Analog or Digital?

I agree with the "go digital and commit to making it sound great" theory, but it takes work. I have some old 4 track sessions done on a Teac 3340 that sound surprisingly good because of the tape saturation. My Pbass recorded directly into the machine has a great tone that I have not been able to duplicate yet in the digital realm. On the other hand, on the versions of those 4 track tapes that I mixed down to 2 track tape, you can hear every punch in and out "CLUNK" and there's the hiss and there's the fact that I had to bake the tapes to get them to even play and they still dragged in a place or two. I do like being able to edit them in PT LE after all these years.

As a songwriter, after having spent about 5 years and $6,000 on recording gear I have concluded that for me the perfect songwriting rig comes down to:

Analog 4 track cassette Portastudio

or

Mbox

with a couple of mics:

SM58
SM57

or even simpler, a Zoom H4 or H2

That's what works for me, let's me capture 'em as I write 'em without obsessing over what preamp, what mic, ADDA conversion, yadda yadda...

I think that Korg D888 looks like a good unit that combines Portastudio functionality with digital recording.

Keep it simple!

bilco
 
and then there is the sound quality argument..

Beck said:
I don’t know what you mean by “enough experience with analog” but I’ve had 30 years of experience with analog and have been a computer/networking consultant for the last 12. There’s nothing romantic or mysterious about analog gear to me… it’s simply a technology I can use that has no digital equivalent.

My analog decks have outlasted countless hard drives, processors, motherboards, RAM, CD-ROM, CD-writers, power supplies, operating systems, software programs, etc. My reel-to-reel was made in 1989. I’ve been through more PCs in the same time period than I can remember. And we go through DAWs in bits and pieces, replacing components, software and peripherals until an entire replacement is necessary. The only permanent loss of material I’ve experienced was with digital formats, going back to ADAT and up to the present with hard drive based systems.

A very common error people make is not calculating PC maintenance and upgrades into the recording budget. Many things such as time spent on crashes, reinstalls, dealing with data loss, drivers and OS obsolescence go unnoticed because they fall into the category of general PC maintenance. If you don’t do your own repair and upgrades you’re in for service costs as well. You should also have a dedicated DAW in your studio, not a household PC. The total cost of ownership for a DAW based studio is many times that of a good analog studio. Those of us that have maintained both for years know the true expenditure in time and costs for each.

I don’t mind rewind and fast-forward as much as I do bugs & fixes, defrag, virus scan, backup and restore.

No one is saying not to use digital… there is no way around it. Nevertheless, the maintenance argument against analog is a myth. It’s exactly what I was referring to as being invalid. A generation has grown up with a mouse in its hand. Many people don’t make it around the analog learning curve, but for those who do there are many advantages over the rest using totally digital systems.

:)
Click to expand...
What about sound quality, Tim? You made no mention of it. Have you forgotten all the long, passionate debates?

Do "digital recordings of classical music still hurt (your) ears most of all" ?

Do you still stand by your claim that "bagpipes absolutely cannot be captured with ProTools?"

Just wondering.. Tim G.
 
Beck said:
A very common error people make is not calculating PC maintenance and upgrades into the recording budget. Many things such as time spent on crashes, reinstalls, dealing with data loss, drivers and OS obsolescence go unnoticed because they fall into the category of general PC maintenance. If you don’t do your own repair and upgrades you’re in for service costs as well. You should also have a dedicated DAW in your studio, not a household PC. The total cost of ownership for a DAW based studio is many times that of a good analog studio. Those of us that have maintained both for years know the true expenditure in time and costs for each.
Click to expand...

Huh? My mobo is c.2002. I think I upgraded memory and processor in 2005. I added UAD cards until it was full. I just bought a new Plextor, so I have one in reserve. CD burners do seem to need replacement every two years. Other than that, no upgrades or manual maintenance are scheduled this year (although you never know when your HD's number is up!). Except I might upgrade Wavelab if I have the cash . . . I am still on the 2005 version.

