensive. As far as the harmonics, there is little evidence that humans can detect 22kHz+ sound at safe listening levels, and once you talk about 96 samples/s most speakers can't reproduce anything like the original signal at 40kHz+. It might make a physical difference if you have a $20k electrostatic setup, but you won't be able to hear it.

sandworm101 10y ago

One cannot appreciate an orchestra one piece at a time. It is an interesting acedemic exercise but there are good reasons that such pieces are still recorded in one room, in one grand take. Digital cannot mimic the communication and timing between instruments playing in the same room.

djeikyb 10y ago
I appreciate your argument of the whole vs sum, but might it also be more expensive? Even if each member played perfectly in a single take, you'd need lots more recording time; member*lengthOfPiece instead of just lengthOfPiece
- sandworm101 10y ago
  But that is how it is done. One big room with potentially dozens of mics covering the orchestra. I ask this: if each records individually, why bother with a conductor? That job cannot be replaced by a blinking light.

corvos 10y ago

I agree with you that digital has expanded my ability to enjoy music. When I read the line "Spotify shows people coming back to the same tunes over and over" I was surprised. I'm probably younger than you, I only had a few CD's before I started listening to all my music on an iPod Shuffle in Jr. High but I remember being elated to buy 20 new songs on iTunes and listen to them over and over. After making the jump to Spotify and later Apple Music I've found the desire to seek out new music grow exponentially, in fact I almost never come back to the same music, I can't help but find new songs The other side is that sites like Soundcloud are a godsend for bedroom producers. I've found an incredible diversity of sounds from there also

anigbrowl 10y ago

Music for playback is one thing. If you make music, analog and digital are worlds apart. Digital can do great things, but the one thing it can't do is fail gracefully. It's too consistent; because it's always perfectly accurate, it's never yours. Take two analog devices that came off the production line together; over time, they will end up sounding different from each other. This is what musicians like. It's the individuality and texture of things that appeal to artists as much as the overarching form; that's why people still put paint on canvas with brushes or other tools despite the vast possibilities offered by graphics software.

ReidZB 10y ago
I am very skeptical of your argument. Musicians like that their carefully-planned tracks are warped & distorted in unexpected ways by analog playback devices - as opposed to digital distribution, where the listener hears precisely what the musician intended each time and every time? Even if I agreed with that notion, it still isn't an argument against digital distribution per se. Digitally, we can add (in software) distortion that is similar to that you'd encounter with vinyl. I have some digitally produced tracks that are done this way, actually: even end-to-end digital, the tracks sound as though they are coming off a vinyl record. The aesthetic is maintained and played back exactly as the artist intended. Some folks even introduce distortion after the conversion back to analog, e.g. with "warm sounding" tube amps.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  That's not the argument I'm making.