Analog or Digital?

[Beck]

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.

The saying, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” is akin to “You get what you pay for.” And you do.

Funny, I make my living maintaining PCs and networks. Your 6-year-old problem-free PC is not typical. Many people don’t even realize the time and money they’ve put into a PC and it’s OS and program bugs and fixes. As usual I look at statistics, not exceptions. I can keep a PC running for many years, but there are component and software upgrades, as well as routine maintenance that every PC owner must deal with.

Bios upgrades, OS upgrades, software upgrades, RAM upgrades due to failure or just a need for more, hard drive upgrades due to failure or just a need for greater capacity, CPU upgrades due to failure or a need for greater speed… and do I really have to list Pro Tools versions and the bugs they fixed over the years. That goes for other manufacturers as well. In addition, all Microsoft bugs and fixes are DAW bugs and fixes if you have an MS OS.

Part of this whole process is separating the casual hobbyist from someone that wants to achieve excellence as a recording artist. There is plenty of room for everyone in these forums… hobbyists, collectors, experimenters; gear junkies that never really record, and people that are serious about music. I’m speaking to the latter.

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.

Well, I know your not working in IT for sure now. Hurry up and delete that before everyone sees it! I think we have 12 (or is it 24?) hours to edit a post. I’ll even be a regular guy and delete your quote and my response to it.

No doubt there are plenty of people that use one PC for everything, but it’s simply not best practices. That’s why I specifically used the term ‘Serious recordist.’ Microsoft’s file allocation scheme alone is reason enough to have a dedicated DAW. Speaking of which, many analog guys like me observe best practices with our analog gear and that carries over into how we maintain all of our equipment, including our DAWs. What people are doing and what they should be doing are often two different things.

So I will clarify… A properly maintained analog deck (depending on the model and condition of course) is going to outlast and be more cost effective maintenance wise than several properly maintained DAWS. And again, I’m not even addressing the sonic advantages. Analog has outlived ADAT and several generations of MDMs and DAWs.

Something Eddie Ciletti said in 2000 is just as true now:

"Analog machines will continue to be serviceable—now, after 20, 30 or 40 years and in the future—because they mostly consist of hardware that any skilled machinist can re-create. No digital format will be as easy to support after manufacturers throw in the towel."

-Eddie Ciletti
Mix Magazine Aug. 2000

 

[mshilarious]

The saying, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” is akin to “You get what you pay for.” And you do.

A lot of my customers don't feel that is true.

Your 6-year-old problem-free PC is not typical. Many people don’t even realize the time and money they’ve put into a PC and it’s OS and program bugs and fixes.

Well, truthfully since 1983 I don't think I've ever had a computer fail on me. I've lost a couple of hard drives, both times with mostly complete backups, just not perfect enough to not be annoying. But I don't think I've had a non-moving part failure.

Sure, hardware does fail sometimes. Replacement hardware is readily available, very cheap.

Bios upgrades, OS upgrades, software upgrades, RAM upgrades due to failure or just a need for more, hard drive upgrades due to failure or just a need for greater capacity, CPU upgrades due to failure or a need for greater speed

Who cares? I don't need any of those things. I keep my PC clean. Housekeeping takes little effort.

and do I really have to list Pro Tools versions and the bugs they fixed over the years. That goes for other manufacturers as well. In addition, all Microsoft bugs and fixes are DAW bugs and fixes if you have an MS OS.

My DAW program turns 3 in April. I haven't upgraded, and there are no more updates for my version. It still works fine. I did upgrade to that from old Yamaha DSP Factory system. That came out in 1998. There are still a dedicated group keeping that card alive, although I am no longer with them. The cards still work fine, it's just that there is better for cheaper now.

Part of this whole process is separating the casual hobbyist from someone that wants to achieve excellence as a recording artist. There is plenty of room for everyone in these forums… hobbyists, collectors, experimenters; gear junkies that never really record, and people that are serious about music. I’m speaking to the latter.

Wonderful. I am not a casual hobbyist; I feed a family of seven with my DAW.

Well, I know your not working in IT for sure now.

No, I work in audio electronic design, analysis, and production.

Hurry up and delete that before everyone sees it!

Not a chance.

No doubt there are plenty of people that use one PC for everything, but it’s simply not best practices. That’s why I specifically used the term ‘Serious recordist.’ Microsoft’s file allocation scheme alone is reason enough to have a dedicated DAW. Speaking of which, many analog guys like me observe best practices with our analog gear and that carries over into how we maintain all of our equipment, including our DAWs. What people are doing and what they should be doing are often two different things.

OK, I don't use your "best practices", but somehow I keep my PC working for 6 years, and make money doing it.

But I agree, a pro tracking studio should probably have a dedicated DAW. Actually, I do have one, it's called an HD24. But I don't use it much anymore. And tracking is not the only task performed by professional studios. Many of them specialize in areas that don't require that sort of dedication.

