Wired Science

Where did you dig up that relic who compared watching a movie on an ipod to listening to a cd? Almost everything he said was out of context and insipid.

My eyes are going, but my ears are not. My digital promoting friend, who thought I was crazy, even put me to the test. And, sure as the sun rises in the east, I could tell and feel the difference.

There is something wonderful about the rich, natural, resonance of analog and, further, analog's 'spontaneous, emotion-driven, musicianship' vs over-produced musical 'products'.

Do where are the plans to make the digital high speed trigger that was on the program????

I thought the analog/digital segment was deeply flawed in design. I thought the “test” was designed for failure because it’s asking the ear and the mind to try and suddenly hear subtle differences without there being a chance for the mind to settle in to what it’s hearing. It's too stress-filled by design by adding an anxiety-level factor regarding the listeners’ fear that they’ll fail to keep up with things. It also fails because it apparently put the recordings on one type of media for playback (as far as one can tell, anyway), which could equalize the two versions in some way. If they didn’t do that how would they have made the song play so seamlessly? A better test would have given them a chance to settle into listening to full recordings of several different kinds/genres in both analog and digital, with some listeners knowing which they were hearing and some not.

Also, the matter of the quality of MP3 was never really addressed. It was squashed between the segments on analog generally vs digital generally and quite failed to clarify the matter of compressed audio vs. full-range audio, be it analog, digital, or both. It became a matter of file download vs CD vs analog without ever exploring the question of what compression, per se, does to the listening experience. What's available for download these days is, without question, lower quality in sound than either full-range digital OR analog. Maybe at some point full-range CD-quality files will be available for download, but for now I guess they are too slow to move through the internet.

There was also, as far as one can tell, no chance for the ‘ears’ to hear, at leisure a purely analog sound on LP or tape as distinct from a quietly absorbed purely digital recording.

For what it's worth: I am able to greatly enjoy pure analog OR digital playback on my modestly expensive tube-based audio system. But I have a moderate and clear preference overall for listening to LPs over CDs. I think they sound more real-life, just as a movie shot on film has generally looked better when transferred to tape than an image that originated on video. I know about that because that's my profession.

Admittedly, however, digital has gotten much closer to analog sound in quality over the years, just as late-developing video technologies have narrowed the gap in realism between film-originating and video-created images.

Unfortunately it was for me quite a flawed look at the matter. It would take more time to do it right.

Nice segment, but I thought it was a little flawed in that it promoted "analog versus digital" and "analog versus compressed digital (mp3)" as though they were the same thing. Presumably, the test in the program was analog versus uncompressed digital.

That analog "relic" was Steve Albini, one of the best engineers of our recent times ( Nirvana, The Pixies etc. ) although I too tend to disagree with those uptight analog junkies...MP3 is lousy,CD's are good, vinyl is good, Super-Audio CD's and DVD-Audio are the best??? You bet!!! Love an audiophilie/stereo salesman/musician

I believe the analog/digital comparison was somewhat misleading. MP3's were mentioned in the show, but not if it was an MP3 file that was compared with the analog. What was shown was a high-end SSL console. Was the digtial PCM with a high bitrate? Was it compressed? At what compression level? MP3's use a lossy compression scheme. High quality (non-compressed audio) with the right number of bits "might" give analog a run for it money to certain ears. Just saying a signal is digital does not make it an MP3 file

I thought some comments by Steve Albini were misleading. He said early CD's were bad and inferred it was because of digital design flaws. Actually, recording labels just went to old masters prepared for LP pressing, ignoring they had been adjusted to compensate for LP limitations. Once a properly equalized master was made for the CD release, the sound improved greatly. I will give him that early hardware, the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters weren't great. They have been vastly improved.

I'm glad I'll never have to physically cut tape to make an edit ever again.
Doug
Audio restorer.

