Analog Fever!

I understand what Gilwe is saying.

English and Canadian may not be his primary language. Just guessing.


Bruce...time for you to have offspring ;) Seriously, having kids has made it easier to decipher just about any sentance spoken or written. Having to check my daughter homework has made it easier to read Doctors prescription singatures too.


Simply put, the "character" of analog recordings have a "smoothness" that digital converters have a hard time reproducing. ADC's or DAC's have a predetermined bandwidth and algorithms that nearly never reproduce the source as accurately as a high end tape machines. Go guy yourself a used MCI JH24 or an Otari MX80, Studer A827...etc and do some serious a/b comparisons. Your familiar with the term Digititus. I know Bruce that you've read Bob K's book and understand the limitations anti-aliasing and frequency bins. I just look at how a 20hz sine wave sample and its obvious why digital always lacks low end, oh then add a jittery clock to that sample.. Digital also cuts off higher order hamonics because its above the 20khz brickwall.
I have complaints about lots of things with digital, and I have lots of complaints with analog. Nothing is perfect. And everyone understands differently because experience is never identical. I have a digital 8 track (MD8) and its great for writing and recording ideas, maybe even good enough for a demo. I also have a E16 1/2 as I've said before and have done several demo's on it. Ive worked with ADAT on demo's and 2" 16 track machines too. Each had a different character and if it was possible Id have all of them if it were not for sync nightmares and the dough to own them. I think the biggest gains will be from the signal chain befreo it gets to what ever medium you choose. Garbage in and Garbage out. Sorry to say this, but a Kari-choke me mic into a $69.00 preamp into a Neve VR60 onto 2" tape will still sound like a Kari-choke me Mic into a $69.00 preamp for the most part. Id still rather be recording on a porta studio than not recording at all, so I do what I gotta do to do it.
Within 5 years I predict the Bruce has a differnt desk and recorder for Studio A and the Mackie gets retired to Studio B :D
That where IM heading:p

SoMm
 
I too understood what he ment. It's still basically bullshit however, and sounds like something an audiophile dealer would say when he tries to skin you. And it still cracks me up. I would have it as a signatur if I didn
t think people would take me seriously. :)
 
If you think engineers sometimes overstate their true abilities
and worth then what about disc jockeys!

Anybody listening to some of them would think that THEY were
the musicians instead of the silly prats that just play the music.
 
ADATs

I dont understand why anyone would ever bother with ADATs, or any digital tape format for that matter. . seems like an anathema, kills the main advantage of digital (non-linearity, ease of editing)! I guess its like protools or whatever, a legacy thing, the "first thing out" that became a standard so everyone has to use it. . (I make the comparison to Protools because of what I consider to be a horrid, shareware-esque interface. . )

But really, what is the freaking point of digital tape?
 
Re: ADATs

Audio_Drivel said:
But really, what is the freaking point of digital tape?
Click to expand...
Hard disk recording wasn't viable (or inexpensive enough) as a storage medium in the early digital days - tape made for a very cost-effective and reasonably reliable storage device.
 
I don't want to argue with any of the "digi nuts"....I just want to say for my purposes analog works best for recording, mixing, etc. down to getting that final sound I want to hear. From there I go to the puter and put it on CD, which is a fine way to play the music but it seems too "dry" for recording. Most of what I record is one take, in one room, with the whole band playing at one time. Sure, some touch up work follows like adding extra vocals or an extra instrument but I do all that on tape before loading it into the puter. This system has and is being used by a lot of other people too and the results are both a good quality sound and more fun for everyone involved. Also by working out the "bugs" on analog the musicians have a lot more say about what the final mix sounds like, I just don't trust some so called enginere to fiddle around with the sounds that I've worked to get to right to me.
 
When you say "analog works for me" exactly what "analog" are you referring to? Budget reel-to-reel or analog PortaStudio is not comparable to even modest digital recording formats in terms of sound quality "potential"!
 
Hello Bruce and everyone.
Music is perfectly acceptable to many people, regardless of the recording medium or level of quality, as many people listen to AM radio. Modern recording for sales is at the top end of the quality subjectivitiy. However, there are aspects of recording quality, that are subjectively less quality, but no less acceptable as a form of media to store recordings, and playback for enjoyment, reference, and any number of reasons to use them. To say that the use of equipment, formats or media that does not perform at high end criteria is not valid, is simply untrue.
Unless every single person, has the same motives, aspirations, reasons, skill level, financial ability, and sound recording knowledge, the wholesale elimination of anything below high end perfomance rating is not valid. What is valid, as you point out, is the rational that you can attain the same results with low end capabilitys as high end capability.
However, even the best equiped, designed, and staffed stuios in the world are not created equal. A very talented engineer would certainly have better results using a porta studio, than the best trained babboon using an SSL.
I think subjectivity of quality is a subject for discussion here and break down. Many A/D wars have been fought here and elsewhere, simply because some people are misinformed/ myths propogate exponentially, apples are compared to oranges, and the only reasons they exist in the first place, are based on incorrect or misaligned information and opinion.
As a reader of high end engineering forums, I personally have come to the conclusion that high end analog is still the format of choice, for those that have the responsibility and capability to track, mix, and prepare Label level recording media for HIGH END MASTERING and duplication. Not that there are no camps that rebuke that opinion, I draw my own conclusion ONLY from reading ME explainations of the requirements of media prepared for Mastering, and what the majority of opinions that I HAVE READ catagorically rebuff digital as a media to provide for HIGH END MASTERING. THEY STILL PREFER ANALOG.
Not that all media the ME receives are analog. From my understanding, digital is actually the media ME houses receive the most of, but in a form that has the LEAST number of conversion processes. For those who provide a mixdown on CD, the mastering engineer cannot improve the recording. Only provide the other services that ME houses normally associate with mastering. And to provide the master to the duplication house, in a form best suited for duplication to what ever media is being replicated. However, I read time and again, that ME houses still PREFER, 1/2" analog media, for mastering from. 1/4" at the minimum. Dat, and other digital media are accepted, and as long as it has a one time conversion to 24 bit, they can improve the quality, and dither(?) to 16 bit for CD replication, but not being a digital oriented recordist, and having NO experience at that level, be it analog or digital, cannot qualify those statements with fact.
So, with that as MY orientation, I steadfastly refuse to disillusion people as to the use of ANY recording format, equipment, techniques, media and what ever else anyone cares to use, as they are the one who must determine by experience, wheather or not they need or even desire to acheive results aimed at the same target as a world class recording facility.
The bottom line is this. Home recording is attempted and habitually exploited at many many levels, in terms of equipment, rooms, and skills. If it were all defined as hoplessly impossible to ENJOY the experience as well as results, there wouldn't be a single company to chase sales in lower etchelon price point equipment. There simply wouldn't be any. So to you recording enthusiasts who do not yet possess the SSL's and 2" tape machines, and PROTOOLS processing power, do not dispair. WHO CARES?
Have fun, learn, improve, learn, improve, learn, improve........HAVE FUN! Otherwise,
get on with getting a job a facility that has this capability, become an AE, or if you are not happy with the quality you get with your present setup, upgrade till you are, or simply go to a local studio and pay them to record what you want. YOUR the one to decide if what you have recorded CUTS THE MUSTARD, if its only you, you must satisfy.
However, when it comes to satisfying a client, then you have opened the door to commerce. Commerce means competition. Commerce means you must satisfy someone elses criteria. Commerce means meeting standards. And once you understand your competition, and standards, you will have changed your understanding of recording forever, and adapt accordingly. There STILL has been no correlation proved, between what sells as music, and the quality base of recordings. People buy music for the songs. Not the studio it was recorded in, because they ALL would have recorded it differently. The quality of the recording itself does have a bearing. No one purchases music that is unlistenable. Although that would seem to be the case according to what I have read recently, when even AE's are complaining.
And even though top notch tracking, and mixdown takes place, is no garantee that the final product is acceptable even to you, if sold to a label, and mastered. Current Label mastering and recording trends have now reached critical mass, as producers, and Labels, by thier sheer marketing ability, can now dictate to the ME houses, that they want the masters, "LOUD". Which in some respects, negates the use of high end tracking and mixing equipment and techniques, as all that matters is SALES of contemporary music which use radio play as the defining criteria for mastering. Current label philosophy leans heavily towards mastering to achieve the "loudest record on the air" so to speak. Which basically means there is "no dynamic range". And that totally negates the need for said high end gear, because if all sounds recorded are compressed to the point where you have no need for dynamic range, and even clipped, then it is approaching the point of where enjoyment of the music is even being destroyed. You simply cannot listen to it. So if thats where modern recording is headed, the notion of having things mastered for quality becomes a myth itself, as even ME's are now recognizing their future is in dire straights. So relax, enjoy yourself, and have fun. Don't let overzealous critique negate your desire to participate in home recording, regardless of the quality. Sure, everyone wants to do the best they can, and reach the golden quality we sense we are after. Just be realistic, and you can
reach a level far beyond what some people think you cannot, and have fun in the process. My .02
fitz.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
When you say "analog works for me" exactly what "analog" are you referring to? Budget reel-to-reel or analog PortaStudio is not comparable to even modest digital recording formats in terms of sound quality "potential"!
Click to expand...

