This is supposed to be a culmination of my knowledge and wisdom, largely acquired from other, more experienced heads and sources, but nonetheless adding my personal take.
First, we need to define the terms. What is analog, what is digital?
1) Analog. Merriam-Webster says: continuously variable. Stepless, as opposed to digital, which is inherently steppy. That means in our audio terms relevant here: the steplessly closest to the original as physically possible. Literally analogous. Infinite resolution.
2) Digital. Numerically quantised, discrete. Steppy. Finite resolution.
And here the systematic problem starts already. What exactly is "stepless" and "discrete"?
Turns out, the whole universe isn't stepless. There is no physically infinite resolution. Time and space resolution itself is limited by the Planck constants at the very least, and therefore inherently grainy. And so is all matter that processes our audio and music with it, inherently.
Point: "Infinite resolution" is unsupported by all we know about physical reality, and therefore a myth.
That's the theory. Let's move on to the practical part.
How "analog" is any "analog" format really? Let's say, tape and vinyl. Both are inherently lossy methods of recording audio and playing it back. Tape resolution is physically limited by the density of polarisable crystals on the physical carrier, the tape. Vinyl is limited by the material itself too, namely polyvinylchloride, a plastic compound with particularly HUGE molecules relative to the average tiny groove size. These very real physical properties introduce severe graininess, in other words: they're steppy, and therefore not analogous in the sense of the word.
"Analog" really isn't that at all, as a conclusion. It's a mere approximation, one that is - steppy. And therefore "kinda digital".
So what about formats we commonly call "digital"? Of course those are just as inherently steppy as the so called "analog" formats above. How do they compare?
Let's start with early digital systems. 8bit computers of the 80s and their according audio resolution. I guess we all can agree that they sounded worse than vinyl. More distortion, less resolution, inherent noise.
But then 12bit systems came along, mainly professional digital instruments. Guess what, this already reaches the vinyl dynamic range, which is around 12bit - and never got better. Once again, the physical size of the PVC molecules, together with groove size, is the limit and dictates real, usable data resolution.
Later in the 80s and 90s, 16 and finally 24bit digital systems were becoming mainstream. At that point, "digital" surpassed "analog", as it was literally having finer physical steps and was therefore more analogous than so called "analog" could be.
In the end, analog and digital don't physically exist. Both are mere concepts we made up, on how to use data, audio or otherwise. It's all about resolution and how it matters to the physical and practical application.
Mankind never developed any "analog" method of signal processing that was more precise, more true to "the original" than the digital method. At the very least in audio signal processing, but by far not limited to that, our so called "analog" methods are vastly inferior to the "digital" ones since the late 90s.
Today and for long years now, "digital" is literally more "analogue" than "analog" is. By a whole order of magnitude. Simply because the real world useable physical resolution is higher.
First, we need to define the terms. What is analog, what is digital?
1) Analog. Merriam-Webster says: continuously variable. Stepless, as opposed to digital, which is inherently steppy. That means in our audio terms relevant here: the steplessly closest to the original as physically possible. Literally analogous. Infinite resolution.
2) Digital. Numerically quantised, discrete. Steppy. Finite resolution.
And here the systematic problem starts already. What exactly is "stepless" and "discrete"?
Turns out, the whole universe isn't stepless. There is no physically infinite resolution. Time and space resolution itself is limited by the Planck constants at the very least, and therefore inherently grainy. And so is all matter that processes our audio and music with it, inherently.
Point: "Infinite resolution" is unsupported by all we know about physical reality, and therefore a myth.
That's the theory. Let's move on to the practical part.
How "analog" is any "analog" format really? Let's say, tape and vinyl. Both are inherently lossy methods of recording audio and playing it back. Tape resolution is physically limited by the density of polarisable crystals on the physical carrier, the tape. Vinyl is limited by the material itself too, namely polyvinylchloride, a plastic compound with particularly HUGE molecules relative to the average tiny groove size. These very real physical properties introduce severe graininess, in other words: they're steppy, and therefore not analogous in the sense of the word.
"Analog" really isn't that at all, as a conclusion. It's a mere approximation, one that is - steppy. And therefore "kinda digital".
So what about formats we commonly call "digital"? Of course those are just as inherently steppy as the so called "analog" formats above. How do they compare?
Let's start with early digital systems. 8bit computers of the 80s and their according audio resolution. I guess we all can agree that they sounded worse than vinyl. More distortion, less resolution, inherent noise.
But then 12bit systems came along, mainly professional digital instruments. Guess what, this already reaches the vinyl dynamic range, which is around 12bit - and never got better. Once again, the physical size of the PVC molecules, together with groove size, is the limit and dictates real, usable data resolution.
Later in the 80s and 90s, 16 and finally 24bit digital systems were becoming mainstream. At that point, "digital" surpassed "analog", as it was literally having finer physical steps and was therefore more analogous than so called "analog" could be.
In the end, analog and digital don't physically exist. Both are mere concepts we made up, on how to use data, audio or otherwise. It's all about resolution and how it matters to the physical and practical application.
Mankind never developed any "analog" method of signal processing that was more precise, more true to "the original" than the digital method. At the very least in audio signal processing, but by far not limited to that, our so called "analog" methods are vastly inferior to the "digital" ones since the late 90s.
Today and for long years now, "digital" is literally more "analogue" than "analog" is. By a whole order of magnitude. Simply because the real world useable physical resolution is higher.
Last edited:
