Analog or Digital?

[dodgeaspen]

Hey Alfred, I've got the setup you are considering...Mackie 24.8 to an Alesis HD24, all outboard processing with a trip to the TASCAM 32 1/4" reel for mixdown. It works great, and I don't have to click a mouse to get my knobs to turn.

I know this thread is a bit old but this post is a good one.

 

[mshilarious]

Just like a Pro Fools digital person to get it all wrong. Analog might take longer to use but sounds better then anything you can do..... LONG LIVE ANALOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's been crying for the last sixteen months waiting for you to bust on him

 

[cjacek]

Just like a Pro Fools digital person to get it all wrong. Analog might take longer to use but sounds better then anything you can do..... LONG LIVE ANALOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, why dredge this up for no apparent reason other than to stir up problems? This topic has been beaten to the ground, over and over, in this and other threads and I sure as hell would not mind if it never popped up again. Give it a rest already.

 

[darrin_h2000]

You have to admire the analog guys...Its like the early christians...back then there were no churches or TV shows...they all went door to door like Jehovahs Witnesses.

So all those old tape guys are like the Mormans doing things the hard way...so dont run over them on thier bicycles...and feel a little guilt when they ring your door and you pretend like there is noone home.

 

[dodgeaspen]

Seriously, why dredge this up for no apparent reason other than to stir up problems? This topic has been beaten to the ground, over and over, in this and other threads and I sure as hell would not mind if it never popped up again. Give it a rest already.

I was not intending to puke anyone out cjacek. I read the post and wanted to respond to it. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS......

 

[Cyrokk]

I'm thinking of re-doing my console set up but I can't decide between analog or digital. I was thinking about getting either a Zoom HD 16CD or a Korg D-888 or maybe get both of them used. The other option that I'm thinking about is getting a Digital Multitrack Recorder like the Alesis ADAT and an analog mixer like the Mackie 24x8. If anyone has any comments or suggestions, please reply.

IMO a digital/analog hybrid is the way to go. My setup is an ADAT XT through a lightpipe into Reaper and 16 analog outputs to a Studiomaster mixer. I've had the ADAT for over ten years and once a pc setup was within my price range, I stopped using the digital tape mechanism and now solely rely on the lightpipe, which pretty much stops wear and tear on the ADAT.

The upside is you can use digital effects, vsti's and editing on the pc, along with analog summing and manual fader automation (if you prefer) on the mixer.

The downside may be cost: while cheaper than good analog tracking equipment, getting the right soundcard and analog conversion can be costly. The other downside is that the initial routing can be a pain in the ass, but once it's done, it's done.

 

[cjacek]

I was not intending to puke anyone out cjacek. I read the post and wanted to respond to it. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS......

No one's ever going to win this argument nor convert anyone to their line of thinking. Threads like this almost always turn into shit throwing. That's what I'm saying. The quicker one realizes, the better.

 

[oretez]

you're right from the perspective that no double blind A/B test can ever be rigorously enough constructed to convince someone that thinks they have 'cat hearing' capabilities that in fact they have little or no discrimination above 15k (Hz)

and all recording formats have inherent deficiencies, all musical technology is to a degree culturally configured (an apocryphal story is that Brahms thought that 'reading' a score was an inherently superior aesthetic experience to listening to incoherent cacophony of a symphony performance, I have yet to meet anyone with both absolute and relative 'perfect' pitch who enjoys opera and I try to avoid and room where pre Vs. post Bach tonalities discussions are the rage) . . . so a pox on all your houses

but it is difficult to simply let stand, from someone posting on a 'recording' forum who states they have spent $120k+ on a 'listening' environment, claims that commercial cassette tape is inherently and absolutely a superior (not just a personal aesthetic choice) listening media to anything 'digital' (probably based on the 'holes' sampling swiss cheeses through the signal!). There are no 'physics', no independently duplicable scientific principle, to support that contention. That listener 'A' might prefer the subjective experience of listening to 'Y' media versus 'X' media says nothing about inherent value of any delivery, let alone production, process. To let the claims stand can unfortunately lend credibility to the idea that subjective aesthetic opinion is the same argument as 'objective' theory! And that, that value is the basis for discussion on the forum!

so yes these type of threads are ultimately pointless except, perhps, to be automatically shunted to link asserting that 'subjective' and 'objective' are not the same. Subjectively 'your' opinion carries at least as much weight as mine (probably more because my subjectivity is in constant flux). Objectively neither of our 'opinions' means squat. Unfortunately simply by repeating things often enough, in a tone of sufficient conviction it is quite possible to convince others (and ones self) that black is white, day is night, right is wrong, war is peace. That, too, is a neural, biochemical function, inherent and human. But those beliefs, to date (Da Vinci code not withstanding), do little to alter the actual signal to noise ratio of any pressure wave.

