Analog or Digital?

mshilarious said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lucky for me, I have a 24 track 2" MCI, 2 Fostex 16 track 1/2", 1 Nakamichi cassette and a Studer 1/4" mix down R-R. My dig system is a Fostex D2424LV 24 track HD.

I record on whatever the people want. The sound is not even an issue as I can't even tell over time what is recorded on what (except the Fostex E-16s).

The reality:
Fostex D2424LV - 3 years old, used quite a bit - zero $$$ in maint.
Fostex E-16s - 20 years old - Heads lapped, need alignment tape, need tape to record all the time - Lapping = $475, alignment tape = $135, align 2-3 times/year - plenty of time = $$$

MCI JH24 2" - 26 years old - heads lapped = $800, alignment tape = $575, needs alignment 2-3 times/week (or every session depending on portability of project). Tape = $275/reel.

Cost of digital in my studio = 0 (if customer does not want their own HD)
Cost of Analog in my studio = Tape (from $65-$275/reel), maint.such as aligning, cleaning, waiting for rewind, cues, etc.

So, the sound of these two formats, if you have decent comparable equipment, is about the same as it gets. The cost (overall) of analog tape equipment is much higher (due to the age of the machines and maint. issues).

Now, if you do little time in a HR environment, both can serve you well. The only hassle is when a tape machine breaks down, the majority of the owners have no idea how to fix it. Down is down. The DAW is mainly a computer hardware thing and most all can be solved with cheap replacement stuff found at Comp USA. The one you pick is dependent on what hassle you are willing to accept. Analog machines are only available on the second hand market and you can't just buy one now and expect it to actually work. It is a gamble if you don't have substantial knowledge in this area. You may buy a machine and never get it working right, if at all.

So, what you want and when you want it dictates which format you go with.
 
A random update to this thread: tonight, I finally got my new old turntable hooked up. I was waiting on a backordered phono pre . . . anyway, so I'm doing the first direct vinyl to CD comparison in a proper room with very good monitoring :)

Thus far I have concluded something: I really hope something is wrong with the stylus. It is old. I tried to buy a new one, but somehow in carefully trying to make Shure ;) I got a compatible stylus, I didn't :( and I bought the expensive one :( :(

So anyway, old stylus. I don't have a lot of LPs and CDs in common. The best I could do on short notice was a Beach Boys track, "Little Deuce Coupe", on LP--the Ronco "Super Hits" collection, vs the CD of "Endless Summer".

First, it was obvious that "Endless Summer" was a remaster--crest factor of a still reasonable 15dB, vs. the LP's 18dB. Wow. You just don't get 18dB crest factors anymore :(

So that needed to be taken into consideration. Also, I haven't tested this little ART phono pre I got, although I had a peek at the circuit and it seems reasonable. Other notes; I know the turntable itself is performing reasonably, because the pitch of the LP is dead on the CD, and shows no sign of warbling.

Unfortunately, this LP is not in good shape (I got it when I was 8, gimme a break!). But that one track was skip-free :o

OK, enough preliminaries: my observations: the LP was brittle, tubby, and distorted compared with the CD. First, I normalized RMS between the two to give a fair comparison. But the highs on the LP are poor. S sounds are rendered as Z. The tubby lows--the attack on the kick is gone, blended too closely with the bass to distinguish. The CD suffers from no such problems.

So, what have I proven so far? Well, not much really. I still need a better condition LP, a new stylus, and a test of this ART box. I'll work on that. But so far, I feel pretty much the same way as I did in 1988--LPs are distorted compared with CDs, at least on average consumer gear (my digital chain is decidedly not average, but I forced the LP through to same chain to eliminate conversion as a source of the difference).

Right now I'm listening to Carol King, one from my parent's LP collection. I don't have this CD, but it's a good record. Wouldn't really matter if it was analog or digital.

This doesn't have anything to do with recording on tape, but hey, I didn't bump this thread :D
 
Ive recently got into vinyl. i now own a Fisher 400 with NOS tubes receiver. a Marantz T-15 turntable that came with an $800 cartridge and a pair of Dynaco A25 speakers from the 70s.

The biggest factor in great vinyl sound in my experience has been quality of the vinyl records and a good record cleaner. the record cleaner is a big deal . i use a VPI (forgot the exact model #) but it has a built in wet dry vac. it really makes a huge difference and now i have a hard time listening to CDs.




mshilarious said:
A random update to this thread: tonight, I finally got my new old turntable hooked up. I was waiting on a backordered phono pre . . . anyway, so I'm doing the first direct vinyl to CD comparison in a proper room with very good monitoring :)

Thus far I have concluded something: I really hope something is wrong with the stylus. It is old. I tried to buy a new one, but somehow in carefully trying to make Shure ;) I got a compatible stylus, I didn't :( and I bought the expensive one :( :(

So anyway, old stylus. I don't have a lot of LPs and CDs in common. The best I could do on short notice was a Beach Boys track, "Little Deuce Coupe", on LP--the Ronco "Super Hits" collection, vs the CD of "Endless Summer".

First, it was obvious that "Endless Summer" was a remaster--crest factor of a still reasonable 15dB, vs. the LP's 18dB. Wow. You just don't get 18dB crest factors anymore :(

So that needed to be taken into consideration. Also, I haven't tested this little ART phono pre I got, although I had a peek at the circuit and it seems reasonable. Other notes; I know the turntable itself is performing reasonably, because the pitch of the LP is dead on the CD, and shows no sign of warbling.

Unfortunately, this LP is not in good shape (I got it when I was 8, gimme a break!). But that one track was skip-free :o

OK, enough preliminaries: my observations: the LP was brittle, tubby, and distorted compared with the CD. First, I normalized RMS between the two to give a fair comparison. But the highs on the LP are poor. S sounds are rendered as Z. The tubby lows--the attack on the kick is gone, blended too closely with the bass to distinguish. The CD suffers from no such problems.

So, what have I proven so far? Well, not much really. I still need a better condition LP, a new stylus, and a test of this ART box. I'll work on that. But so far, I feel pretty much the same way as I did in 1988--LPs are distorted compared with CDs, at least on average consumer gear (my digital chain is decidedly not average, but I forced the LP through to same chain to eliminate conversion as a source of the difference).

Right now I'm listening to Carol King, one from my parent's LP collection. I don't have this CD, but it's a good record. Wouldn't really matter if it was analog or digital.

This doesn't have anything to do with recording on tape, but hey, I didn't bump this thread :D
Click to expand...
 
Rickson Gracie said:
Ive recently got into vinyl. i now own a Fisher 400 with NOS tubes receiver. a Marantz T-15 turntable that came with an $800 cartridge and a pair of Dynaco A25 speakers from the 70s.

The biggest factor in great vinyl sound in my experience has been quality of the vinyl records and a good record cleaner. the record cleaner is a big deal . i use a VPI (forgot the exact model #) but it has a built in wet dry vac. it really makes a huge difference and now i have a hard time listening to CDs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely need a vac. But a lot of this confirms what I remember from the '80s: if you had perfect vinyl in perfect condition with really expensive gear, it sounded good, otherwise it was just not good really at all.

Still waiting on my new cartridge, and I need to find a record cleaner . . .

One thing I've noted from microphones is that many people really don't like accurate high-frequency response, or sometimes any high-frequency response at all. I get lots of people saying a flat-response mic has "scooped mids". Hello, flat response! But what happens is a psychoacoustic effect; you add in accurate transient response and frequency response over 15kHz, and for some people it masks the low-midrange. Time was many people didn't have speakers that could reproduce those frequencies well, but if you have good monitors, suddenly you hear that, and digital becomes "cold".

So one day I rolled off some highs, and instantly the mics become "warm" . . . go figure.
 
pipelineaudio said:
If you are putting in decent time you're changing heads every 2-3 years. We had two rooms and multiple machines and we STILL had to change them often. Any other studio will tell you the same thing. Its not about improper tape tensions its just that wear is a fact of life.

Before JRF came along we were scrounging like mad to not blow so much of the studio budget on heads
Click to expand...


