Analog Is Dead

I'd agree with him this far: a bunch of fancy gear doesn't make you a better musician/producer. Aside from that, he's cracked, and obviously is trying to justify not investing in quality equipment by telling himself that software plugins sound just as good. But I suppose that most listeners aren't paying close enough attention to hear the difference and it probably wouldn't affect their buying habits if they did, so monetarily, it makes more sense not to put as much time/money/effort into recording something if digital is already good enough to get by.
 
As someone who's always worked entirely in-box... I kind of agree with him? The corollary to "a poor craftsman blames his tools" is that an excellent craftsman will do good work even with sub-par tools. Digital can do a lot of great stuff that analog can't. And since the delivery of your audio is all going to be digital anyway, why get hung up on the analog part of things?
 
In my opinion, we could use some analog. Needing a sound that comes from tape, tracks can do better than sounding like arcade. Of course analog can be achieved and bought without all the gear. All You need is decent keyboard ? and to set it up with a drum machine (if you like it that way).

It's also good to note or name some vsts that make music better, although don't typically have any because of my reliance on an analog keyboard.
 
Another self-promotion from Raz to get clicks. At least he's putting it in this section instead of in the Newbies part of this forum.

I would like to add that Gearslutz is a respected forum and has some of the most talented people in the industry, and this doesn not apply to everyone, only to some
 
Ok .... He's entitled to his opinion I suppose. I'm never one to get hung up on the analog/digital sound debate. I'll freely admit that I'm sure I could be (and have been) fooled many times by digital emulations of analog/outboard gear. But his rant seems to be bursting at the seams with opinions stated as fact.

The first thing that caught my eye was this:
"In today's music business, at least 50% of the music that you hear on the radio was made “IDB” (In the Box - means on a DAW) with no big consoles, no tube compressors, no EQs – simply from plugins."


I'm just curious where he got this information. He may be right, but without any references, it just comes off as an opinio-fact.

Then he says this:
"These kids [making recordings at home completely ITB] are being played on airwaves and perform to sold-out crowds at some of the biggest EDM festivals in the world."

Does this mean this entire article is in reference to EDM? I have no idea who Raz is, so if this was a given, I didn't know it.

And then this chestnut:
"If money is no object and an analog studio is important to you for the experience of it (keep in mind this will have no impact on the quality of your recordings), consider hiring studio time and bringing in the producers and engineers you like."

No impact? That's a pretty big statement. I think that it's safe to say that just about everything in the studio has an impact on the quality of your recordings, especially when you consider the fact that the performances are arguably the most important aspect of a recording. And everything --- from crapping out neon lights on the ceiling to the temperature in the room to the art on the wall --- affects a musician's performance, whether it be for the better or not.

This guy doesn't seem to realize that confirmation bias is a real, measurable phenomenon. I'm not saying that you should go out and buy expensive gear just because you'll expect it to sound better, but to discount any intangibles in the recording process (such as overall vibe) is complete ignorance, IMO.

Everything along the way is part of the final product in the recording world, and that includes the work process. Some of us really don't like working ITB. We enjoy turning knobs, pushing faders, handling tape, listening to the music (instead of looking at it). Others dig the digital way and/or they don't get hung up on the working process at all. Does that mean that those who don't like the ITB process should just suck it up and do it that way? Do you think someone is likely to create great recordings if they're hating the process the entire time? (This also applies to the musicians/artists as well.)

I for one like to use analog equipment mainly for the process. It makes me happy. It really doesn't have much to do with the sound at all. As I said, I'm sure I could be fooled if someone really set out to fool me. That's why I don't even go there. I'm certain that great sounds are achievable with either (and that's been proven time and again). So it really all comes down to personal preference, which means that the author of the article is basically just saying "I like to work ITB." Great! Here, have a cookie. I have no idea why he the felt the need to attack the idea of analog with its title.
 
