Good lord analog wins!

[jake-owa]

So I've been doing some A/Bing digital against my ATR60, here are the results.

Bass:

Digital; muddy and really un focused. The sound doesn't seem to come from a point but rather flow from the speakers. I could never get a rolling bass sound in digital.

Analog; Oh my god. It sounds super defined and focused. The sound definitely has an origin and never seems to flub out in the room. Bass seems tons cleaner and even has that sought after 'room' around it. Half the problems I thought I had in my room are suddenly fixed, amazing.

Electric guitars:

Digital; I've been fighting with getting a heavy sound from digital recording for the longest time, it seems like when I get the sound crunchy enough it just sounds harsh and crispy on the recording.

Analog; The sound is way smoother and rounded if that makes sense. Now I can dial in a sound and get a pleasing result instead of a hashy mess.

....to be continued...

[Lt. Bob]

That's exactly why I spend $30 for a vinyl version of everything I buy. CDs do not sound as good as good vinyl if you have good playback gear. ( I have about $1500 in my turntable and would happily pay 5 times that to upgrade if I could afford it)

I have set many people down in front of my reference rig and let them A/B CDs versus the same recording on vinyl and have never had a single person prefer the CD.....it's always the vinyl. Now granted, you have to baby the stuff....I have an expensive cleaning machine, static cancelling guns....cleaning fluids..etc.
For most it's just not worth it but when I get that special sound....even though it's sometimes subtle.....MAN!!!! It's all worth it.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Bob,

I agree with you to a degree... I have some vinyl pressings that really outshine the CD -- especially any of the older CDs....

Case in point - I've got the vinyl and 24-bit mastered CD version of David Bowie's Modern Love album.... it sounds much better on CD than on vinyl. Sharper imaging, more focused low-end, cleaner highs.

A lot of it comes down to the way the analog masters were converted to digital... on those older CDs, digital was new, and "best practices" hadn't even been conceived yet! Compare Led Zep's 4th album on vinyl and CD -- the early CD release (haven't heard the newest ones myself) are REALLY bad.... vinyl's got it beat!


Jake,

Sorry --- if you can't get digital to work for you, you've either got bad converters, or you're doing something horribly wrong.

Given good converters at 24/96 (24/88.2 or even 24/48 - which is what I use for tracking) there's no excuse for not getting the sound you want from digital..... period.

When I'm tracking, I have absolutely no trouble getting out what I put in... and if the sound coming out isn't what the client wants, 99.9% of the time it's because of the source, not the recording medium.... that's when we change amps, guitars, cabs, mics, mic pres, etc...

[muttley]

GO ANALOGUE GO !!


da MUTT

[jake-owa]

I thought I was getting out what I was putting in until I a/Bed the two.

Have you ever compared analog in your studio Bruce?

[Blue Bear Sound]

No -- my analog experience was limited to 4-track years ago.... and even budget digital has that beat by yards!!!

And unless you're talking professional 2" mulitrack, IMO, you can't seriously start to compare the 2 formats anyways....

But I would be interested in a serious comparison --- I may just try to rent a good analog unit and check it out sometime....

[DonF]

Since when is it a competition? If analog works for you, USE IT! Whatever it takes to get the sound you're after. Use a wax cylinder if it floats your boat. This is art.

If you compared analog to digital in various price ranges (and don't forget to factor in maintenance costs), I think you'd find that digital "wins" at least in some of those price ranges. Digital definitely wins in the low end where most HomeReccers are. You simply can't get anything approaching reasonably good ("good" meaning clean, quiet) sound from cheap analog gear. At least I can't.

[jake-owa]

Ok, so like I thought you really don't know what you're talking about.

Have you ever even used a 2" machine? Not to be a dick bear but when I first came to this site you didn''t even know what a Sony 3348 was. I don't think you are totally qualified to say what is "pro" or not. I'm not sure if the opinion of a guy who loves ADATs and never uses analog matters much in this comparison...you don't have the B to go with the A/B here. If I ever need to know how to get the most out of an ADAT you are the first guy I will come to but as far as I know ADAT is a prosumer format anyhow.
The 1" 16 track format is very nice sounding format (there are very pro versions of the machine) and while I may not have the best digital setup, for my money I get much, much more out of analog. Don't even try to tell me that you can't compare analog to digital until you get into the 2" range because I just did and I like analog far better.

Try it sometime, who knows you may be the next convert.

