Is Digital actually better than Analog?


I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music.
Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
128x128musicaudio
Brian - I agree with you. After my short-lived foray with analog, I have decided that I am better off simply finding good recordings to get an improvement in sound quality. I have come to the conclusion that many recording engineers don't have good hearing - and they just don't care. Getting something out fast is the main goal in our capitalistic world and I would say they are pressured to do just that (for the most part). Quantity is worth more than quality. Just look at iPods. I would much prefer hearing excellent quality music in the evening than mediocre quality music all day. But I suppose I am part of the minority. The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.

Arthur
The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.

If you check pro audio forums you will see that recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's.

The recording art and technology is not dying (although with all the available tricks in pro tools today there is a growing tendency to over-engineer things). The problem is that artists and producers are demanding loud in your face recordings, stuff that grabs attention but is easily tiresome to the ears! To me that is the problem.

Bob Katz has a web page that explains all the issues.
“recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's”

Compressed music is my pet peeve. I simply cannot listen to any music if it has been compressed. Sadly, most of the rock and roll/pop genre is compressed. Damn shame I think.
Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.
Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.

Agreed. We definitely agree.

The problem is not the dying of the "art"; skilled people who know what they are doing. Indeed, as you say, the "powers that be" demand what they "think" sells.

Do consumers even realize that this loudness escalation has been going on in the music industry since the 50's..."powers that be" deciding that loud and compressed sells better?

....let's not shoot the messenger (the recording/mastering engineers who are just doing their job and giving clients what they want)

...perhaps the decline in CD sales is parly a reflection of poor quality "hot" music.....after all why bother buying a CD if it so heavily compressed/awful sounding and only suitable for an iPod, Car or PC system....might as well download a lossy mp3 as it is cheaper, more convenient and the quality is often just as good compared to an awful compressed CD.