So I will clarify… A properly maintained analog deck (depending on the model and condition of course) is going to outlast and be more cost effective maintenance wise than several properly maintained DAWS.

One deck is more cost effective than several DAWs . . . how many? And why is that a relevant comparison? How many DAWs do I really need? How about one 24 track deck vs. my HD24? How much does it cost to maintain that? I don't think I've ever spent a penny on HD24 maintenance. I just turn it on and it works. I think I've had it almost 4 years now.

"Analog machines will continue to be serviceable—now, after 20, 30 or 40 years and in the future—because they mostly consist of hardware that any skilled machinist can re-create. No digital format will be as easy to support after manufacturers throw in the towel."

Skilled machinists don't come cheap. And how many digital formats can no longer be played?

 

[rayc]

Rubber is an issue!

 

[Slowrider]

"Skilled machinists don't come cheap. "


Damn straight, I should have been paid 5 times what I made.

 

[mshilarious]

OK, I have got off my lazy butt and done some of my own research. I can buy a used 24 track deck for $2.5K - $3K. Don't know about condition, but I will assume all sellers are angels who only sell perfectly working machines. I will make the same assumption for the HD24; it goes for about $1K used.

In, say, 10 years, I would expect no maintenance costs for the HD24. I might expect one hard drive failure (it has two), so let's budget $100 for that. But I am uncertain whether to score that as maintenance or media costs. Otherwise, the only media cost would be $100 for a second hard drive to start with, since it only ships with one.

So let's say $100 for maintenance, and $100 for media.

Mixdown medium is not relevant, since either the analog or digital recorder has all the same options for that. Other than the firewire option on the HD24, which of course is optional (I don't have it myself, although most do. My PC DAW is too old to have onboard firewire!) So we needn't consider that.

So I believe you are correct, an analog setup costs the same as several DAWs. But if I had three HD24s, I could link them for a 72 track setup, or a 48 track setup with a backup machine. And if I add in the maintenance costs pipeline mentioned (let's say twice in ten years, about half as often as he stated), I'd expect I could save enough for another HD24 in that period. I'll be nice and bill out all media costs to the clients and not ding analog for that. I am also ignoring any additional labor to calibrate and maintain the analog deck.

So, in summary, analog is about 4x as expensive as digital--likely more like 5x to 6x, but I am being nice.

 

[Erockrazor]

Dispute all you want, I don't think anyone will be persuaded who has already chosen a side.

Analog users prefer analog and digtal users prefer digital. Hybrid users are just indecisive.

You have your reasons to go digital and he has his to go analog. I am running an 8 track 1/4" reel to reel for $108.00 total right now. $122.00 if you include my "outboard" gear. This is included with tape and maintenance. I am not arguing for analog nor digital but I am supporting that a HOME recording can be done analog for cheaper than some may think. I might be an exception to the rule or maybe just that everyone blows their money a bit too easily when going analog. Deal locally, barter, and don't buy the first thing you see.

It all comes down to preference. Pro's and cons weigh differently for each person. It's hard to persuade a slave owner not to own slaves and it's hard to persuade a rich man to give some money to the poor. But at least they think what they're doing is right...

Analog versus digital? Analog for myself and digital when I record other people.

 

[mshilarious]

Dispute all you want, I don't think anyone will be persuaded who has already chosen a side.

I am not trying to convince anyone, and I don't care what anybody uses. I am only interested in facts.

Whether comparable analog is cheaper than digital is a knowable fact. I am not suggesting that anyone use digital because it's cheaper (although unless someone can dispute my figures, it is). A cassette boombox with a built-in mic is cheaper than an HD24, but I am not arguing that anyone use one of those (although I have). But you will not hear me say that a cassette boombox is more expensive than an HD24, because that is obviously silly.

That said, the costs of digital vs. analog have been misstated by others in this thread, and I seek to counter that. Cost is only a small part of the overall decision, but any decision should be made on the best information readily available. So let's have good information.

 

[bilco]

I think the proof of which format is more economic is found in the pro studios and project studios everywhere. If analog were REALLY cheaper, wouldn't the majority of studios still be spinning tape? It's not just the editing capabilities that have convinced studios to go digital. Studios had to have techs on hand or on call to maintain and repair the board and the tape machines. They are driven by economics. It has to be cheaper to go digital or they wouldn't have done it. I am sure the money saved by faster editing plays into the choice too. It takes longer to splice tape than to drag a region around.

I love the sound of demos I did on a Teac 3340 and I have thought about buying one from a friend. My Pbass plugged straight into it sounds wonderful. In the digital world, I have not been able to emulate that sound yet. But that deck needs work. I would be limiting myself to 4 tracks unless I bounce. Portability is out of the question; the thing must weigh 40 lbs.

