Can you tell the difference between a Record vs Digital Music?

[Flybye]

I had an interesting discussion with a part time DJ. He was talking to me about how music from a record is smooth when looked at on a special scale. Since there are no 1s or 0s from a digital file, music from records tend to be better.

I can understand the 1s and 0s from a computer file since it is basic computer language, but I've been curious if the difference is really that big when listening to music from either type? I can imagine a big audio buff probably being able to recognize the difference, but what about to the rest of the peons?

I've been really wondering about this since I bought the limited edition of BioShock2. Out of all strange and wonderful things an unlimited package can contain, they put a RECORD of the soundtrack in the box! Then I started thinking back about what that DJ told me and have been "hmm" about the entire thing now.

[WackyComputer]

The music on that record, as well as most (all) modern records, was a digital file at one point. It's not like a video game soundtrack was recorded on analog.

[Flybye]

That makes sense. What about an original analog record? How would that compare to a digital version?

So....then this thing about putting the BioShock score on a record is somewhat useless and simply a gimick since the original music started out as digital. LOL

[WackyComputer]

I would guess that the original analog mono mix of a Beatles record sounds better than a modern cd would, to the right set of ears anyway. If you applied the right filters to the digital mix I would never be able to hear the difference.

[WackyComputer]

It seems that people think that records sound warm.
I think they look cold, taste smelly, feel delicious and smell purple.

[unacceptable_risk]

I've been repeatedly exposed to audiophilia from an early age. I think the answer to your question is both simple and complex. Yes, a piece of pressed vinyl can carry more audio information than a CD.

However... To be able to appreciate the difference, people spend small fortunes creating accoustically ideal rooms to put expensive hifi equipment in.
Its not a cheap hobby.

[Kill-Switch]

UR is right, there is a difference, but in order to hear it you're going to need some pretty expensive equipment and preferably a real good acoustic room. Do you really want to spent thousands upon thousands (even hundreds of thousands) to hear a slightly better sound than from your current sound system which may have only set you back a couple of hundred? Given that there isn't a huge difference in quality between the two, regular people like you and I just don't care.

[Flybye]

Originally Posted by Kill-Switch

... Given that there isn't a huge difference in quality between the two, regular people like you and I just don't care.

Exactly. I mean, I can tell the difference between a high compression and a low compression MP3, but when does it come to an end before you need special equipment to hear the difference between a clear MP3/CD audio vs a record.

I don't see myself going to that extend, but I did find some great prices on record players on eBay. Funny thing is, the BioShock2 record is not the only vinyl I have. I also have Depeche Mode mixes on about 6 records in a collection. Been thinking about selling it, but now that I have another piece of vinyl.....

[sadako1]

Originally Posted by unacceptable_risk

Its not a cheap hobby.

Word!

So, the question here is: "what's better? Analogue or digital?"

Analogue, obviously has more information... almost exponentially more. Modern digital however uses massively increased bitrates that try to reduce the 'stepping' - the higher the bitrate, the more it begins to resemble an analogue signal.

As far as old analogue studio masters are concerned, they're still, by far better than any current digital technology if they've been done right. Pink Floyd, for example, were legendary for their amazing production values. That's why they can easily put out high definition releases - they just go back to the original masters and record to whatever new format they're using (CD, SACD, DVD-Audio etc). Also, Floyd were pioneers in multi-channel recording, which also gives an improvement in available audio information - a digital track has to compress all of those tracks into the available bandwidth. The Beatles, with all due respect to their music, didn't have the technology available (initially) to match Floyd etc. Of course, sometime the 'Digitally Remastered' sticker means they've had to upsample from poor quality originals. Not usually the case with my beloved Floyd

Then, of course, you have to ask which digital source you're using. MP3 can be OK (using 320k compression) but is usually crappy. Then there's lossless codecs: FLAC (my personal choice), AAC and others. Then there's the new HD versions of thesse codecs that are coming out. Each one aims to become more 'analogue'. Ironic, really. Digital was seen to be better (cheaper, easier, higher profit margins etc no doubt!) and all of the research has been put into emulating old technology!

The caveat is that, yes, analogue can be better, but tends to degrade very quickly. Remember how good your first cassette sounded at first? Then the crackles started and it slowed down as the tape stretched until one day it all ended and the reel broke/tape snapped/tangled around the spool.... Vinyl's great, too, if played through mind alteringly expensive equipment (balanced, calibrated, precision engineered turntable; valve preamps [one for each channel!]/power amps; active crossovers; tall, balanced, well isolated, precision engineered speakers; pure copper cables; 24 carat gold interconnects... don't forget, the signal attenuates the further it travels especially with less than perfect copper - not necessarily so with a digital signal, depending on handling: a 1's always going to be a 1, no matter how far it travels!), but you just see how long a record lasts having a needle scratched over its surface!

I love analogue but it's prohibitively expensive.

I think your DJ friend lives in an audio-utopia where copper, gold, perfect engineering and acoustically perfect rooms are provided for free at birth!

[DCMan]

Originally Posted by sadako1

I love analogue but it's prohibitively expensive.

Pretty much sums it up.. Analogue should/does sound better with the right equipment, but due to the fact its VERY expensive to get the top end equipment needed and that digital tends to last longer than analogue, the digital medium is a happy compromise between the two. Slight loss of quality, but accessible to all for a very long time

[unacceptable_risk]

Hmm 100% oxygen free copper, wrapped in teflon, wrapped in silverised foil, then clad with enough insulation to look like a coolant hose and tipped in 24 carat gold plated lugs.

I do miss my hifi. I guess the conveniance of digital media kinda makes up for it... sorta.

[Flybye]

I guess sadako summed it up!

Thanks guys. I am now a better trained audio nub.

[arigr]

i'm pretty sure this was a debate that pre-dated the internet we're so used to now..i worked a couple of record shops in the late 70s and early 80s.. quadrophonic vinyl is the only option fer real sound baby oh yeah