Does analogue ultimately beat digital?
- Thread starter Hero Removals Brighton
- Start date
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Having done a little bit of work with R3 Outside Broadcast when I worked in a venue I can confirm this is very much the case.
Outside the world of £40 audiophile vinyl reissues end-to-end analog audio is dead.
Even amplified live music has been digital for years.
I find I take a good audiophile network switch along with me they sound as good as days of yore
JensenHealey
pfm Member
Jim of this parish would know more detail - he has talk about it in the past. But so far as I recall, FM transmissions have been digitised and NICAMed to the transmitters for a long time now.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Not wishing to labour the point but R3 audio is digital long before it is sent to the transmitter. Here's a SOS article detailing how In Tune is engineered:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/behind-scenes-bbc-radio-3s-tune
Note that everything including the in-studio live performances run into a Studer digital desk, pre-recorded packages are edited in Sadie and album tracks are played out on Dira. It's all digital from the get go.
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/behind-scenes-bbc-radio-3s-tune
Note that everything including the in-studio live performances run into a Studer digital desk, pre-recorded packages are edited in Sadie and album tracks are played out on Dira. It's all digital from the get go.
cooky1257
pfm Member
Yeah BBC FM has been digitally distributed since 1972.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
As has been explained elsewhere on PFM, BBC FM is level compressed and adusted to fit into FM's limits. i.e. Like many LPs the source material is altered to fit the limited "Shannon space". MPX stereo with limited TX bandwidth also shares with LP a tendency to produce more distortion for L-R HF (stereo difference) than L+R (mono). Input is adapted to fit that, changing the sound in specific ways from the original.
https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/FMandNICAM3/FMandNICAM3.html
I agree though that it sounds good (at least R3 does) given a given good input material. However when I listen seriously the 320k aac stream sounds better to me. (Comes from the same 48k/24 internal format used by the BBC but gets less 'fiddling to fit' than FM).
Much of commercial FM is lousy, though.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
It is true that methods like level compression can make instruments like piano 'sound better' Gives a nicer thrum to the sustain after the initial attack, so makes some things easier to hear when played at a lower sound level than the original. But as with other factors above this is a matter of altering the sound to make it 'sound nicer'. Not giving you the original as was captured.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
My thanks to various experienced ex-BBC people for their help putting this together:
https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/PCMandNICAM/History.html
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
so Kind of Blue is better on digital then on the 6-eye columbia LP in your opinion?
I hope people who defend digital, understand how important the pressing is
Shannon information I've heard of but...?
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Whichever system gets you closest to the source with the minimum of degradation.
An analogue master isn’t improved by digitisation.
A digital master can however often be more faithfully conveyed by an analogue medium.
An analogue master isn’t improved by digitisation.
A digital master can however often be more faithfully conveyed by an analogue medium.
tuga
Legal Alien
Well, it can by using noise reduction and other "restoration" tools, even EQ and de-essing.
What does "faithfully conveyed" mean?
All analogue mediums produce more distortions that a digital support, even Redbook.
tuga
Legal Alien
I understand that. The mastering is most important, then pressing. Off-centering is a problem, also "A stamper will wear out after creating about 1000 records" so the 20th record will be worse than the 2nd and the 800th, well, you get the picture.
One of the least mentioned advantages of the CD was repeatable quality with every single item.
Digitisation is not supposed to do that. It is supposed to reproduce the analogue master as faithfully as possible or - as you said - with the minimum of degradation. In this it succeeds better than any known analog method. But then again you knew this.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
What digitisation is supposed to do and what it actually delivers are unfortunately very different indeed.
Opinions do not matter. What matters that digital is able to reproduce the original analog master (or what is left of it) more faithfully then even a 7-eye Columbia LP.
Our current scientific understanding does not support this view. It supports the view that even cd level conversion is at least very near complete transparency. Even the best of analog has never been this good and never will.