I'm having a hard time splitting out digital costs from studio expenditures, since most of that is on the analog front-end side . . . plus printing and costs like that. Including media, I'd estimate digital expenditures at less than $1K/year. Now, I run more of a test lab than a studio, if I made my money off recording I'd expect the media costs would increase, and maybe I'd need a new Plextor every year rather than every two . . .

So . . . based on your "many times" statement . . . how much is tape and maintenance? Less than $500/year for a semi-busy studio?
 
mshilarious said:
So . . . based on your "many times" statement . . . how much is tape and maintenance? Less than $500/year for a semi-busy studio?
Click to expand...

For the most part you can pass off the tape costs to the client
but you'll need to buy SOME for stuff that happens, you could easily spend your 500 there

Every two years you'll be changing headstacks, or at least relapping them every year, so that should put you around 1-1.5k a year

Do your alignments yourself and you can save a good chunk of change. Deal with the motor and sync systems every few years.

The main deal is time: You need to spend more unbillable time keeping it right, whether or not you make up for that by working faster with more clients depends on what kind of stuff you are doing.
 
Tim Gillett said:
What about sound quality, Tim? You made no mention of it. Have you forgotten all the long, passionate debates?

Do "digital recordings of classical music still hurt (your) ears most of all" ?

Do you still stand by your claim that "bagpipes absolutely cannot be captured with ProTools?"

Just wondering.. Tim G.
Click to expand...

No, you're not "just wondering"... Stop bullshitting people. You provoke and that's all you do and for some reason, you, for the umptieth time, are trying to pick a fight with Beck.

For those who don't know, Tim Gillett, although he can offer helpful advice, on occasion, has a rather unsavory history on the Analog Only forum, for some reason 'targeting' certain people, with really nothing of substance to offer. Tim, buddy, stop it right now, OK? Take it to the cave. :rolleyes:

To get back on topic, a digital / analogue hybrid setup is a cool thing.;)

----------
 
mshilarious said:
So . . . based on your "many times" statement . . . how much is tape and maintenance? Less than $500/year for a semi-busy studio?
Click to expand...

I personally have several recorders that I bought 2nd hand, that are 20 - 25 years old. Some I've had for several years and some for a few months. I maybe put in a few hundred in maintenance (I do it myself) since I purchased my first 2nd hand recorder, which would be about 8 years ago. As far as tape, there are great deals on 1/4" and 1/2" reels and I do re-use when necessary. (But then again I don't own a 'semi-busy studio' - This is HOME RECORDING, isn't it?:confused::D;)).

Frankly, the scare tactics (that's what I call it) people use to make a case against analogue don't hold water, at least from my own experience. Just as you can make a list of why it isn't a good idea to go analogue, I can make one just as long for digital. Honestly, both formats have pluses and minuses. It's just that I prefer the minuses of analogue than the minuses of digital.;) I DO, however, use both and have a digital / analog hybrid setup. I track to analogue and dump to PC and then go to CDR and sometimes even bounce from tape to CDR and back.:)

--------
 
Let's not forget about the most important part of all this.

Fun!

I have such a great time working with my reel-to-reel tape machine, more than I can say about my DAW. (I just retro-upgraded from digital to analog a couple weeks ago.) Sure, dragging and dropping regions is a great feature, and all those plugins are very useful, but there's just something about it that bores me.
 
cjacek said:
Frankly, the scare tactics (that's what I call it) people use to make a case against analogue don't hold water, at least from my own experience. Just as you can make a list of why it isn't a good idea to go analogue, I can make one just as long for digital.
Click to expand...

I haven't used any scare tactics. In fact, I haven't and won't make any argument against analog. However, I will make arguments against arguments against digital. Analog is several times cheaper? Let's see some hard figures. Let's assume you have to archive everything. If you are using tape in a transitory manner and ending up digital anyway, you haven't saved anything as you still need a full digital setup. The cost of the analog front end is irrelevant, both formats need it.