This was truly a pathetic segment, showing all the worst aspects of superficial thought that PBS does all too often. God help us if this is the alternative to the mindless programs on network TV.
The previous posters have focused very accurately on the problems - the confusion of the concepts of compressed files (which are undisputably of low quality) with uncompressed digital, no mention of the actual bit depth and rate, and especially [excellent criticism] the hurried nature of the switching, the unrelaxed quality of the whole test. I also question the use of headphones instead of speakers. Listening carefully is all about entering a deep meditative state; how many people are really serious listeners today? No one who listens to MP3s as a regular diet has any idea what I am even talking about, and certainly could not have the sense to design an appropriate listening experiment. Most people today don't even listen to acoustic music at all (i.e., unamplified, no microphnes etc in sight), so they don't have any idea what natural sound is. And they are going deaf from high levels of amplification - since they are unable to focus attention, they need to have the sounds force-fed into their brains. When you learn to work to hear carefully (i.e., how to pay attention), then you can start to have illuminating experiences.
Advantages for digital sound that are mentioned such as ease of editing are all for the benefit of the music "industry", for making commercial music. Really serious classical recordings aim for as natural an experience as possible, with long takes and little editing anyway.
Indeed it would have been useful for the show to have compared MP3-compressed files with lossless digital - the listeners should have been able to tell the difference easily, and it might have helped to wake up people that there is something missing.
In a nutshell, this is the essence of all that is wrong with the WIRED mentality.

I've heard excellent and horrible recordings done in both camps. The thing is, one person's great recording is another's lousy recording, and it has a lot to do with preference and experience in listening, and knowing what to listen for. Take Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, an early favorite demonstration of digital recording. I personally think that recording sounds awful, but mainly due to overproduction and "pumping up" of high frequencies to give a very crisp, almost clinical sound. Peter Gabriel's "Security" was another purely digital recording--one of the first (1980 if I recall) and it predated "Brothers" by 4 years, yet it sounds superior to my preference. On the analog side, listen to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", and one can appreciate the warmth and intimacy of a well-produced, well-recorded album.
There are many degrees of freedom in making an excellent sounding recording, and fortunately for us end-listeners, the analog vs. digital axis is becoming moot. What's vastly more important these days is who is behind the console, producing and mixing. Just my $0.02.

I Liked the segment but i did not like the fact the digidesign did the challenge it is like getting exxon to compare solar energy to fossil fuels. it is to digidesign advantage to make the music sound the same(more sales for them). wired should have had a independent group do the test.

Now my thoughts on the matter.There is something sweeter about analog sound but digital is way cheaper and much easier to edit it. i also think that the general public,who never hears real hi-fi sound could not care less about mp3 vs cd vs LP cause they are hearing it in most cases on crappy speakers or headphones where they can not hear the difference but i must say the music from the 60's and 70's feel warmer even the crappy music from that era has a warmth to it hmmmm....

Without adding any original comments of my own,I would have to agree with those of Elliot Berlin, Nick,Radio_guy, and TuningMeister; it was a very poorly prepared segment.

I thought the segment was great. You can nitpick the methodology of the tests all you want, they still got the point across. Albini was at a loss to explain how an analog recording is superior when played on digital media. His analogy of the 'quality film played on the iPod' summed up the analog purist mentality: It's better 'just because'.
It was a great overview for anyone who had never considered the topic before.

Although I agree with most of the negative comments about this segment and its failure to address the obvious technical differences in digital bitrates/compression/sampling rates/etc, thanks for starting the conversation on a nationally televised show! I look forward to a in-depth follow up to the analog vs. digital vs. the wonderful possibilites of the future.

I've been an analog fan forever. That being said, I've tested my own ears and found that a 196kHz digital recording is as good, if not better, than a hi-end analog recording of the same source (acoustic guitars). My problem: the digital consumer market has appeared to quit increasing digitial audio quality at the 44.1k, uncompressed point. Good enough? Yes, because most consumers can't tell the difference between analog and digital at that resolution. Most consumers who can hear the difference, prefer convenience (40,000 MP3s in a wallet sized storage device) over audio quality. I pray that the audio/computer industry will continue to increase the capacity of digital storage. Perhaps they will then start to market audiophile quality recordings (196kHz, 32bit) to the consumer. The difference between MP3 audio and hi-end analog is more than obvious, even to infants. It's a greater difference than going going from tube tv's to 1080 plasma screens. BRING BACK MUSIC/AUDIO AS AN ARTFORM...PLEASE!