That seems excessive. When I first started out in mastering I was making 1/2" 4 track bin loop masters on a Studer A80 and in 5 years we only needed to change the heads once. And that machine was run at least 5-6 hrs per shift for 3 full shifts a day for 2 years and 2 shifts a day for 3 years not counting weekend OT.

At the next studio I worked, we had an Otari something or the other 1/2" for bin loop masters and that ran 5-6 hrs per shift 2 shifts a day plus OT and weekend OT. In my 8 years there, the heads never needed replacing and only to be relapped a couple of times.

On the flip side, my Otari mirror master video machine needed the scanner refurbed at least twice a year at $2k per pop and more than 3 times that for a replacement which we did once for each scanner type in my 8 years there.
 
Analog sounds warm.

And punchy.

Digital is cold, sterile and harsh.

:D

He he. Remember the good 'old days of endless arguments and debates of "analog versus digital?" Like a good stroll through memory lane.
 
pipelineaudio said:
YOU do the math

JUST the rent: 5k per month. At 50 bucks an hour, thats 100 hours a month JUST to clear the rent

JUST 100 hours a month comes out to new heads in just under 3 years. Now lets add the amount of hours to clear salaries, buy gear, pay insurance, maintain stuff. So if you want to say the machine is only going 1/4 of that time? Fine, its still over in 3 years tops

Im not saying its a bad thing, Im just saying its a real thing. If you arent using your machine much your heads will last a very long time
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? This is home recording. We're not talking professional studios here.
 
As an end user with high end audio since the 60's, with R2R, cassette, CD, Stand alone HD recorder, MD, DAT, TT, FM, HiFi-VHS, PC and other sources...............all in the highest quality and sounding better than everything but one set-up I ever listened to, I want to contribute here with a comment.

Aiming production on the biggest number of consumers there's no way around digital media.

Aiming production at the highest level of sound quality, the media is R2R and second best is LP.

You can pull out better sound than the best ever CD quality from a cassette deck if you choose the right one.

Using digital sound is giving more convenience, editing options and lazyness.
Analogue sound is "hard work". You have to turn the LP or change the tape every once in a while....................

But I assure you, the most dedicated "feinschmeckers" music lovers with the best equipment in the end user market, will want Reel Tapes as media for the best experience. Second best is LP. Don't use cassette tapes as a production media. People want to record it themselves from LP or R2R...........or even from CD.

Nevertheless, if you put your money where your mouth is, you just continue making over-compressed, loudness spoiled digital sound.

:-)

"dolph"
 
niklasthedolphi said:
As an end user with high end audio since the 60's, with R2R, cassette, CD, Stand alone HD recorder, MD, DAT, TT, FM, HiFi-VHS, PC and other sources...............all in the highest quality and sounding better than everything but one set-up I ever listened to, I want to contribute here with a comment.

Aiming production on the biggest number of consumers there's no way around digital media.

Aiming production at the highest level of sound quality, the media is R2R and second best is LP.

You can pull out better sound than the best ever CD quality from a cassette deck if you choose the right one.

Using digital sound is giving more convenience, editing options and lazyness.
Analogue sound is "hard work". You have to turn the LP or change the tape every once in a while....................

But I assure you, the most dedicated "feinschmeckers" music lovers with the best equipment in the end user market, will want Reel Tapes as media for the best experience. Second best is LP. Don't use cassette tapes as a production media. People want to record it themselves from LP or R2R...........or even from CD.

Nevertheless, if you put your money where your mouth is, you just continue making over-compressed, loudness spoiled digital sound.

:-)

"dolph"
Click to expand...

What? Your points seem to make little to no sense. What does overcompressed, loud sound have anything to do with digital? I can do the exact same thing with analog. :confused:
 
MCI2424 said:
What? Your points seem to make little to no sense. What does overcompressed, loud sound have anything to do with digital? I can do the exact same thing with analog. :confused:
Click to expand...

Point is that mainstream digital productions are spoiled by non-skilled naive self-obsessed and self-taught button-freaks bad hearing sound engineers and that when the production is the best high-end the analog is by far superior.

"dolph"
 
Mainstream or audio engineering in general, is reflective of the same "good enough" short term thinking that is part of every other business right now.