So, not reusing tape, how much is analog tape, including recorder maintenance? Let's say 16 track tape mixed down to 2 tracks, on a 3 minute song (so allocate full tape costs to that increment). How much is that archived on a hard drive, plus an archival grade CD, plus additional PC maintenance (which has to exclude maintenance that is done for non-DAW reasons, such as keeping the firewall up to date)? Value downtime at the studio billing rate.

This isn't rocket science . . . just accounting.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Every two years you'll be changing headstacks, or at least relapping them every year, so that should put you around 1-1.5k a year
Click to expand...

no offense, but this is like changing your oil every 2 blocks! :D

yikes. you relap every year and you'll not have any heads left.

if you're having that much trouble with your heads you either need to check the alignment or check the tape tension.

back to your regularly scheduled 'it doesn't matter either way' debate. :D

Mike
 
If you are putting in decent time you're changing heads every 2-3 years. We had two rooms and multiple machines and we STILL had to change them often. Any other studio will tell you the same thing. Its not about improper tape tensions its just that wear is a fact of life.

Before JRF came along we were scrounging like mad to not blow so much of the studio budget on heads
 
you can buy a tape machine and not spend 1K/1.5K a year in heads. that's just silly.

if you're an analog studio running your tape across your heads 40+ hours a week...ok. i'll get with you on that.

you relap every 3000 hours (or so) on the heads... and mind you this is while the tape machine is running. think how often the machine is actually running in a session... do the math.

if you're a dude with an average studio you'll probably be burning far less than 40 hours a week. i mean jeebus...ain't no way a kid is going to have to buy heads every year unless his name is steve albini...

500/600 bucks on the relap still yes? less than that i think for 1/2 inch and inch formats. i could see doing that every couple years tops for a project studio. relap them 2 or maybe 3 times... then buy some heads.

i'd think the average studio could get a decade + out of heads. easy.

Mike
 
YOU do the math

JUST the rent: 5k per month. At 50 bucks an hour, thats 100 hours a month JUST to clear the rent

JUST 100 hours a month comes out to new heads in just under 3 years. Now lets add the amount of hours to clear salaries, buy gear, pay insurance, maintain stuff. So if you want to say the machine is only going 1/4 of that time? Fine, its still over in 3 years tops

Im not saying its a bad thing, Im just saying its a real thing. If you arent using your machine much your heads will last a very long time
 
pipelineaudio said:
YOU do the math

JUST the rent: 5k per month. At 50 bucks an hour, thats 100 hours a month JUST to clear the rent

JUST 100 hours a month comes out to new heads in just under 3 years. Now lets add the amount of hours to clear salaries, buy gear, pay insurance, maintain stuff. So if you want to say the machine is only going 1/4 of that time? Fine, its still over in 3 years tops

Im not saying its a bad thing, Im just saying its a real thing. If you arent using your machine much your heads will last a very long time
Click to expand...

no problem! i'll do the math. 100 hours a month comes out to a possible relap in 3 years...(ok, maybe probable) which is a variable cost depending on the type of heads...i think 600 was for 2 inch heads. say the person IS running tape across the heads for 100 hours a month in this day and age.

100 a month X 12 months = 1200 hours.

1200 hours a year times 3 years = 3600 hours....a wee past your max check up time a relap for a well maintained deck (heads aligned properly.)

say you need a relap then. that will be around 600 bucks.

600 divided by 3 = 200 a year for three years.

and i'm sorry when you book 100 hours a month that does not mean your tape machine is spinning across the heads the entire time, either...but whatever on that...even though it's major factor. type of tape will be too.

Mike
 
I like the HDR and analog mixer setup for tracking full bands at once. It's still the easiest way to setup a complex monitor mix and HDR's are usually much cheaper when it comes to cost per channel compared with computer interfaces. I also like the way you can work on them the same way as tape.

