HD Station Admits Digital is Inferior to Analog

[Play Freebird]

While driving around the Buffalo area last week, I happened to hear a spot for a new local music album on WLKK, Entercom's AAA station, broadcasting in HD -- by corporate mandate, of course.

But guess what? They're strongly promoting the fact that the album is available in vinyl for listeners who want "100% of the uncompressed music information as recorded by the artist". This web page discusses the benefits of "lifelike, uncompressed analogue sound":

http://1077thelake.com/pages/339595.php?

And although WLKK has been transmitting two HD channels for a couple of years, I can't find any mention of this on the station website:

http://1077thelake.com/index.php

Then again, it would be foolish to promote HD when most of the audience lives outside the 70 dBu contour:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM589170.html

Will the proposed 10 dB increase in digital sideband power benefit WLKK? I don't think so, because Canada may object to the increase in adjacent channel interference to nearby, short-spaced 107.9 CJXY near Hamilton, Ontario. This is likely to become an issue in most border markets.

 

[Savage]

Given that WLKK's former owners poured a cruise-ship sized boatload of money into the station's Wethersfield site, it's hard to see Entercom ripping it all out to rebuild the Tx plant to accomodate 10db digital. Of course now that I've said this publicly, it will probably happen.

The increase will also be a big problem in congested Northeast markets like NYC and your native Philly. I'd be willing to bet even if adopted it isn't going to happen much, for the foregoing reasons.

Some stations may dork around with it "to see what happens," a la AM-HD. It won't make much difference with critical issues like building penetration and will present many objectionable factors such as cost to build, cost to operate, interference, and enormous indifference among listeners and advertisers. And thusly, will stiff, just like every other aspect of HD thus far.

 

[landtuna]

But guess what? They're strongly promoting the fact that the album is available in vinyl for listeners who want "100% of the uncompressed music information as recorded by the artist".

There are some folks who still swear by the old vinyl and it may be that some folks can actually tell the difference in a brand new vinyl record over a digital but.....the advantages of digital (CD or computer-based) recordings outweigh the disadvantages for the vast majority of non-commercial listeners.

Bear in mind that digital recordings do not have to be compressed and thus would carry virtually all the sound spectrum of an analog recording but without the wear and associated pops and scratches vinyl develops with use.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Bear in mind that digital recordings do not have to be compressed and thus would carry virtually all the sound spectrum of an analog recording but without the wear and associated pops and scratches vinyl develops with use.

Wrong! Bit quantization of an analog recording with an infinite range of possible tones and rhythms will lose information, no matter how many bits are used and how fast the quantization rate. The only point of contention is where the threshold is where listeners will notice the difference.

Analog also includes 15 inch per second reel to reel recordings, which have much higher signal to noise ratios than the absolute theoretical limit of 96 dB for CD's.

 

[Carmine5]

Bear in mind that digital recordings do not have to be compressed and thus would carry virtually all the sound spectrum of an analog recording but without the wear and associated pops and scratches vinyl develops with use.

Wrong! Bit quantization of an analog recording with an infinite range of possible tones and rhythms will lose information, no matter how many bits are used and how fast the quantization rate. The only point of contention is where the threshold is where listeners will notice the difference.

Analog also includes 15 inch per second reel to reel recordings, which have much higher signal to noise ratios than the absolute theoretical limit of 96 dB for CD's.

There's a reason why Brian Wilson re-released "Pet Sounds" as an LP. It truly sounds its best in that format.

When I started my recording studio (during the Disco era) I outfitted it with a Scully 2" 16-track. It sounded absolutely, bone-rattling awesome, especially on drums and percussion. Of course, the machine needed frequent "tweeking" of the head azimuth, bias and so on.

And while, today, I work with ProTools and appreciate the editing flexibility, reliability and lack of maintenance the Digidesign system provides, I've heard nothing that compares with the sound of 2" 16-track analog.

Even now there are several artists who master to 30 i.p.s. analog.

Granted, digital has its advantages such as ease of use and upkeep and the technology has allowed cheap multitrack systems to sound very good. It's a matter of trade-offs, I guess.

But I still say analog rocks!

C5

 

[FightingIrish]

Bear in mind that digital recordings do not have to be compressed and thus would carry virtually all the sound spectrum of an analog recording but without the wear and associated pops and scratches vinyl develops with use.

Wrong! Bit quantization of an analog recording with an infinite range of possible tones and rhythms will lose information, no matter how many bits are used and how fast the quantization rate. The only point of contention is where the threshold is where listeners will notice the difference.

Analog also includes 15 inch per second reel to reel recordings, which have much higher signal to noise ratios than the absolute theoretical limit of 96 dB for CD's.

There's a reason why Brian Wilson re-released "Pet Sounds" as an LP. It truly sounds its best in that format.

When I started my recording studio (during the Disco era) I outfitted it with a Scully 2" 16-track. It sounded absolutely, bone-rattling awesome, especially on drums and percussion. Of course, the machine needed frequent "tweeking" of the head azimuth, bias and so on.

And while, today, I work with ProTools and appreciate the editing flexibility, reliability and lack of maintenance the Digidesign system provides, I've heard nothing that compares with the sound of 2" 16-track analog.

Even now there are several artists who master to 30 i.p.s. analog.

Granted, digital has its advantages such as ease of use and upkeep and the technology has allowed cheap multitrack systems to sound very good. It's a matter of trade-offs, I guess.

But I still say analog rocks!

C5

Good points, but I wouldn't hold Brian Wilson up as the pinnacle of superior sound quality. Most of the Beach Boys records were pretty sloppy sounding, with coughing, studio chatter, fans and whatnot going on in the background.

Add to that the fact that they didn't discover stereo until the late 60s. And, hate to say it, he's partially deaf.

Still, Wilson was a solid arranger. The recent "Smile" album was pretty good, and I was glad to hear he finally kinda-sorta finished it.

 

[landtuna]

Bear in mind that digital recordings do not have to be compressed and thus would carry virtually all the sound spectrum of an analog recording but without the wear and associated pops and scratches vinyl develops with use.

Read, carefully, the quoted statement above with special attention to the highlighted word.

Analog also includes 15 inch per second reel to reel recordings, which have much higher signal to noise ratios than the absolute theoretical limit of 96 dB for CD's.

Yes, as the owner and user of one of these reel-to-reel marvels I understand. But what we are talking about here are the normal non-studio users. It would be difficult to find many R-2-R units in homes today and even more difficult to fit one in your car dash.

 

[landtuna]

Add to that the fact that they didn't discover stereo until the late 60s. And, hate to say it, he's partially deaf.

The Beach Boys early recordings were done in mono specifically because Brian Wilson had only partial hearing in one ear and stereo made him dizzy.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

But guess what? They're strongly promoting the fact that the album is available in vinyl for listeners who want "100% of the uncompressed music information as recorded by the artist".

There are some folks who still swear by the old vinyl and it may be that some folks can actually tell the difference in a brand new vinyl record over a digital but.....the advantages of digital (CD or computer-based) recordings outweigh the disadvantages for the vast majority of non-commercial listeners.

Bear in mind that digital recordings do not have to be compressed and thus would carry virtually all the sound spectrum of an analog recording but without the wear and associated pops and scratches vinyl develops with use.

If you actually believe your bold statement above, I have a whole box of scratched CD's and DVD's I'd like to sell 'ya.

 

[Tom Wells]

Digital is a connect the dots drawing of an audio waveform. You only get as many data points as you have sampled.
IF enough points are used (high resolution) it can sound as good as analog.

You have to mount reel-to-reel recorders UNDER the dash.
It's kind of hard to thread tapes while at a traffic light.

Reminds me of a line by Emo Phillips.....

"I was driving down the street the other day and got a ticket..... I was changing the radio,
and I had just about got the new one in, when the officer pulled me over."

I recall reading that the Beach Boys actually listened to thier mixdown results on a car radio to see
"what it would really sound like".

Virtually is a word that means "not really but almost"

 

[4dude]

ANALOG always has been and always WILL BE BETTER THAN DIGITAL!

 

[R.F. Burns]

ANALOG always has been and always WILL BE BETTER THAN DIGITAL!

May we quote you on that Mr. Sarnoff?

Welcome to the world of 1932. By the way, This just in, the world is flat!

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Add to that the fact that they didn't discover stereo until the late 60s. And, hate to say it, he's partially deaf.

The Beach Boys early recordings were done in mono specifically because Brian Wilson had only partial hearing in one ear and stereo made him dizzy.

Stereo versions of all of them exist. I've heard virtually every one of them in stereo at some point. Even "Good Vibrations" has been re-released in stereo. Now if we can only get the other three parts of Brian Wilsons quadrilogy released, it would be great. GV was the "air" part. There are still earth and fire and something else that exist, but some stupid superstition kept them from ever being released.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Digital is a connect the dots drawing of an audio waveform. You only get as many data points as you have sampled.
IF enough points are used (high resolution) it can sound as good as analog.