It sucks because suck people are making it for suck people. It has nothing to do with analog or digital
 
pipelineaudio said:
Mainstream or audio engineering in general, is reflective of the same "good enough" short term thinking that is part of every other business right now.

It sucks because suck people are making it for suck people. It has nothing to do with analog or digital
Click to expand...

I did take note of the fact that the Chesky brothers (Chesky Records) have recently moved from analog to digital with a Mytek 8 channel interface. They have very high standards of audio quality every step of the way.

Cheers,

Otto
 
niklasthedolphi said:
Point is that mainstream digital productions are spoiled by non-skilled naive self-obsessed and self-taught button-freaks bad hearing sound engineers and that when the production is the best high-end the analog is by far superior.

"dolph"
Click to expand...


I guess I don't quite get your post. Non-skilled people on analog or digital sound the same: Non-skilled recordings. The best digital eqiuipment sound the same as the best quality analog equipment if a skilled engineer is using it. Your assumption is that a PC with a soundblaster card is equivillent to a Studer 24 track analog deck. This analog vs digital battle is so old. When the latest digital technology is available on eBay for pennies on the dollar, people will learn otherwise. Until then, please put that PC with the soundblaster card against a cassette based porta-studio if you must do an analog vs digital shootout. The digital will still probably win out in several catagories.
 
MCI2424 said:
I guess I don't quite get your post. Non-skilled people on analog or digital sound the same: Non-skilled recordings. The best digital eqiuipment sound the same as the best quality analog equipment if a skilled engineer is using it. Your assumption is that a PC with a soundblaster card is equivillent to a Studer 24 track analog deck. This analog vs digital battle is so old. When the latest digital technology is available on eBay for pennies on the dollar, people will learn otherwise. Until then, please put that PC with the soundblaster card against a cassette based porta-studio if you must do an analog vs digital shootout. The digital will still probably win out in several catagories.
Click to expand...

NO

That is NOT my assumption.
Don't you put words of opinion into my mouth.

I am fully aware of the differences in between digital and analogue.

I am the lucky owner of very well sounding gear of both.

I am no studio owner.
Nevertheless I have sound for beyond £ 75.000,-....................in purchasing price ..................... most of it is used gear that I spent decades of detective work to find.

I've been using R2R gear since the sixties, TT's from the same time and never had any pauses in the use of it.
I have been using digital gear since before market launch in the function of being Audio/visuel consultant for the public services in my home country.

Furthermore my studio activities startet in the 70's.
I was just asked for to do radio broadcasting techs and master recordings at live and studio events.
Still do.....................when I feel like it.

Digital hardware is only back-up for me.
Because of lack of sound quality.

Find the level and we can continue the discussion.

"dolph"
 
niklasthedolphi said:
NO

That is NOT my assumption.
Don't you put words of opinion into my mouth.

I am fully aware of the differences in between digital and analogue.

I am the lucky owner of very well sounding gear of both.

I am no studio owner.
Nevertheless I have sound for beyond £ 75.000,-....................in purchasing price ..................... most of it is used gear that I spent decades of detective work to find.

I've been using R2R gear since the sixties, TT's from the same time and never had any pauses in the use of it.
I have been using digital gear since before market launch in the function of being Audio/visuel consultant for the public services in my home country.

Furthermore my studio activities startet in the 70's.
I was just asked for to do radio broadcasting techs and master recordings at live and studio events.
Still do.....................when I feel like it.

Digital hardware is only back-up for me.
Because of lack of sound quality.

Find the level and we can continue the discussion.

"dolph"
Click to expand...
You must have a cheap digital setup. Ever try RADAR Nyquist?

I can assure you, they sound exactly like a well setup Studer 24 track tape deck.

Further more. I own several analog and a digital HD recorder and I have yet to have a sigle person tell me which one was used to record any given song.
 
MCI2424 said:
You must have a cheap digital setup. Ever try RADAR Nyquist?

I can assure you, they sound exactly like a well setup Studer 24 track tape deck.

Further more. I own several analog and a digital HD recorder and I have yet to have a sigle person tell me which one was used to record any given song.
Click to expand...

Maybe you just do not have adequate surrounding set-up or ears to reveal differences.
Wouldn't surprise me.

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