This video misses the point. It's been known for years that a properly recorded, linear 16-bit CD is indistinguishable from any analog recording. (And, MP3's properly encoded at better than 256kbps are almost indistinguishable from CD's.) The real problem is how carefully the content itself is created and what happens to it through the channels it must go through to get to a listener. It doesn't matter if the media (CD, vinyl, tape) is perfect, because the original performance normally gets abused by multiple A/D and D/A conversions, multiple reclocking stages, data truncation, and a dozen other issues that arise from the sloppy handling that is, in turn, bred by inexpensive electronics and software. Then when the CD or vinyl gets mastered, the performance will probably be compressed (in the sense of dynamic range) to make it sound louder and get more market share. Then if you have to listen to it on an FM station or satellite radio, it is even more compressed. If it gets the iTunes treatment, it gets distorted. Then the cheap mp3 players and headphones add more distortion. It's the chain of processing between the performer and the listener that's the real problem, not the format of the media used to record the performance!

These comments are much more informative, factual, and interesting (!) than the video. Wired, you hired the wrong guys! Personally, I compared the same recording on vinyl, 96KHz 24 bit DVD, and CD (Neil Young's "Greatest Hits" album). The recording techniques and processing chains for the three formats were all documented on Neil's website. I found the DVD *almost* as good as the vinyl, but not quite. And the CD was of course just *bad*! As for iTunes, I personally cannot tolerate listening to iTunes downloads. I just don't get any pleasure out of them. It's just hard work to try to listen.

I am glad I am not the only one finding this segment flawed. They seemed to be trying to see if the listeners could tell the difference between analog and digital not which sounded better as advertised.

I am extremely disappointed that they did not differentiate between mp3’s and other digital recording methods.

They did not use vinyl in the experiment. In my opinion they should have used the final product in testing, a product like we would get to hear, (CD, cassette, or vinyl).

Also as I understand it headphones do not have the frequency range that floor standing speakers have, especially with a subwoofer. Also as I understand it and in my experience headphones do not stage as well as floor standing speakers. Staging is the sensation of where the music is coming from, left, right forward and back. I have heard staging so good that was creepy because no one was there playing unless they were invisible I felt like if I were blind folded and I followed my ears I could walk up to the singer or drummer and touch them, kind of like playing Marco polo. So if my understanding is correct not all the info was delivered to the listeners.

That being said I have been moved by music on single speaker radios that obviously suck as much as the 2 channel stereo I have spent lots of years and money acquiring. I can say without any question that my 2 channel system sounds way better. In my opinion both analog and digital have strengths and weaknesses but I feel digital is easier and cheaper to get very good quality sound.

I own and operate a small recording studio. While I agree with the analog engineer, I also have to agree and side with the digital engineer.

I’ve worked with both types of media. While an analog system sounds great, providing it was setup correctly. The same can be said for digital.

If the audio engineer initially strives to capture quality audio, the differences between analog and digital will be inaudible.

Quality sound can be achieved through patience, practice, or accident not factory presets.

The multi-million dollar studio with a minimum wage engineer doesn’t help either.

They should have described in more detail how the analog vs digital console comparison was done. And they should have tested each person separately. And sue, if it makes people happy, they could have let them listen to each sample for an hour instead of a few seconds. But chances are the results would still have been the same...because a good digital recording will capture all the audible information of an analog recording. Which means, if you really love the sound of your LPs but like the convenience of CDs, just record your LPs to CD...if you do it well you won't be able to tell them apart (at least until the LP develops new pops and tics) The show could have made that point, and another one too: that it wouldn't work the other way -- an LP 'copied' from a CD would likely sound different from the CD because the LP transcription process introduces far more 'differences' than digital recording, and because you can record levels on a CD that would drive a cutting lathe nuts.

A flawed comparison by flawed producers of flash without substance.

The test was hurried. Proper A/B blind testing requires the listener be in charge of the switching.

When digital recordings of music were new, there was research that showed that analog music (sine waves=biological) activated the areas of the brain associated with emotion and that digitized sound activated the analytical areas of the brain. People also tended to describe analog music in terms of how it moved them or how it made them feel. They described digitized music in terms of how "accurate" it was. I watched this segment of WIRED SCIENCE specifically to learn if improved digital technology has overcome the difference. Such research was not even mentioned, BUT music was still referred to in terms of response vs. accuracy by those who were interviewed. Can you do a follow-up segment on how people RESPOND to analog and to digital music?

Anybody know who makes the gobo's used in the studio?

What is the Great Northern song they played?

"The sensitive ear" experts were right 55% of the time, while the musicians were right 53%.

