IS ANALOG BETTER?

[Wade]

I made the mistake last year at this time of getting those Government coupons to help pay for a digital TV tuner, but letting them expire back when I didn’t see any of those things on the store shelves anyway. So I recently bought a luxurious flat screen with both the digital and analog tuner in it. I must say I’m blown away by HD broadcast (I don’t have cable or satellite). When you can see what someone is eating at 70 yards at a sports venue in the bleachers—whoopdeedoo—but it is amazing! (A little hyperbole there, but close to reality.)

So, I’m tuning around my new TV checking the difference between the analog channels and digital. Digital is so clear it feels like you’re there, and I tune to an old movie I didn’t recognize. It’s some Victorian setting in England, it had a distinctive film look—old from the 1960s or so, and I’m switching back and forth between the digital channel and the analog—back and forth, back and forth. I’ll be darned if I didn’t like the analog better. I liked all the other digital broadcast stuff, sports, news, interviews. Why did I prefer the analog in this case? I’m sure there are a lot of subjective factors to my response—subject matter, mood—mine and in the story—the list goes on and on. And I’d be on shaky ground trying to make a rule out of this one experience—after all I’m watching analog on a big screen Bravia for God sakes! The analog seemed warmer, more friendly. The digital was very clear, very accurate, very, I don’t know, I didn’t like it. But maybe there’s something else here—something we haven’t thought of or considered before. Maybe it’s that digital is foreign--as in unnatural.

This experience reminded me of a recent radio news story. It was about how the sale of vinyl LP records is steadily increasing every year. Audiophiles insist that the sound from LPs has never been matched and is superior to digitally reproduced music. Again, it seems that would be very subjective statement. But they also make another argument which is that the human brain works in an analog fashion. Is that true? Hopefully the news reporter got some credible sources for this. I hadn’t heard this before. Anyway, the audiophiles say the human brain has to constantly adjust to the digital sounds, digest them if you will, and translate them into analog. Has anyone heard this before? And then today I heard the White House has a LP collection of over 2000 records which have been donated by record companies over the years. So, the government spends millions and millions of dollars to switch over to digital, but has a hoard of LPs in the basement at the White House all the while saying digital is better. Very interesting.


So, here’s the thing. Let’s just say this is true. The human brain works in an analog way. I’m not saying it’s true or even has any real impact in all this. I’m not advocating this idea. But let’s just say the audiophiles are correct. Would it then also be true for visual media? It’s probably safe to say that most people on this forum appreciate the film look over that of digital. Film is most often preferred. What if the reason for this preference is not so much a subjective preference, but more objective, rooted in human physiology. Maybe it’s just that analog is not just so foreign, or unnatural, if you will, as digital, and that analog is easier to assimilate. When I look at digital it feels to me like I’m looking at synthesized people, and objects. It doesn’t look real. It’s too crisp and clean. Maybe that’s because it is too crisp and clean. It’s not natural. It’s weird. But its not the look--the visual appearance, but rather its that I’m not assimilating the digital experience as well as analog. I can connect to analog better and it seems more comfortable more full.

This really would change everything. It means digital could never attain to the analog film experience. It would not be a matter of increasing resolution, or matching intensities along color gradients, putting grain back in to imitate film, etc. Digital can’t be analog—end of story. Decisions to use digital become more a matter of economics, cost efficiency, convenience and such. The question is this: Is Analog Better?

So, again, I’m not really saying any of this is true. In fact it might just be LP manufacturers trying to drum up more business. I’m just innocently asking questions here. Has any one ever heard this stuff before? Has anyone ever preferred an analog TV over seeing a digital show? Am I just wacked? Are the audiophiles crazy? What are your experiences?

Curiously,

[reflex]

Having just spent the past two hours watching a film on my Sony Bravia, I can sum things up.

1. 1080p content looks far, far better than my old CRT set ever did.
2. DVD content looks significantly better.
3. HD Satellite looks OK, although the compression sometimes chokes. Too much compression.
4. SD channels at 480i are marginally acceptable. And that's after a few drams of single malt.
5. VHS tapes are virtually unwatchable. It seems there's a ridiculous amount of artifacting introduced when digitizing the signal. It's not worth wasting good scotch on this tripe.

And of course, the default settings on my set were ghastly. I wanted to toss it until I'd tweaked it with the THX setup stuff on one of the Pixar discs.

Alas, I live in a corner of the world where OTA HD digital broadcasts won't be standard fare until 2011, so I can't tell you how that looks.

[richard p. t.]