I'm not going back to tape, but the analog outboard gear stays. To me it just sounds better. A few years from now, will your plugins be compatible with the current OS? My gear will be. But whatever. Find a setup that works for you and spend your time making music, not GASing for more gear.
 
I'm not going back to tape, but the analog outboard gear stays. To me it just sounds better. A few years from now, will your plugins be compatible with the current OS? My gear will be. But whatever. Find a setup that works for you and spend your time making music, not GASing for more gear.

well said.
 
Ok .... He's entitled to his opinion I suppose. I'm never one to get hung up on the analog/digital sound debate. I'll freely admit that I'm sure I could be (and have been) fooled many times by digital emulations of analog/outboard gear. But his rant seems to be bursting at the seams with opinions stated as fact.

The first thing that caught my eye was this:
"In today's music business, at least 50% of the music that you hear on the radio was made “IDB” (In the Box - means on a DAW) with no big consoles, no tube compressors, no EQs – simply from plugins."


I'm just curious where he got this information. He may be right, but without any references, it just comes off as an opinio-fact.

Then he says this:
"These kids [making recordings at home completely ITB] are being played on airwaves and perform to sold-out crowds at some of the biggest EDM festivals in the world."

Does this mean this entire article is in reference to EDM? I have no idea who Raz is, so if this was a given, I didn't know it.

And then this chestnut:
"If money is no object and an analog studio is important to you for the experience of it (keep in mind this will have no impact on the quality of your recordings), consider hiring studio time and bringing in the producers and engineers you like."

No impact? That's a pretty big statement. I think that it's safe to say that just about everything in the studio has an impact on the quality of your recordings, especially when you consider the fact that the performances are arguably the most important aspect of a recording. And everything --- from crapping out neon lights on the ceiling to the temperature in the room to the art on the wall --- affects a musician's performance, whether it be for the better or not.

This guy doesn't seem to realize that confirmation bias is a real, measurable phenomenon. I'm not saying that you should go out and buy expensive gear just because you'll expect it to sound better, but to discount any intangibles in the recording process (such as overall vibe) is complete ignorance, IMO.

Everything along the way is part of the final product in the recording world, and that includes the work process. Some of us really don't like working ITB. We enjoy turning knobs, pushing faders, handling tape, listening to the music (instead of looking at it). Others dig the digital way and/or they don't get hung up on the working process at all. Does that mean that those who don't like the ITB process should just suck it up and do it that way? Do you think someone is likely to create great recordings if they're hating the process the entire time? (This also applies to the musicians/artists as well.)

I for one like to use analog equipment mainly for the process. It makes me happy. It really doesn't have much to do with the sound at all. As I said, I'm sure I could be fooled if someone really set out to fool me. That's why I don't even go there. I'm certain that great sounds are achievable with either (and that's been proven time and again). So it really all comes down to personal preference, which means that the author of the article is basically just saying "I like to work ITB." Great! Here, have a cookie. I have no idea why he the felt the need to attack the idea of analog with its title.

Lol. You devoted way too much time to a Raz-troll topic.
 
It is reasonable to say that the gear perceived to be of the highest quality, whether analog or digital or some amalgam of both, is very expensive.
It is reasonable to say that an inexperienced and less talented engineer with expensive gear will make a crappy recording.
It is reasonable to say that an experienced and talented engineer with budget gear will make a good recording.
It is reasonable to conclude that the experienced and talented engineer with expensive gear will make a superior recording to that which she could have made using budget gear.

It is not reasonable to conclude from this body of logic that gear doesn't matter.

:/
 
I think analog sounds better, and also music that isn't loud (i.e. these awful digital plugin maximizer/limiters) sounds better. But digital is easier. Less maintenance for the gear, no splicing tape, etc. It wins for convenience, not sound.

Most of what's on the radio stinks and almost always has, so those arguments seem like pointless appeals to popularity (logical fallacy).
Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
 
Back
Top