Why digital recording have more quality compared to analogue recording?

[peter123]

Hi everyone,

I am a newbie. I have used both the analogue devices as well as digital devices for recording purpose. What makes the digital recorders to provide an exceptional quality output over the analogue recordings? Can explain the reason clearly, please!!!!

Transcribe easily
Qucick transcription

[Mac]

Well, the "which sounds better" is an argument, but the big difference between analog magnetic tape recording and today's PCM digital recording is that digital can exhibit a far lower noise floor when done properly.  That alone is a huge difference, since noise, just like the desired signal, is additive in nature. 


--Mac

[learjeff]

Yup.  In addition, once a recording is digital, it can be copied any number of times with no change in quality.

But the biggest advantage to digital, for most of us on this forum, is that if you have a home computer and a little bit of inexpensive outboard gear, and some inexpensive software, you can do a lot more sophisticated recording than if you'd spent 10 times as much on analog gear.  Or more.  Furthermore, it's convenient: it's easy to record what knobs you're adjusting and have the computer remember that and repeat it during a mixdown.  (That takes serious bucks gear to do in an analog studio, and even then with a lot of technical knowhow required to operate it well.)

There's also the advantage of allowing almost any number of audio tracks to play at once.  We usually have a limit on how many we can record: some two, others 8, and serious folks can record 16 or 24 with not-so-cheap but not exorbitantly priced gear.  However, we can record quite a few more tracks, generally limited only by the software we choose, the power of our computers, and the amount of real-time effects we're adding.  It's not unusual for a hobbyist to be able to play back 40 or more tracks on an ordinary computer with $100 of software.  And when we hit that limit, we can do tricks to bounce tracks.  They can do that in analog too, but at a price; it can't be undone.  With digital it's easy to save and recombine (re-bounce) sets of tracks.  (It's rarely necessary, though.)

And there are lots of cheap and free software effects that plug into software workstations, with a remarkable range in quality (from crap to "whoa!").  Get one and you can use it on any number of tracks at a time.  With analog, if you want separate compression on 8 tracks, you need 8 compressors (or an 8-channel compressor, which is basically the same thing).

The list goes on and on.  The advantage to digital isn't that the recorings sound better.  (Though, arguably, for a fixed budget, it probably is .. you have to pay a lot for analog gear before it trumps affordable digital.)  The main advantages are convenience, flexibility, low cost, and repeatability.  For a given budget and time limit, what you're capable of achieving with digital is far higher than with analog.

The counterexamples would be simple, elegant recordings with very little postprocessing.  Many say you can do significantly better with analog gear, without breaking the bank (but still way over most casual hobby bugets).

And a number of people like the way certain analog filters and effects sound.  I still haven't heard a software tube emulation that sounds like the real thing, though i do expect to -- hopefully it'll happen before my hearing goes!

I have a 1/4" 4-track tape machine in my attic ... interested?  I don't miss those bad old days!

[Simmfolyion]

Because digital is not best recording and analogue is good recorder and good quality, clear voice ......

[transcribe]

Hello everyone,

I am new to this forum. One of the advantages of digital recording is, it is easier to transcribe and follow as and when required. Also you will get crystal clear sound which may be hazzy in analog recording.