 |
Analog vs. Digital -- A Different
Perspective Open any pro
audio magazine and you're likely to read about the pros, cons and
differences between analog and digital. In my mastering work I hear various
comments on the topic. Some clients ask if I can apply analog processing.
Others are very concerned that the entire signal chain remain digital. What
are these people looking for, and why do they think it can only be delivered
from one platform?
As with many discussions, a lot of the opinions are fueled by
misinformation. Claims of digital being "cold" or "sterile" are just as
unfounded as analog being inherently "warm" or "life-like." To be sure, each
platform has its unique capabilities and characteristics, but they're not
what most people believe them to be. Let's take a closer look.
Analog -- It's All About Resolution
Analog has -- and always will have -- better resolution than digital, but it
comes with the side-effect of sound coloration. When an audio signal is
passed through physical elements such as tubes and capacitors it will be
affected in some way. Even if the processing filers are on bypass, the act
of routing a signal through these components changes the signal. This can be
a benefit or a detriment, depending on your sonic perspective and
preference. Many people want what they call a "fat, warm sound." This is
certainly an attribute that analog equipment in mastering can impart, but
there are two other factors even more important in achieving this sound: (1)
the skill of the mastering engineer choosing the equipment/turning the
knobs, and (2) how the music was recorded, as the mastering engineer can
only work with what an artist or producer delivers. If the original
recording has the production qualities of the Backstreet Boys, analog
mastering cannot give it the sonic characteristics of early Steely Dan.
Likewise, if a mastering engineer over-processes a good recording, even the
best analog gear can sound harsh or muddy. The bottom line: Simply having a
piece of analog gear in a signal chain is no guarantee of "analog" sound.
Digital -- It's All About Control
Digital -- with its ability to apply (and undo) unique changes to a
virtually unlimited number of scenarios -- has greater control than analog,
but it comes with the side-effect of lower resolution. However, keep in mind
that "lower resolution" is a relative term. The 24/96 platform that many
hi-fi enthusiasts proclaimed to be "as good as analog" has already been
eclipsed by much better resolution rates and technological concepts (DSD,
for example). What we're talking about is theoretical resolution. Much of
what is criticized as missing in digital recording and processing falls into
the "unheard, but felt" category: overtones and undertones that are beyond
the scope of current sampling standards. In theory, digital will never have
the resolution of analog. At a certain point, though, it becomes
unnoticeable to the human ear, especially when utilized by a skilled and
knowledgeable audio engineer.
So where does all this leave us? It depends on the application. In
mastering, the ultimate goal is to apply changes to music that maximize its
sound -- punchier drums, clearer bass...or whatever is desired -- without
imparting unwanted coloration from the process itself, while at the same
time maintaining the highest resolution. For this application, then, the
perfect solution would probably contain the best elements of both analog and
digital. Keep in mind, though, that either platform is just a means to
accomplish work...not the work itself.
© 2002
Paul Abbott. |
|