I challenge you to make a Soundblaster card sound as good as my Fostex A-8LR! :)

But OK, if you by "format" mean bits/frequency, then yes, the best 16bit 44.1kHz stuff will probably sound much better than my A-8. But that is really comparing apples and oranges.
 
That's why I put the word "potential" in there.... even budget digital has the advantage of extremely low-noise and zero wow and flutter, which on their own, are significant improvements especially over budget-analog formats.
 
So you are comparing apples and oranges and your point therefore was well, pointless. :)

OK, just wanted to make sure. :)
 
No.......... my point was that with budget digital you have a much better shot at decent sounding results than you do with budget analog. Period.
 
Ah, Ok.

I'm not sure I agree. You pretty much get what you pay for all over. Analog has higher running costs, though.

------------

Oh, wait, I'm probably comparing the second hand budget analog prices with new budget digital prices, and that's a bit unfair.

Yeah, you probably are right. Digital is a bit cheaper per "sound quality unit". It's not that much though (unless you count computer recording, but don't include the computer and the software in the cost ;) )

However, if you want to match not just sounds but other features, then you probably are back at zero again, since you suddenly will have to buy the digital stuff separately (ie an ADAT or a HD recorder, instead of an 8-track porta).
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
No.......... my point was that with budget digital you have a much better shot at decent sounding results than you do with budget analog. Period.
Click to expand...
ie - can you get a better result with a 4-track cassette recorder, or a 4-track uncompressed-audio digital recorder?!?! (they both have similar limitations as far as poor signal chain - the cassette having bad pres and relatively low recorded-audio specs -- the digi unit having bad pres, poor converters, but high-quality recorded-audio specs)

At least with the digital unit, you can likely bypass the pres and converters (using better ones)... with the portastudio, it doesn't matter how good the signal chain before it is, you're still crippled by the poor specs of 4-track cassette-based audio!
 
Well, yes, the limitation in analog formats are in the format itself, while in digital, it's usually in some sort of implementation of the format, ie AD/DA or mixers and stuff. On the other hand, the tape medium is an implementation of the format, and it's probably the biggest part of the limitation. In theory, you can get any kind of excellent sound out of a casette tape, as long as you just can get enough magnetism onto that narrow strip of tape. :)

So comparing the theoretical limitations of formats is rather pointless. The only reasonable thing to compare is what you get per dollar.

And then you are right, in the budget range, you get more sound per dollar with digital.
 
This discussion between Bruce and Regebro brought to mind how severly the budget digital forced the budget analog down the quality meter. Compare the $99.00 dollar 4 track porta-studio with something like the Zoom Digital 4 tracks which are cheaper than what I paid for my first Yamaha 4 track decades ago, without the inherent noise of bias.
Now its funny to see people still asking for $1000 for an ADAT XT, where $3000 gets you 24 tracks without a controller. If you do research you can track down a 24 track analog 2" machine for not too much more. Man its hard to see all these great products selling for so much less than what you paid. Lets see...3 XT's for $3000 or 1 Mackie Hardisk recorder. No lock up glitches, no tapes. But hey...digital dropouts or other anomalies can happen. Nothing is perfect.
If I had the money Im sure I would own 3 or 4 different recording formats. For now its narrow format 16 track machine, hopefully I will move into a 24 tracks Hardisk recorder in 2004 or 2005. Nice fat analog board to go with it.
Makes me feel warm and fuzzy thinking about it.

SoMm
 
regebro said:
In theory, you can get any kind of excellent sound out of a casette tape, as long as you just can get enough magnetism onto that narrow strip of tape.
Click to expand...
And don't forget the horrible wow and flutter you'd get on those budget analog units.... even the cheapest digital format won't have that issue (although it will have jitter - but that's not quite the same thing!)
 
Last edited:
Hey SMM, clear me up here. If your going digital HD, why use an analog board?
I'm a little confused on this issue. I was under the impression that analog tape is the thing everybody wants the digital to sound like. With an analog board, and digital HD, that seems like you have to D/A to mix, which is one more conversion. Then, mix to what? tape or back to HD, which gives another A/D, or mix in a computer from a dedicated HD?. I guess what I'm trying to say is what sequence are you aiming at SoMm?
I too have a hybrid set up, but have not completely set up the digital. Today I received my PC-90 daughtercard(Lexicon Reverb) that attaches to the Lexicon Core 32. NOW, I 'm going to try everything, Analog to analog tape, analog mixer to DAW, digital mixer to Daw, Digital Mix in Daw, Digital Mix in Digital Mixer, HD to analog, ha! this is for my own ears only, as I have no intention of selling time. My little ole studio is for fun, but I have everthing I need now. Maybe not 1" or 2" tape:rolleyes: or protools, but enough to learn, and give an opinion from a home recording perspective, as this is HR, not Prosound Web. I know this is a discussion about small format analog vs. small format digital. But why are these discussions always in the Analog forum. I Never see pro analog people in the digital forums throwing specs?:confused:
fitz
 
Hey Rick,

Digital Multitracking is really great for its flexibility and editing capabilities, but digital mixers have some problems in being able to combining 24 tracks mathmatically. Over at PSW and some of the other web boards there has been some testing going on in regards to how digital summing works. Its pretty scary when you see how digital mixers work on mixdown, even the higher end ones. Lots of truncations and interpolations that may not be easy to avoid if at all. One of the biggest complaint about Alsihad comes from the Pro-Control mixer itself. We all know that a decent analog consoles have an inherent character thats pleasing to the ear. For me, I like one knob per function, I like being able to read the console and know where Im at as far as effects, sends, eq, pads, etc, where as most digital consoles have one knob for several functions and you have to scroll screens to find out things. I may not have automation or scene memories but its not like I need to be in a hurry. Most of the hardisk recorders can do MTC. MIDI, etc so for triggering drum modules or whatever can be totally independent of the mixer. If you get a digital mixer and recorder, technology changes will always be more painful. Ask those who invested in PT right before PT went to the HD system, those who were primarily digital got sucker punched, and those who are analog still have the same bandwidth as the day before. While there is a big push to convert the big studios into Alsihad, because of editing time, its still a bad investment because your buying into disposable capital. Old PT systems aren't worth anything now. Studios that held onto 2" and ran a small PT system on the side lost less money than full up Digital houses. Technology changes cost money. A Neve VR80 will still be worth the same amount of money even after digital goes 32 bit/192 khz on a Sony DMS Quadzillion console. Another reason to keep the console analog is system integration. A Trident or API are huge, once you have wired everything and become familiar with how it works you become more efficient. Its really hard to wire a big desk too. I could swap a new HD recorder in probably under an hour, try that with a 48 input 8 buss analog desk. I want to move into a HD recorder for more tracks and less maintenance. If I want to record something fairly quick before an idea passes, loading tape takes too much time when your in a hurry, and of coarse tape costs and waiting for the tape to be delivered is a pain. I had to post pone a gig because the tape dealer is to far for me and UPS screwed up.

Just my point of view.

When I do mixdowns, I mix to a ADC at 24/96khz if its going to a Mastering House, or 16/44.1 khz for one-off karioke singers.

Its all about personal taste and the size of your funding. I operate on a referral basis only. Everyone knows I do vocal work, instrumentals and string quartets. Im the only one allowed to do metal:p Since Im located at home I have to careful of the clients I allow into my home. I can't have people who are into illegal activies jeapordizing my family. For fun only. I grew tired of the late hours, obnoxious band managers and vocalists who degraded everyone. I grew tired of working on the clock to point that music was no longer enjoyable.

My dream rig... is Yamaha PM2000 and an 2" 16 track- sonically speaking. But its not very cost effective, so in reality Ill be using a HD recorder and maybe a PM2000 in the next few years.

SoMm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top