Reflex, you're a single malt man! This is good to hear. Do you have a favourite? I wonder how the range differs over here to what you can get in the big C. Ask me for a favourite and at the moment I'd say Lagavulin 16yo. I really enjoy the smokey Islay malts of which I think Lagavulin is the finest, then Auberg perhaps. But I also crave Balvenie (highland) at the moment. Actually I find that the highland malts in general are a little more sophisticated than the flashy Islay malts. To return to the topic, to me, the Islay malts are kind of like digital, where as the Highland malts tend to be more analogue - meaning the Islay malts are more impressively ballsy, while the Highland more subtle, warm and LP like!

As for TV, I suggest you don't watch it (except for the old movies)

[reflex]

Mmm. It somehow fits that a film fanatic would choose Lagavulin. A challenging malt that's bound to polarize people. I'd love to experience the 21-year-old bottling.

Enjoyable, although I'll admit my favorite Islay whiskey is Laphroaig. I swear the secret to both is that they line the casks with a few tufts of woolly mammoth fur that has been festering at the bottom of a peat bog for a few thousand years.

Alas, I'm more likely to go for Glenmorangie or Dalwhinnie when sharing with videophiles.

[mondo77]

Wade,

One of my girlfriends, in the early 80’s, used to use the word plasticated. She was the only person I knew who used it. I didn’t, still don’t and never have. Yet, this is exactly the word that comes to my mind when I see HD digital. [[I’ve just googled the word plasticated and it’s in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... lasticated defined as “fake”). Fake pretty much sums up my attitude to it. Why do I see it as fake? I don’t know exactly. But I do. I know I’m reality based. My central nervous system screams out fake when I see/hear anything I think isn’t real/the truth. I suspect human consciousness is at the heart of your post. I search for meaning and the truth. But you’ll not find it in anything fake. What implications this has for digital HD video I don’t know.

[ronnoco]

I have tasted most of the single malt whisky's...in Glasgow there are a number of bars that carry every single malt currently being produced (113 I think )......my undisputed favourite is the gorgeous

Highland Park

The abiding care and attention, the hallmark of Highland Park production, manifests itself in the distinctive aromatic, full-bodied floral sweetness of the whisky. Highland Park’s incomparable balance comes from a tension between the aromatic Orkney peat and the sweetness of oak casks seasoned with Oloroso sherry.

http://www.highlandpark.co.uk/

The accolade of Best Spirit in the World wasn’t a one-off. Highland Park has been picking up medals and awards for over a decade. See each expression for further details.

Talisker is also very very nice as is Isle of Jurra

As for TV I agree with richard p t....watch as little of it as possible

[71er]

Talisker! next to an open fire place ...
The thing is Wade, that everything that wants to reach our eyes or ears has to be analog. It's just the thing that happens to the information before: compression, decompression, taking out certain frequencies, etc. I guess you could describe an analog image digitally completely correct - but the file size would be enormous.
At the end of the day it's personal preferences, like Talisker.

[granfer]

Naughty, naughty! The thread starts off by asking if Digital is better than Analog (ue) because the HD digital pictures look better than the old CRT pictures. The Analogue CRT pictures have a maximum vertical resolution of about 500 (600 in the UK) pixels (lines), whereas HD is 1080 pixels; of course there's a good chance it will look better! You cannot do a valid comparison if you do not compare like with like. Anyone with good eyeisght cannot help but see the difference between 525 (625) Analogue pictures and the Digital pictures derived from it.
ALL pick up devices are ANALOGUE. Digital signals are obtained from the Analogue originals by sampling of one form or another, compression and encoding.
These processes remove some of the original information and therefore resolution. Once removed, it cannot be replaced. Various tricks are used to attempt this, but all are guesswork, and the resolution cannot be fully restored accurately.
The Digital pictures derived from a 525 (625) "pixel" camera CANNOT look as good as the original Analogue pictures from that camera.
The Digital pictures derived from a 1080 "pixel" camera CANNOT look as good as the original Analogue pictures from that camera.
And the ultimate... the Digital pictures derived from a FILM camera CANNOT EVER look as good as the original Analogue pictures from that camera.

The only advantage that "Digital" has over "Analogue" is that of being able to process the signals without degradation (i.e the introduction of "noise" into the pictures); Digital signals remain "clean"....... but they are "plasticised" (i.e. the RESOLUTION cannot be restored).

Granfer

[super8man]

I like 8-tracks. Call me a sucker for low fidelity with lots of wow and flutter...

Can't say I am much of a scotch man...give me a good rum and coke anyday. And no, rum and pepsi will not do...

[etimh]

What if the reason for this preference is not so much a subjective preference, but more objective, rooted in human physiology.

