Analogue vs Digital Mixing

Zascar

Great article here on DJ Tech Tools about the pros and cons of mixing analogue through a mixer or digitally with a controller and Audio Interface.

http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/12/07/digital-vs-analog-mixing-which-is-better/

In Summary:

It’s safe to say that there is no real audio quality benefit to mixing with analog mixers instead of in the computer. In fact digital mixing offers greater flexibility in dealing with distortion and soft limiting. Assuming that you have good software, a proper audio interface and the common sense to set them both up properly, you should be able to get a great-sounding mix either internally or externally. The real difference lies in each individual mixer and the quality of your audio interface.

Nice to know and good to see some real experts comment on the subject. The Mac vs Windows native audio drivers is interesting to note. Also is the 'Colouring' of the sound by certain mixers.

Really just shows how a few years ago Digital struggled, but nowadays it really has come into its own. The advancements in the next few years will prove very interesting indeed.

Executive Steve

To be honest, I'd say the point where there was a real audible difference between the two was passed a long time ago really...

Anyone who claims they can tell the difference between Mac and Windows audio drivers, or the "colouring" that various mixers or compression codecs give to a sound in the middle of a packed dancefloor in a sweaty basement club when a tune is going off is talking rubbish anyway - that said, a well mastered tune on a slab of 180gram virgin vinyl beats a ****ty 320kbps mp3 any day.

Zascar

Can someone please explain to me why vinyl supposedly sounds so much better than mp3's? If it's that great then how comes people don't actually rip the tune from a fresh vinyl and encode in a lossless compression format, and then you could have the best of both worlds?

My little experience with Vinyl has shown me that you often get surprisingly large variances in the quality between records, especially if they are old etc, the levels can be all over the place too sometimes.

electrogrimey

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

a well mastered tune on a slab of 180gram virgin vinyl beats a ****ty 320kbps mp3 any day.

TBH if this were true, or at least quite noticeable, then so many DJs wouldn't have moved from vinyl to CD so quickly. I realise there're practicality issues, but seeing as a lot of DJs are audiophiles, if there was a difference, they would have stayed on vinyl regardless.

joker77

electrogrimey wrote: »

TBH if this were true, or at least quite noticeable, then so many DJs wouldn't have moved from vinyl to CD so quickly. I realise there're practicality issues, but seeing as a lot of DJs are audiophiles, if there was a difference, they would have stayed on vinyl regardless.

What makes you think audiophile DJs use 320kbps Mp3s?
Ever hear of WAV / FLAC?

electrogrimey

joker77 wrote: »

What makes you think audiophile DJs use 320kbps Mp3s?
Ever hear of WAV / FLAC?

The difference between WAV and 320 is ridiculously slight, I challenge you to do a blind sound test, and see if you can notice the difference.

joker77

electrogrimey wrote: »

The difference between WAV and 320 is ridiculously slight, I challenge you to do a blind sound test, and see if you can notice the difference.

Ah but an audiophile using a decent sound system would be able to tell the difference

Zascar

electrogrimey wrote: »

The difference between WAV and 320 is ridiculously slight, I challenge you to do a blind sound test, and see if you can notice the difference.

I agree, I've seen several actual tests done where musicians are challenged to listen to their own tracks on mp3 vs the original in a studio environment and they were unable to tell the difference. I keep hearing how on a really big system you need wav's etc but honestly, its not like you're going to get complaints cause you are only using 320kbs mp3's.

In the very early days of digital mixing when 99% of people used turntables, vinyl heads would use the quality debate to slag off Digital - and in fairness at the beginning it was justified due to 128kbs mp3's and crappy software. But nowadays its just a pointless argument.

Also, how many totally digital Dj's out there use Only lossless compression and have zero 320kbs mp3's? Very few i'd say. I'd say in 99% of situations if the music doesn't sound great it's going to be because of the system and how its set up.

Tyranny if you ever do have the opportunity to do a recording from a fresh slab of vinyl, where you can also get the mp3 from a quality source, I'd love to hear a comparison.

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me why vinyl supposedly sounds so much better than mp3's? If it's that great then how comes people don't actually rip the tune from a fresh vinyl and encode in a lossless compression format, and then you could have the best of both worlds?

people do. Steve Bug does. I know that for a fact.

To answer your question about why vinyl sounds better.....

It's a long explanation and it depends how much you know about PCM, mpeg encoding algorithms, acoustics and psychoacoustics, the actual mastering process, etc.

Without going into it in detail (and boring everyone to tears), let's just say that in an ideal world where money was not an option and you could teleport your records to a gig (as opposed to breaking your back lugging them there), I'd be a vinyl only kind of guy.

This deserves a thread of it's own, but i wouldn't recommend starting one as both sides of the debate tend to get the actual details wrong.

Just be content with knowing that vinyl IS actually better sounding than mp3 but how MUCH better is up for debate and is a quite subjective area.

jtsuited

electrogrimey wrote: »

The difference between WAV and 320 is ridiculously slight, I challenge you to do a blind sound test, and see if you can notice the difference.

hmmm......no gonna have to disagree there. There is a world of difference between 24 bit Wav and 320 mp3.
Between 16 bit Wav (cd) and 320 mp3 there's not too much.

Zascar

jtsuited wrote: »

hmmm......no gonna have to disagree there. There is a world of difference between 24 bit Wav and 320 mp3.
Between 16 bit Wav (cd) and 320 mp3 there's not too much.

Exactly, but in fairness you do not find 24 bit WAV too much - CD Quality is the norm and for me anyway 320kbs mp3 is plenty good enough.

joker77

As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but for serious mix compilations - take the Global Underground for example - a lot of these are done with WAV files (or vinyl obviously). You wouldn't get a DJ using 320kbps mp3s for these.

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

Exactly, but in fairness you do not find 24 bit WAV too much - CD Quality is the norm and for me anyway 320kbs mp3 is plenty good enough.

beatport and a lot of the other stores do 24 bit wav.