You have to mount reel-to-reel recorders UNDER the dash.
It's kind of hard to thread tapes while at a traffic light.

There will always be quantization errors, no matter how many bits you have, or how fast you sample them. The only reason why your statement is correct is that human hearing can be fooled at a threshold of quantization into not noticing the quantization error. That is also why TV and movies work, because the sample rate of the still images exceeds the threshold of the eye and perception in the brain.

That's a good laugh - a 15 inch reel under the dash! Mobile electronics is a whole other category of listening, the engine noise and ambient noise of the road and surroundings will dominate any noise equation, because noise adds according to the root sum squared law, and no listener could tell the difference between good quality CDs and a better analog recording in a car.

 

[Carmine5]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-digital. My iPod sounds great in the car, my clients like digital and I have no great desire to go back to the days of diddling with high maintenance tape decks.

But for anyone who has not heard a freshly minted LP or 45 cut from masters that were mixed from 1" 8 or 2" 16-track source tapes (WITHOUT noise reduction I might add) you've missed an incredible sonic experience.

I have yet to hear anything like it from a CD or any other digital source.

C5

 

[Tom Wells]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-digital. My iPod sounds great in the car, my clients like digital and I have no great desire to go back to the days of diddling with high maintenance tape decks.

But for anyone who has not heard a freshly minted LP or 45 cut from masters that were mixed from 1" 8 or 2" 16-track source tapes (WITHOUT noise reduction I might add) you've missed an incredible sonic experience.

I have yet to hear anything like it from a CD or any other digital source.

C5

Amen. More of these people need to get a pair of headphones and really listen to the difference.

Again I quote D.E. Wiggins at Valparaiso Technical Institute " Digital is there for guys who can't get analog to work."
If you can't make analog work, you shouldn't even BE in radio.
You should be in data processing, "Information Technology" or something else where 0s and 1s are well defined.
In radio technology, the medium will deliver 0s and 1s, but is not well suited as the entire universe is founded in analog principles.
WAVES, not bits. The universe has no "0" state or "1" state. It is all relative and analog.
Vocal cords and ears are analog. Even the sharpest digital zero-to-one transition has slew rate distortion, an analog feature. Why?
Because it can't be eliminated. It is the nature of physical reality. Ignore this at your peril.

 

[landtuna]

But for anyone who has not heard a freshly minted LP or 45 cut from masters that were mixed from 1" 8 or 2" 16-track source tapes (WITHOUT noise reduction I might add) you've missed an incredible sonic experience.

I have yet to hear anything like it from a CD or any other digital source.

C5

Yes, but the whole point is that 50, 100 or 1000 plays later the digital media still plays at its original quality while the analog media is seriously degraded.

 

[KB1OKL]

I ALWAYS buy LP's when they available rather than CD's, much more realistic sounding. If you have a good turntable set up correctly, you can play them thousands of times and they will still sound great. I have 20+year old LP's that still kill brand new CD's. I have a fairly new copy of Sonny Rollin's "The Bridge" which sound like he is in the living room along with the whole band, the sound is phenomenal, this was recorded in 1962 BTW. Digital is always an approximation of the music, analog IS the music.
Incidentally Springsteins new LP (and I mean LP) is only available as either a download or an LP, there is no CD available for this record. Digital will be remembered as an aberration in sound recording in 100 years. On-off will never sound like a gradual wave.

 

[Play Freebird]

Yes, but the whole point is that 50, 100 or 1000 plays later the digital media still plays at its original quality while the analog media is seriously degraded.

C'mon, now... those ticks and pops are part of the ART!

On analog recordings, they build up naturally, like the fine patina on a statue which gives it character -- but nowadays on digital recordings, the artist is forced to mix in that horrible fake cue burn noise. (Example: "Praise You" by Fatboy Slim)

 

[calstymes]

My cosmopolitan friend R.F Burns reflected on this opinion:

Quote from: The Dude on Yesterday at 11:18:46 am:

ANALOG always has been and always WILL BE BETTER THAN DIGITAL!

May we quote you on that Mr. Sarnoff?

Welcome to the world of 1932. By the way, This just in, the world is flat!

There is the R.F. Burns I know and love! Don't address the engineering opinion. Just try and make the poster look stupid and old fashioned.

I missed you while you were gone! Not much to say in recent weeks, eh? How are things in the world of big apple broadcasting? Have all the budget cuts been made?