Should I drop analog?

[veggie_lover]

I have been using my Tascam 414 portastudio for a few years now. I like the nostalgia, great analog sound for the price and hands-on approach
to the recording.

But I basically mix down to my PC and upload the music to facebook and youtube. Since I eventually go to digital, does it make more sense to record all in the digital from the beginning? Or is analog->digital better sounding than all digital recordings?

[SteveM]

Everyone is different. There's noone that can answer that but you. For myself I'd prefer to keep it all in the analog realm, right through to mix down but CD's and whatever is available is fine for now.

Also AAD or DDD is neither better or worse, because it all depends on what it was recorded on, who recorded it, how well the type of music works on that format, etc... If you prefer the sound of analog and wonder if that sound carries over to digital when transferred, and if it makes a difference, I'd say definitely, yes.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by veggie_lover

Should I drop analog?

No, not for the reason you've given. You would be well served by moving up to a better analog format though.

This comes up now and then, but the end medium for everyone is digital. So no one would start with analog if it had no benefit. The fact that most everything ends up on digital does not mean everything done in analog is negated.

In fact, it’s the all-digital chain that is most objectionable, sonically speaking, which is one of the main reasons there is an analog community.

[sweetbeats]

+1 to all above.

Try it!

See what it is like going straight to HDD. If it lacks something then maybe you like the A/D hop. If the analog process is lacking something then you may want to think about (as Beck said) an upgrade in your analog tracking equipment.

Bottom line though is try it and see what you like.

I started out using an open reel 4-track mastered to DAT or PC. Then for years and years I was all digital and I've returned to my analog roots. Still do a lot of work using digital tools but I love analog for tracking and mastering.

[oretez]

I know I frequently feel like a tourist, recently arrived after an unintentional slipstream among some string theories funny dimensions but end point (at least just short of the brain) of, certainly, music and, generally, all audio remains 'analog'. It starts (by and large) as analog and ends as analog. While there might be various digital drivers along the journey if one accepts the OP's logic (if end point is 'digital' why not all digital?), the analog to analog nature obviates need for any 'digital' elements.

In point of fact only a relatively tiny subset (of audio endeavors) are analog vegans. For most digital drivers, digital resonators are sprinkled, liberally, throughout the process. For most it is no longer a matter of analog purity but rather where and when for each element. Personally I'll be quite happy to never worry about razor blades again, but spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, money maintaining valve amps.

For the OP, if you find distortion(s) added by analog transducers, analog tape to be inherently satisfying, AND you are primarily recording, editing, distributing your own material for your own edification it is quite likely that you will never be quite, aesthetically satisfied by a nearly all digital chain. I started the gradual migration to digital tools fairly early in my development but I grew up in an era which supports my internal aesthetic that valve distortion; tape hiss, sag and compression; figure of 8, ribbon, mics; mono sources have something inherently musical to add to the production process, the listening aesthetic. It is unlikely, no matter what aesthetic choices they make, that individuals even a generation younger interact with these tools in a similar, let alone congruent way.

Participated in a session last weekend where literally everything was run through the 'board'. Electronic drums, Electronic keyboards, guitar and bass all into the 'box' via upscale two channel valve mic pre DI (no vocals yet). Once in the box it was dealt with via PT and an obscenely expensive wash of plug in's, spit out via analog summing to 1 in. Analog two track (which will ultimately get sent to mastering house). I travel enough, shift home base frequently enough that creating a 'great' room (for recording and mixing) has always been problematic, even so this is the exact opposite of my basic approach. Nor am I saying my approach is right and their's is wrong (or vice versa). I was a bit surprised, based on info I had, to show up with the Gibson, Martin flattops (without onboard transducers, p/u's), boutique 5 (and just in case) 15 watt valve amps and not enough pedals to even suggest a board . . . I show up with a pretty typical low rent set up, two acoustics, three electrics (the ubiquitous strat just in case), a mandolin, a box of harmonicas, a fistful of my own mics (just in case) and the only usable thing I had with me were my own tracking headphones. I keep meaning to add a DI line to the 5 watt but it is just very hard to find someone to trust.