[jake-owa]

Originally posted by DonF
Since when is it a competition? If analog works for you, USE IT! Whatever it takes to get the sound you're after. Use a wax cylinder if it floats your boat. This is art.

If you compared analog to digital in various price ranges (and don't forget to factor in maintenance costs), I think you'd find that digital "wins" at least in some of those price ranges. Digital definitely wins in the low end where most HomeReccers are. You simply can't get anything approaching reasonably good ("good" meaning clean, quiet) sound from cheap analog gear. At least I can't.

I'm not putting anyone down man, relax. I say analog wins in my A/B test so far. It is a competition as soon as I started to A/B the two formats in my studio. I haven't finished so who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Analog is the sound I was after...that's all.

[DonF]

I am completely relaxed. Sorry if I sounded uptight.

It's just that I hate religious wars, and the way I read your original post it sounded like you were trying to start one.

Just curious: What happens if you take the output of the ATR60 and feed it into your digital system? Does the mud appear then, or do you retain (at least some of) the analog sound? (In this scenario, you'd essentially be using the analog machine as an effects processor.)

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by jake-owa
...but as far as I know ADAT is a prosumer format anyhow.

Not so.... and anyways I use HD24 and ADATs for backup....

Originally posted by jake-owa
while I may not have the best digital setup, for my money I get much, much more out of analog.

True, I don't have a good analog machine to compare it to.... but that's irrelevant to the tone of your original post.

You said you can't get out what you put in with your digital format and that your analog format does it better. That's fine.... but I have an excellent digital setup and I DO get out what I put into it, so quite obviously, you're either doing something wrong or YOUR digital system isn't up to the task. That doesn't validate your premise that "analog wins"....

And I agree with Don --- there is no "winner"... use whatever the hell works for you -- just don't turn it into a relgious war......!

[foreverain4]

Originally posted by jake-owa


but as far as I know ADAT is a prosumer format anyhow.

uuuh!?! is that why just about every major studio has at least one of these machines? the thing with digital, whatever you put into it (providing you have excellent a/d converters and such) is exactly what gets recorded. with analog, you cant actually tell what is going to tape til it is recorded and played back. this solidifies the fact that with digital, you must get it right BEFORE you record it. it is a bit more predictible.

[wildflower soul]

drums sound better on analog flat out... give me any cd of a band that recorded on protools or whatever and i can tell right away by the way the kick drum sounds

vocals sound better... they are there, not some digital rate.

digital will always be limited to a sample rate, no matter how high you go.

[DonF]

Analog is limited by the laws of physics. So what?

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by wildflower soul
drums sound better on analog flat out... give me any cd of a band that recorded on protools or whatever and i can tell right away by the way the kick drum sounds

vocals sound better... they are there, not some digital rate.

digital will always be limited to a sample rate, no matter how high you go.

[tjohnston]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
use whatever the hell works for you -- just don't turn it into a relgious war......!

If Jesus Christ was alive today he would use analog. Praise the lord! Brother jake was been saved by the power of the lord. Amen? boring day at work

[Blue Bear Sound]

hmmmm......

[Lt. Bob]

I do agree with Bruce.......the current digital technologies are excellent....especially when you get to 24/96k and the SACD is supposed to be great also. And certainly it has made multi-track recorders affordable for everyone. The thing about 16/44.1k is that it's 25 year old computer technology and, of course, 25 year old tech is obsolete. As the market moves to higher sampling/resolution rates.....clearly the differences become inconsequential.

But when you have over 6000 albums....well clearly that's gonna be my main medium.

[jake-owa]

Originally posted by DonF
I am completely relaxed. Sorry if I sounded uptight.

It's just that I hate religious wars, and the way I read your original post it sounded like you were trying to start one.

Just curious: What happens if you take the output of the ATR60 and feed it into your digital system? Does the mud appear then, or do you retain (at least some of) the analog sound? (In this scenario, you'd essentially be using the analog machine as an effects processor.)

No, I am not trying to start any war which is why I posted in the analog only forum instead of the computer recording forum.

Interesting question. I have run a mix out from the computer to tape and it really cleans up the muddy overtones and seems to add air around the mix. It does however seem to diminish the lowend a bit which is easily remedied with a bit of EQ off the TASCAM M600.
I will try to do a test running tracks from tape to the computer and give the results here.

[jake-owa]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
Not so.... and anyways I use HD24 and ADATs for backup....


True, I don't have a good analog machine to compare it to.... but that's irrelevant to the tone of your original post.