That's the bottom line Mike, Elliot Berlin, DavidG and all the others who probably own expensive analog gear like Manley equipment and Studer recorders.


My sympathies to you. It would be bad if word gets out that analog equipment doesn't make much difference when making records, and in effect, is overpriced.

Not good for those analog studios is it? Analog gear is cool but is obsolete.

Also, the taping of the show requires 12 minutes per segment, while the actual test took over 2 hours of taping and testing, it was edited to fit the program's segment.

Sandi you take the cup of idiocy and delusion. That "warmth" you and many recording buffs and audio engineers describe, is nothing more than phase shift distortion and circuitry oscillation noise.

If you add the fact that there is no "hard shell cut off" on both ends (Hi and low frequencies), you are bound to perceive analog as better sounding format than digital.

When someone says: "I hear the difference between analog and digital recordings", it is most likely about what they don't hear (the digital quantization), than what they do.

But, don't worry analog studio owners, there is always going to be an idiot willing to pay big money for that vintage and fancy analog gear you own (if you want to sell it, that is) since these units are traded just like vintage automobile collectibles.

Why no one got it right all consistently is because both formats sound good, with the exception that to get that sound from analog you probably have to record with gear worth close to million dollars.

After seeing this segment, I couldn't get to your website fast enough. Thankfully, many others have pointed out the fatal flaw of the test. Why did you chose to do this test in a high-end studio instead of using more readily available consumer electronics?

Why was the whole segment focused on the 'production' and not on the consumer listening experience?

I'm guessing that at the consumer electronics level there is a major disparity in sound quality between a digital MP3 player and a comparably priced 'old school' vinyl record, cassette or even CD player. But I don't know for sure because I don't own an Ipod. And since Wired Science chose not to do their test with consumer level electronics, I still don't know whether to invest in an Ipod and convert my 2,000 album (lp/cassette/CD) collection to digital media. But I did try downloading some audio CD's onto my laptap and the sound through the headphones was absolutely dreadful.

So I'm sticking with my analog cassette deck and record player for now, along with my CD player. Of course, the younger viewers who haven't invested a lifetime in analog recordings and components will never have to make that choice.

why didn't they do a comparison of the best of both worlds: hd or blueray dvd vs direct to virgin vinyl lp (assuming those r the best)?

who was the black recording artist playing electric guitar in a recording studio in the segment?

Who was the artist used for the audio comparison? I didn't catch the credits.

Interesting comments.
Interesting how everyone is an expert...isn't it

As a mastering engineer, I'm dumbfounded that the digital sampling rates and file formats were never mentioned, since that clearly makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE! But to me, the most hilarious part of this "listening test" was the sight of all the participants listening on HEADPHONES. There's no way you accurately hear the soundstage or the low end without true reproduction of the whole sonic spectrum. Headphones? Please!

Silly.

A very badly edited argument. Comparing Protools vs Tape tracking to listening to an mp3 file? oh please...

Interesting segment, but several flaws, in my opinion, with the testing process. As many would contend that there is a loss of depth in digital recordings, an open air, i.e. loudspeaker, monitoring system would have been preferable. Also, since [apparently] the test entailed listening to a continuous recording that went back and forth between analog recorded and digital recorded material on-the-fly, I have to assume that they were combined in a digital format. This, I think, would necessarily compromise the quality of the analog recording in the conversion process.

I didnt like this video too much because it is boreing.......

What a disappointing piece of reporting. There are so many mixed up issues/concepts in this piece it is hard to know where to start.

Next time you do an audio segment, please consult an audio engineer beforehand to really understand the issue of audio fidelity and the difference of digital vs. analog audio in the audio production chain.

If a program is recorded digitally, it can and is often mixed in the analog domain, through an analog console and analog outboard gear. The opposite is also true.

In an effort to over simply audio recording and mixing processes, this segment really did its viewers a disservice.

C.d's (@44.1K) can't reproduce sounds over about 20K -vinyl can! end of story. Everyone is an expert? You can't play an instrument or hear music properly without a lot of practice. You need to train your ears first. Sure anyone can listen - from a baby to a centagenarian. But why are some people paid a million to produce coldplay etc, & 99.99% of people can only listen?
But you will all start to hear the difference when itunes starts telling you that there new "higher sample rate uncommpressed files" sound so much better.& it's time to rebuy all your favorite songs - again!