Two Pro engineers with very discerning ears here in Austin have gone digital, one with PT and the other with Nuendo. One of them uses a great, vintage, all tube front end going into Nuendo. Both of those guys were pro engineers back in the late '70s and have proven track records and hear things I don't and never will.

There are a few studios here that have stayed analog or have a choice of tape or PT. I don' think they are in the majority though.

I love the sound of a deck spinning up the reels and the feel of real faders in my hands; it's what I grew up with. But in a home recording environment like mine, I just can't see how I could have even gotten into an 8 track Otari and a decent board for the same amount of money it took to get into PT LE.

I can build a PC from scratch and learned just enough by getting A+ certification to be dangerous. It did not take that certification to be able to work on PCs though. It's not that hard. Kind of like working with Lego blocks. All of my upward climb through the various OS upgrades was either due to Y2K or to my buying into the marketing that I "needed to." If I had kept my Dell 286, I am pretty sure it would still be working today. Our church used an ancient 8088 for the tape ministry to print labels, catalogs, etc. and it was running on DOS, an old version at that. If it hadn't been for the Y2K panic, it would probably still be chugging along. That thing was built in 80's and it was in use until the last minute before Y2K.

http://www.vintage-computer.com/compaq_portable.shtml

I have had very few hard drives fail since I started playing with PCs in the early 90's, maybe 2 total. The only other component I have ever had fail is a stick of RAM from careless handling, the monitor itself and a power supply fan on the CPU.

I don't have a bone to pick with either format. Like I said, I love the sessions I recorded on tape, but from a HOME RECORDING perspective, (I am in the right forum, correct???) I don't see how it could be cheaper to buy and maintain an analog system than digital...........

bilco

 

[mshilarious]

Our church used an ancient 8088 for the tape ministry to print labels, catalogs, etc. and it was running on DOS, an old version at that. If it hadn't been for the Y2K panic, it would probably still be chugging along. That thing was built in 80's and it was in use until the last minute before Y2K.

I did my thesis on Lotus 1-2-3 on an 8088. It was great, hit recalc and go watch a sitcom Well, it beat Visicalc on an Apple ][+, anyway . . .

I'm pretty sure an 8088 would survive Y2K, most of them thought it was always 1-1-80

 

[bilco]

I did my thesis on Lotus 1-2-3 on an 8088. It was great, hit recalc and go watch a sitcom Well, it beat Visicalc on an Apple ][+, anyway . . .

I'm pretty sure an 8088 would survive Y2K, most of them thought it was always 1-1-80

It DID always think it was 1-1-80!!! How funny.......

I loved that machine, wish I still had it. I could not work on that one though or at least not without sweating about it. You had to mess with jumpers on the motherboard to do anything like adding a drive. The hard drive that had been put in it got cantankerous and didn't want to spin up. But we would pick up the front end of it with a really sudden jolt and it would get the drive working. That was one faithful machine and so were my 286, 386SX, 386DX, 486.......... A lot of those machines were passed on to folks in the church who couldn't afford any kind of PC and just wanted basic functions like a word processor and Juno access. I really liked that ministry now that I think about it...... I hate to see a perfectly good machine go to the junkyard, whether it's a tape deck, PC or a car. I think I would have liked to have been an inventor........

bilco

 

[Slowrider]

I love my old RtRs, but then, I love all things mechanical. Except cars, hate working on cars.

 

[bilco]

I love my old RtRs, but then, I love all things mechanical. Except cars, hate working on cars.

Wish I still had my grandfather's all tube, mono, reel to reel Wollensak, vintage late 50s probably. What a great machine!

Nobody likes working on cars anymore; it's not like the good old days when all you had to do was change out the points and condensor and plugs and set the timing under a shade tree........ ah, the good old days.....

bilco

 

[Beck]

Rubber is an issue!

Just be sure to have your tires rotated and balanced as recommended by the manufacturer and get the road hazard coverage... it's worth it.

 

[mshilarious]

I am going to make an unashamedly pro-analog post. Well, maybe pseudo-pro-analog.

There needs to be a trend towards a "no-suck" studio. It needs to be one (big) good room, a few classic mics, or reasonable modern facsimiles. Maybe an RCA (Royer, Chinese modded, etc.) ribbon, a Shure 55, and something Neumann-ish. A 2-track recorder. Some sort of console, but not too many channels. Let's say eight. And that's it.

I was just in a restaurant with the satellite radio '50s station on. It disturbs me that the broadcast "oldies" format is now some '60s, mostly '70s, some '80s (but I can't pay for radio, either. Nor TV). And the '80s they are pulling in is crap like early Madonna (which kinda makes me wish Autotune had been around then). It just doesn't sound as good. What sounds better than "Kind of Blue"? Nothing, really. And no, it isn't just the incredible talent on that record. You could put me on sax in that room, and it would be sonically excellent sucky no-talent music.