My original post was only giving my subjective comparison between my own two systems of recording, I meant no offense to digiheads, but if you have no way of comparing why is your opinion on the subjective difference relavant at all?

You said you can't get out what you put in with your digital format and that your analog format does it better. That's fine.... but I have an excellent digital setup and I DO get out what I put into it, so quite obviously, you're either doing something wrong or YOUR digital system isn't up to the task. That doesn't validate your premise that "analog wins"....

my premise that analog wins is completely borne of my own test and in my opinion it wins so far....period. I never said I couldn't get out what I put in....in fact I said I thought I was getting out what I put in until I compared the two together. I did say I could dial in a heavy guitar sound and get a pleasing result but that is not what I put in exactly...it's very different in fact, better.

And I agree with Don --- there is no "winner"... use whatever the hell works for you -- just don't turn it into a relgious war......!

I did not try to turn anything into a war....geez.

Just my opinion here...I'm not sorry.

[jake-owa]

Originally posted by foreverain4
uuuh!?! is that why just about every major studio has at least one of these machines? the thing with digital, whatever you put into it (providing you have excellent a/d converters and such) is exactly what gets recorded. with analog, you cant actually tell what is going to tape til it is recorded and played back. this solidifies the fact that with digital, you must get it right BEFORE you record it. it is a bit more predictible.

But with analog I find that what I get back is even better than what I put in many times...try that on an ADAT.

[jake-owa]

Originally posted by Lt. Bob
I do agree with Bruce.......the current digital technologies are excellent....especially when you get to 24/96k and the SACD is supposed to be great also. And certainly it has made multi-track recorders affordable for everyone. The thing about 16/44.1k is that it's 25 year old computer technology and, of course, 25 year old tech is obsolete. As the market moves to higher sampling/resolution rates.....clearly the differences become inconsequential.

But when you have over 6000 albums....well clearly that's gonna be my main medium.

I disagree strongly. I think that analog audio will always be comparible to analog photography. Digital may someday (not soon) be as detailed and natural as it's analog counterpart but even then I will still like to have tapes around.

Don't tell us what you have heard is supposed to be Bob, tell us what you've heard yourself man.

[jake-owa]

Originally posted by DonF
Analog is limited by the laws of physics. So what?

SOUND is limited by the laws of physics...and so what?
Sound waves in air do not get modulated by a constant frequency rate though....

[Lt. Bob]

Originally posted by jake-owa
Don't tell us what you have heard is supposed to be Bob, tell us what you've heard yourself man.

OK,.....well to tell the truth....to me the analog (vinyl) almost always sounds better. Now remember, we're talking about 16 bit/44.1 sampling rate here. And you can make a very strong argument that the old 'Red Book' standard is inferior to good analog. Note that I said good analog. I can take one of my records and record it to CD thru my tascam burners' 24 bit A/D and I always hear a slight loss in resolution. It just doesn't have as much 'air' for lack of a better word.
I understand that there are people who deny that such subtle things exist and some even get mad about it for some reason....but all I can say is that I know what I hear and I can't ignore my own ears, ya' know? You can make a strong argument that analog has greater resolution than 16/44.1. It absolutely has a greater dynamic range.

I don't have enough experience with the more modern formats such as SACD or 24/96 to be able to comment but Stereophile's various reviewers, whom I trust and respect, have all said that the newer formats manage to capture those elusive subtleties that 16/44.1 misses. And these are people who have been staunch analog supporters because of the sound......so if they say that 24/96 can capture the details as well as analog; I have to believe there's something to it. I've learned an enormous amount about sound from that magazine and the website.

I don't care to get in arguments about the subject though.....the fact is that all of the gear we have available to us now is easier to work with;....has way more features,......and is cheaper by orders of magnitude than what was available to us 33 years ago when I first started recording.....and I'm enjoying the progress.
I have a wonderful VPI turntable and a semi-expensive stand-alone phono stage and I guaruntee you that if you've never heard vinyl on a good rig, you'll be shocked at how good it sounds; but who the hell can afford a good 2" machine and the constant stream of expensive-ass tapes it gobbles up? Not me, that's for sure.
For some reason though, talking about analog vs digital arouses the same sort of emotions as religious discussions....I don't know why.

[jake-owa]

Good post Bob.

ANY versus debate will do that man....it's just that I wasn't intending a debate.

I dig digital in fact I have a slogan that goes under my logo that goes a bit like this...

OtherWorldsAudio
Digital is the Goddess, analog is king....forget about that bulshit, open your mouth and sing.