Migrating to digital can be done, initially, more cheaply and as OP is already familiar with some of the processes the learning curve might not be as daunting as it has proven to be for many analog mavens. But again, particularly if you're doing this for your own personal satisfaction and are already comfortable with maintenance demands of analog gear, particularly tape I'd certainly suggest exploring those options. Once you migrate to a digital element (in the chain) it tends to be harder to return then might, initially, be expected. When I started a soldering iron was a standard bit of gear in the performance tool kit. While I'm fairly certain there is one laying around the house I have not seen it for at least six months. If you think trouble shooting computer noise is a problem think about wrangling mains issues with a wall of outboard gear, the intermodulation issues with serially connecting valve gear, the need for lots of patch points (patch bays) for that wall of out board gear, the need for individual compressors available for each channel tracked, plus separate ones for master bus. Organizing sessions where all parameters are set going to tape rather then in post and fixing anything requires 'out of the box' thinking . . . Constantly reinventing the wheel with cables and a soldering iron. Once you step away from that 'way' of thinking (a la' digital) it is difficult to regain sufficient level of skill for it to a satisfying way to work. Digital's going to be an available option for foreseeable future so if one finds analog to be inherent satisfying I would suggest exploring those options first, decide on the cost benefit ration analog vs. Digital piece of gear by piece of gear, tool by tool.

[dodgeaspen]

Should you drop analog? In one word NO.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by dodgeaspen

Should you drop analog? In one word NO.

Actually, that's probably the best answer.

[Lance Lawson]

I've been doing digital /analog comparisons lately and even music that I recorded on digital start to finish acquires a lushness that simply couldn't be had with all digital once its transfered onto reel to reel analog.

That said in spite of the fact that the Porta Studios were cutting edge and and many people got thier foot in the door using them there is no substitue for a reel to reel recorder. There's lots available used these days and some very inexpensively. Unless I miss my guess in the next year there is going to be an explosion of intrest in reel to reel recording and machines people are practically giving away will become gold. Look for a TEAC 3400 you'll be set.

[Tim Gillett]

I think most people on this BBS and elsewhere regard analog tape as an effect, part of the effects rack. It then becomes a question:

Do I use that effect on the way in or later, after tracking, or not at all?

These days, a good digital recorder basically captures what you put into it. A top analog tape machine can also approach that closely. As a recorder you cant ask much more than that. It's a dream come true.

So if a person says they cant do without analog tape warmth/distortion I say, what about listening to a live unamplified performance? Do you find live performance "cold or sterile or lacking warmth"?

Is a human voice, or the sounds of nature itself "lacking something" because it hasnt been analog tape processed first? Only you can answer that question.

Tim

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

I think most people on this BBS and elsewhere regard analog tape as an effect, part of the effects rack.

I, in part, agree with your statement because there are many formats to be had in a tape machine (kinda like a multitude of diff paints, paint brushes, canvases, for an artist / painter) and it gives one a tone or color which differs from one to another.

There's cassette, open reel, narrow track, wide track, dbx, dolby, no noise reduction, slow / mid / fast speed, tubes, solid state, different types of heads / electronics and don't forget the different types of tapes, which add even more "color" to it all. When you add really interesting sounding mics (far from transparent), then you really have something interesting.

I've heard some wonderful stuff made on tape but also some nasty, sterile and cold sounding records. The same holds true to digital. I think it ultimately comes down to (in no particular order) talent, recording technique, microphones, their placement, rooms and minimum of editing to preserve a "live" human feel.

I think that the biggest problem in today's music is overindulgence in digital editing / processing, plugins, autotune, "comping" and the use of "transparent" outboard gear, incl mics, rendering music sterile.

What I love about analogue is consistent, reliable, fun and easy way to record, a future proof medium, that stood the test of time. Its simplicity and inherent limitation (vs digital editing / processing) is gold for artists' creativity.

I wonder how many digital software / hardware will be serviceable, relatively easy to fix and sounding "up to date" in 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. My guess is little to none. A good analogue tape machine will always be.

The way I see it is that when you have such good serviceability and ease of use, on those machines, including a virtually infinite "sampling rate" (to borrow from digital talk) and such a large pallet of color to choose from, then you have a winner, IMHO.

[lo.fi.love]

Originally Posted by cjacek

I wonder how many digital software / hardware will be serviceable, relatively easy to fix and sounding "up to date" in 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. My guess is little to none. A good analogue tape machine will always be.

I'd like to see someone try to open/edit/use a ProTools file from 2005 in the year 2015 or 2020. Ain't gonna happen.