In this post I will be comparing the many aspects of analog and digital recording as well as the specifics of the chosen song: "Physical (You're So)" by Adam Ant and compare it to the cover by Nine Inch Nails. In the best way I can, I will attempt to interpret the music (every audible aspect). Music is an entire language on its own and, therefore, makes it difficult to translate into proper words. This is very much like trying to describe a song to a friend without knowing the name or the words; you just come up with a slew of onamonapias.
For the purpose of this blog, I listened to two versions of "Physical (You're So)." One version was the 1980s analog recording and the other version was a digital version by Nine Inch Nails. Over and over, I listened to the two versions of this song. This is what I concluded:Living in this fast pace world of growing technology takes its toll. I've been listening to digitally recorded music since the early 2000s. I feel as though this altered my opinion a bit so I listened back and forth between the two recordings.
Analog definitely has a raw sound. You can really feel that bass guitar in your head and chest. It was definitely harder to make out the words than in the digital version. The levels of the instruments appear to be 'out of whack.' When you listen to a piece you want to be able to choose which instrument you're listening to (ex.: Listen to the guitar for a bit, then listen to the drums, so on..) You can't listen to a song and say "I hear the bass and drums but can't make out the words.."
With my earphones in and my eyes closed, I nearly felt like I was at a concert (I've been to several and I can tell you it sounds nothing like a digital recording). However, for listening purposes, it isn't quite the sound you might prefer.
Digital, on the other hand, has many pros in comparison. It is audible, clear. The levels are where they should be (not too much of one sound and too little of another). I could separate each instrument as I listened. While listening quality raised the realistic quality decreased. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
For this blog I did a little research and found a very interesting analogy of analogue recording versus digital. The analogy came from a interview. In said interview, Mark Vail asks Bob Moog, founder of Moog Music and American pioneer of electronic music, do describe the difference in sound quality between analog and digital sound creation. Vail asks him if he would describe it as florescent (analog) versus incandescent (digital) lights.
Moog loves this. He goes as far as to elaborate the idea by saying that "For routine work, fluorescent lights are very good. Most of the lights in our house are fluorescent because they're cheap to run, just as digital electronics make it cheap to produce a lot of wave forms compared to analog circuitry, But in cases where the quality of light is important, just as the sound quality is important in musical applications, incandescent light or sunlight is preferred over fluorescent light, just as in sound analog is preferred over digital."As far as the song itself goes, I will say this: you can feel it. Without knowing the title or the words, I feel as though one may be able to feel what the song was written about. It feels dirty, sexual, physical. It's something about those hard-hitting bass notes and guitar rift pushing it forward that says "YOU'RE. SO. PHY - SI - CAL!" It completely conveys what it was meant to.
In my opinion, the analog sound really sets that mood. However, you lose some of the quality due to the bandwidth being stretched to the limits. The digitally remastered version is much better (in my opinion) than the NIN version.
Take a listen! What do you think?
