#1
Hello everyone! I was wondering if anyone out there is in some way or form an audio technician or audio buff, or anything along those lines.

I (I reiterate, I ) will be writing an eight page research paper over Analog Recording vs. Digital Recording. I'm not asking anyone to do my homework for me, I'm just looking for more information and details into things like sampling rate, bit rate, the wave lengths and wave forms, and things like that.

I'm trying to research and "prove" that analog recording is inherently better than digital recording, even though it's outdated, and stating how and why it's that way. I'm hoping I can get more ideas and discuss certain aspects of this through this thread.

There is also a project involved with the paper, but I have that covered.

Anyways, thanks for the (possible) help!
#2
wow. it is interesting that this is what you are trying to 'prove', because you will probably fail. just sayin'. it'd be probably more interesting if you wrote an article about why it is that people think they can hear a difference between two things which sound identical.
my name is matt. you can call me that if you like.
#3
I think there's a lot of audio buffs in the Riffs and Recordings forum.
E-married to ilikepirates

Quote by bloodtrocuted93

How are you so fucking awesome at music?


>¦<
¦
#5
Quote by thsrayas
"Top recording engineers explain why [modern] music sounds awful"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10372813-47.html?tag=mncol;title


none of that explores why analogue is inherently better. it explores how some producers misuse the tools which digital provides (poorly used autotune), as well as how current trends hurt music (the lack of any dynamic range), but those aren't inherent flaws in digital.
my name is matt. you can call me that if you like.
#6
All I know is that the analog "warmth" people talk about is just fluctuations in current, and therefore pitch. I don't know if that applies to analog recording gear but I know it's inherent in analog synths and vinyl. I really have nothing against digital, in fact I'm going to start making an EP of songs I produced entirely in my DAW, with no samples and no external sources.
#7
Quote by Gurgle!Argh!
none of that explores why analogue is inherently better. it explores how some producers misuse the tools which digital provides (poorly used autotune), as well as how current trends hurt music (the lack of any dynamic range), but those aren't inherent flaws in digital.


You're right, it doesn't explore why analogue is better, however it does offer some insight as to why modern recording continues to sound worse even though it should sound better. It's not so much the technology used to record that makes certain audio better, it's how we record.
Quote by Vincent Vega
Haikus are awesome
but sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator



Quote by KissingShadows
People always tell me I solo like Zakk Wylde. Thats how I know that I suck.
Last edited by thsrayas at Nov 4, 2009,
#8
Quote by Gurgle!Argh!
wow. it is interesting that this is what you are trying to 'prove', because you will probably fail. just sayin'. it'd be probably more interesting if you wrote an article about why it is that people think they can hear a difference between two things which sound identical.


Research paper, not an essay paper.

And thanks for the link, thsrayas. I can actually use that as a good statement