I still mix ITB though because having enough outboard gear to do decent mixes is too expensive.
 
mshilarious said:
I haven't used any scare tactics. In fact, I haven't and won't make any argument against analog. However, I will make arguments against arguments against digital. Analog is several times cheaper? Let's see some hard figures. Let's assume you have to archive everything. If you are using tape in a transitory manner and ending up digital anyway, you haven't saved anything as you still need a full digital setup. The cost of the analog front end is irrelevant, both formats need it.

So, not reusing tape, how much is analog tape, including recorder maintenance? Let's say 16 track tape mixed down to 2 tracks, on a 3 minute song (so allocate full tape costs to that increment). How much is that archived on a hard drive, plus an archival grade CD, plus additional PC maintenance (which has to exclude maintenance that is done for non-DAW reasons, such as keeping the firewall up to date)? Value downtime at the studio billing rate.

This isn't rocket science . . . just accounting.
Click to expand...

Right, it’s not rocket science. First, lets be clear who started the cost of ownership discussion… wasn’t me, but I responded to a poster who was making a common error by not factoring in PC maintenance issues to the cost of running a DAW based studio. I haven’t even addressed the sonic costs… that’s another issue.

To be fair, the myth of the prohibitive cost of analog originated in digital product brochures and breathless magazine articles going back to the dawn of the digital revolution. No one here made it up, they are just passing along common misconceptions that have been repeated so many times they have a life of their own.

Advantages of digital to analog have always been exaggerated by marketing, but that’s what marketing does. For example, using the old Ampex operating level and older tape formulations to compare dynamic range, and completely ignoring things like noise reduction and headroom extension technology.

No you don’t need a full digital setup if you’re using tape as a transitory medium. There are many varieties of hybrid studios… a lot of different ways to accomplish it. I prefer going from the analog master to digital at the last phase using a stand-alone CD recorder at 16/44.1. That’s all I need when it comes down to it. I have Pro Tools and Ubuntu Studio, but I don’t need them. Costs also depend on what type of analog machine you choose. The best deals now days are the so-called semi-pro machines like the Tascam 38, 48, TSR-8, MSR-16, Otari MX5050/8, and Fostex R8, E16 and G16. And many will find they need nothing more than a 4, 6 or 8-track cassette multitrack and/or a half-track mastering reel-to-reel. Opinions vary, but personally I wouldn’t trouble myself with a 2” 16 or 24-track in a home/project studio.

No serious recordist should be using a multi-purpose PC for recording. That is, using the same machine for surfing, gaming and whatnot. The first expense is acquiring a dedicated machine for your DAW. The other PC related expenses I already listed in post #15. We are all aware of them… I don’t see the point of some denying them to pad an argument.
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=2872765&postcount=15

There is no free lunch using a DAW. There is no free lunch with any manmade device. Even if you ignore the hardware and software maintenance issues, the planned obsolescence imposed upon us by Microsoft, Intel, Digidesign and others leaves many users in a perpetual state of acquisition, which is right where manufacturers want you.

:)
 
Beck said:
There is no free lunch using a DAW. There is no free lunch with any manmade device. Even if you ignore the hardware and software maintenance issues, the planned obsolescence imposed upon us by Microsoft, Intel, Digidesign and others leaves many users in a perpetual state of acquisition, which is right where manufacturers want you.
Click to expand...

The only reason planned obsolescence would be an issue is if you do use the DAW PC to access the outside world. Otherwise, it will keep on soldiering on, and hardware can be replacement on the resale market.

So you can't make the argument that a DAW must be a standalone single-use PC, and you must replace that PC frequently. Both cannot be true.

My computer is now 6. It has many more years in it, and I make my living on a single PC for DAW, internet, etc.

And there is a free lunch. I sell mics to people who plug them straight into laptops and use Garage Band or Reaper or something cheap or free. They are capable of making better recordings with that gear than I was 11 years ago with an SM57 and a Tascam.
 
Of course, storage is not free either. I fill up 2 or 3 hard drives a year with audio files.

And let's be reasonable for PRO audio, while we may record to and edit digitally, we're always going to deal with analog gear in some way. I haven't been in a studio that uses the digital Neumann mics, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top