Analog vs. digital in wireless systems, recorders and mixers

Almost all current equipment has analog parts and digital parts. The useful question isn't which is better in general, but what changes in the sound and in the work on set depending on where the conversion happens.

Wireless systems

An FM radio link has little dynamic range. To fit the whole voice, analog systems compress the audio in the transmitter and expand it in the receiver (companding). On good equipment it's barely noticeable, but it can leave artifacts: a slight “breathing” of the noise floor or tonal changes with very dynamic sounds.

A digital system converts the audio into data before transmitting it. It uses no compander, and the audio that comes out of the receiver is very close to what went in. In exchange, conversion and coding take time: a few milliseconds of latency.

Recorders

Every current field recorder records digitally; tape (like the classic Nagras) is left for very specific uses. What's still analog is the input: the preamp and, on professional models, the limiters that act before the converter. That's why two digital recorders can sound different: the quality of the preamp and converter makes the difference.

Mixers and consoles

In live sound and on sound carts, analog and digital desks coexist. Analog ones respond instantly and are easy to understand at a glance. Digital ones store scenes, integrate EQ, compression and automixing, and connect over a network (Dante, MADI) with many channels on a single cable, with the latency of their processing.

How to choose

• For film and TV, a quality digital wireless system simplifies coordination and delivers cleaner audio; a well-coordinated professional analog system still works very well.
• For musicians on in-ears, total latency matters more than in dialogue: add it up across the whole chain.
• Before mixing equipment from different generations on the same set, test how their latencies add up.