Yes, you got it. The human body receives analog information differently and the brain in turn processes it much differently, resulting in a profoundly different experience in each case.

But the question remains is one intrinsically "better" than the other. I think so, of course, but that is purely based on a specific value judgment. Still, it will be a shameful loss if analog film disappears entirely.

Tim

[Janne]

There are probably both sociological and psychological aspects. The significance of the non technical side of the preferences of people should not be underestimated. People do not buy antique without a reason. People do not choose wooden furnitures over plastic ones just because they like heavy and unpractical things. One do not buy a sail boat because he is not aware of that there are motor boats.

I prefer film for fiction. Video is good for everything else. I thought like that years before hd, and now after seeing technically very well made hd movies I still think the same way.

[Jim Carlile]

If you're lucky enough to be within distance of the transmitter, digital looks good-- like cable reception. But if you're far away, or in the boonies, you're out of luck. With analog you can still get ghosty, long-distance reception and decent sound, but with digital, you get nothing.

This little factoid hasn't been discussed at all in the U.S., and I suspect that when millions of rural TV watchers find out in June now that there's no antenna TV any more for them, all hell's gonna break loose.

[Wade]

Naughty, naughty! The thread starts off by asking if Digital is better than Analog (ue) because the HD digital pictures look better than the old CRT pictures.

Well, I don't think I did exactly, but maybe you sense my conundrum in all this. HD is great having super resolution, but it’s only achieved at the loss of some of what you see and hear, compared to analog film, which makes the digital sound and image IMHO relatively hollow.

Fake pretty much sums up my attitude to it. Why do I see it as fake? I don’t know exactly. But I do.

Fake is the word I wanted to use to describe the digital image. It really seems fake to me. I said “synthesized” because live action per se not being fake and my observation being relative I’m sure I’d be chided for saying it.

I guess you could describe an analog image digitally completely correct - but the file size would be enormous.

Then, to state the reverse, digital HD is like a person with a lobotomy. The body is there, looking whole, but something vital of the soul is actually missing; the extreme analog case I suppose being 70 megapixel IMAX.

At the end of the day it's personal preferences, like Talisker.

True, if there wasn’t something to compare digital HD to, who would know the difference? There would be no controversy. Thank God for Film.

and now after seeing technically very well made hd movies I still think the same way.

I'm with you...

But the question remains is one intrinsically "better" than the other. I think so, of course, but that is purely based on a specific value judgment. Still, it will be a shameful loss if analog film disappears entirely.

Tim

Exactly!!!

[MovieStuff]

My late father was a video engineer for the the NBC affiliate out of Houston for over 50 years. He started out in radio and then the radio station owner wanted to try out the new-fangled television so the owner got a television license. Anyway, my dad was an analog man from the word go. When CDs came along, he was less than impressed. He called it a painting on a white picket fence. You only got a sense of it when driving by at high speed but, if you stopped, half the picture was missing. He retired before the station went all digital and died before HD hit the airwaves. I'm sure he would wonder what all the fuss was about.

Roger

[Angus]

As far as audio goes, I am an LP man. I avoid CD's like the plague and buy analogue wherever I can.

The only digital audio format which is acceptable to my ears is DVD-Audio. That is 192KHz sampling rate, 24 bit with minimal compression. DVD-A comes close to capturing all the subtleties that I can hear in a good analogue recording (LP or tape - I have open reel).

However I suspect many people have "hi-fi" systems incapable of resolving the difference, are not as picky as me or simply cannot hear some of the things I can hear. But to me, if you present me with a CD and an LP of the same material...the CD is virtually unlistenable in comparison. And I've tried, really I have...with high end, exotic gear and so on. There's just lots of stuff going on with an analogue recording which I can hear and experience that simply is not there with CDs.

Its not just imperfections brought on by the vinyl, though I accept imperfections in the reproduction may be part of the answer. But the higher sampling rate and resolution of DVD-A almost makes the grade, so the fact is there are missing bits with the CD (like the picket fence described above)...with DVD-A the chunks missing are smaller, is all.

As for television. I have not seen anything better than 1080p HD. Those of us lucky enough to view Blu-Ray discs at full 1080p will never go back. That goes for film and video-derived material. If a film was broadcast and looked better on an analogue signal compared with digital HD then it may have been poorly upscaled or the bandwidth allocated to the digital transmission was insufficient.

To be honest, I haven't used an analogue TV tuner for about 9 years. Yes, the analogue signal can be OK when it's a nice strong signal but if you have a strong digital signal the picture is better - at least that's my experience....provided the carrier uses sufficient bandwidth.