Which is the point, bands would once again be naked and nobody would buy teh suck.

So I don't think this is an analog vs. digital issue per se. The suck-ass '80s music was analog, for the most part. Even the better '70s all-analog stuff doesn't sound as good as the '50s (yes, Pink Floyd and Steely Dan = suck). Multitrack was cool in the '60s because it allowed music that wasn't otherwise possible, but after that, it just became an excuse for lazy sucking (which is why I use it ) and/or excessive polishing, whether turd or gem.

Note that a lot of this '50s stuff has enjoyed modern digital remasters, and often that has greatly improved the sound of the format available to the consumer (sometimes not). And the no-suck studio could have something like a Masterlink.

So for lurkers reading this thread, don't think about analog vs. digital. Think about suck vs. no suck, and good room vs. crap room. That is really 97.2% of good sound. Of the remainder, 2.1% is mic placement. That doesn't leave much for most of the threads here . . .

 

[bilco]

Like this?

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/aboutus.php

 

[mshilarious]

Like this?

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/aboutus.php

Yeah. They might even be too extreme! I make or mod a lot of my gear too, but commercially, that isn't always the most efficient route. It depends on the marginal value of the labor involved.

Anyway. Yeah, more like an association of those studios. A professional quality review for engineers. They always scoff and bristle at real organization, but what is the alternative? When much major label commercial music sucks, it reduces public perception of all music.

To illustrate, the wine industry has had good success in promoting voluntary quality review associations. Winemaking is very analogous to sound recording, and filled with the same fiercely independent artistic type as well as lots of brilliant technicians--sometimes the same people. If they can do it, so can the record industry. A rising tide lifts all boats . . . and the opposite is equally true.


PS Looking around that site, I see a bit too much audiophile voodoo promoted on their front page. That really isn't helpful at all.

 

[pezking]

What sounds better than "Kind of Blue"? Nothing, really.

I've just been listening to that today to transcribe "Blue in Green" and write a commentary on it. The whole album was recorded in just 9 hours. I love it, brilliant stuff.

 

[ofajen]

There needs to be a trend towards a "no-suck" studio. It needs to be one (big) good room, a few classic mics, or reasonable modern facsimiles. Maybe an RCA (Royer, Chinese modded, etc.) ribbon, a Shure 55, and something Neumann-ish. A 2-track recorder. Some sort of console, but not too many channels. Let's say eight. And that's it.

I tend to agree with this post, but then, I'm not concerned about making money off recordings. I was in decent sized room last night. My son's Cub Scout banquet was in a big church meeting hall: about 75' long, 50' wide and a ceiling about 24' at the sides and angling up to about 30' at the ridge line. Could have used a bit of careful acoustic treatment, but definitely something one can work with. I used to have delusions that I would build such a facility out in the country on one of my dad's properties.

More recently, I've been adjusting my recording gear to the notion that rather than build such a room, I'll just borrow it from time to time and record using a small portable rig. I have a small digital two track rig and a small digital multitrack, partly so I can record my piano in the upstairs room, but synced to tracks recorded downstairs. I also have a bunch of Studio Traps. They are pretty easy to bring along and you can tidy up the sound of a fairly good sounding space pretty well with half a dozen or so of them.

I do like the tape machines, too, but portability can be a challenge. At some point soon, I also plan to set up my old M-23 to run 1/2" 4-track as well as 1/4" 2-track. That machine is not in a console, the transport is the rack mount style, so it is easy enough to move it around in portable cases (though the transport still weighs 65 pounds without its case and four channels of electronics weighs 60 pounds.) I gotta say, for being almost 50 years old, that is an amazing machine.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[rayc]

I'm DECIDEDLY a hybrid user.
Quite often I go to my 4 track portastudio & then into the DAW for the basic tracks at least.
I don't have the outboard gear to mix in analogue form so I DECIDED to mix in the box.
I have an 8 I/O break out box but DECIDED to do 4 on tape when I can.
I DECIDED to buy a box of about 40 odd 10min Chrome tapes to accommodate this purpose.
If I had an 8 track tape machine (Reel or Cassette) I'd use that INTO the box.
The down side of hybridism is that I have to think ahead a little about what I want to commit to tape due to the limitations of 4 tracks & my desire to avoid having to synch the 2nd 4 in the DAW.
I'd like to use my reel2reel machine for the same but it has a flat spot on the high speed rubber that I can't find a replacement for - no machinist seems to be interested in machining rubber - perhaps I should seek out a petrol head - they burn enough of it - the slower speed isn't really quite good enough to work with.

 

[cjacek]

I'd like to use my reel2reel machine for the same but it has a flat spot on the high speed rubber that I can't find a replacement for - no machinist seems to be interested in machining rubber

Which machine and what exactly is wrong?

---