(oh, and I 'like' analog . . . through 2000 I was mixing, for the glass master, to 1/4 tape (Quantagy 499, which probably makes me a philistine for those that stuck with 456 and a dinosaur to those that migrated to GP9 (for which I found shedding to be problematic) . . . but to a degree finding the distortion inherent in tube and tape to be 'musical' is a function of my age, where I grew up and early emotional response to some musical events . . . none of the emotion is objectively transferable . . . but I still hear 'analog' as inherently 'musical' . . . intellectually I can 'know' that it is artifact not accurate transcription but aesthetically I like the artifact . . . I can, apparently, supply satisfying results for clients via digital . . . but stick a RCA 44b in a non parallel surfaced room with dimensions of more the 20 ft. per side (irregular geometry, wood surfaces) with a skilled practioner on an 1935 Epiphone Olympic archtop through a v72 into 1 in mono recorder and my mind just goes: 'Ahhh! Music!')

 

[mshilarious]

and all recording formats have inherent deficiencies, all musical technology is to a degree culturally configured (an apocryphal story is that Brahms thought that 'reading' a score was an inherently superior aesthetic experience to listening to incoherent cacophony of a symphony performance

From a platonic viewpoint he was probably correct. I have the same problem, but that is because of my lack of performance talent--there are actual musicians who could perform what is in my head. But at the level of the three Bs, perhaps that is not the case.

Also, I am reminded of a very funny thread in the Remote forum at GS titled something like "Why . . . WHY?!" where everybody posted their worst samples of hideous audience noise. A particular favorite story was one fellow who walked up near the microphones apparently for the express purpose of coughing

PS I've never met anyone who enjoyed opera

 

[Mr. Honesty]

ziziyo

This is an old and tired debate. Lets just list the facts and be done with it:

1. Digital can be faster and cheaper, which is a major advantage to certain kinds of people.

2. Analog has certain sonic character that some people have to hear in their recordings or they dont enjoy them nearly as much.

3. None of this matters because 99 percent of people in these forums write terrible music and spend all of their time believing that recording equipment/methods/mediums will save their terrible songwriting ability, or the terrible songwriting ability of their "clients".

The proof of this is how few decent songs are actually created each year, despite the boom of the home recording industry and the ever increasing boundaries of state of the art recording studio sound. Both are at an alltime high, and yet almost all music coming out is terrible. What this translate to is that the convenience of digital doesnt necessarily translate to better music being created. What it also translates to is that all the magical vibe of funky analog doesnt fix crap songwriting either. I have been certain that a recording was digital and found out later that it was all analog and vice versa. Its such a waste of time to debate this beyond the facts.

I appreciate well written artistic music on either medium. Anyone who doesnt is free not to but is at a severe disadvantage both at understanding recorded music as an art form and finding personal enjoyment in recorded music as an art form.

 

[mshilarious]

The proof of this is how few decent songs are actually created each year, despite the boom of the home recording industry and the ever increasing boundaries of state of the art recording studio sound. Both are at an alltime high, and yet almost all music coming out is terrible.

I don't agree with that. Not my music, it is terrible. But other people's music, I've heard a ton of great stuff, and bought some very good CDs. cominginsecond and DavidK did CDs that are in as heavy rotation as anything major label in my collection. We did a free mastering clinic some years ago, and there was this one song called "Inside" or something like that, I still can't get over what a great song that was. Several of xfinsterx's tunes or production jobs in the old PMCs were excellent tunes as well. xfinsterx is more of a pro than a homereccer though . . .

The problem is it's way too hard to find the good stuff because the early model of mp3.com, which brought underground music to a single location, and provided functional charts and several other tools to find the good stuff imploded with the failure of said company, and the services that have replaced it haven't executed that concept as well. Mostly that is because of the need to make money, so the front pages are dedicated to major-label content. Back in the day, mp3.com had IPO money that they didn't mind blowing on music that was never going to see commercial success. It was a weird, wild time, but I could go into a subgenre and hit its Top 40 radio and listen all the way through, and it was all good stuff.

They also had a Bottom 40 category which was just hilarious. I love bad music

 

[crazydoc]

There was a lot of good music on mp3.com - I was blown away by all the well written and recorded songs out there. So many that none could ever become well known without a PR machine.

My favorite group was Zulu as Kono, and I still have a few excellent mp3's of theirs I downloaded from mp3.com, and listen to them several times a year. Never heard from them after that, though.

 

[gecko zzed]

There was a lot of good music on mp3.com - I was blown away by all the well written and recorded songs out there. So many that none could ever become well known without a PR machine..

and

I don't agree with that. Not my music, it is terrible. But other people's music, I've heard a ton of great stuff, and bought some very good CDs.

are responses to:

3. None of this matters because 99 percent of people in these forums write terrible music and spend all of their time believing that recording equipment/methods/mediums will save their terrible songwriting ability, or the terrible songwriting ability of their "clients".

I believe both schools of thought are true, and that Mshilarious and Crazydoc's responses do not actually contradict Mr Honesty's observation.

There is a lot of fine, home-crafted music out there, written, performed and recorded amazingly well . . . a 'ton' of it, in fact. At Garageband.com, for example, you can get to hear some of these works, and I am staggered by the brilliance of the many good ones. But this creamy layer of excellence is floating on a vast bucket of milky dross; poorly written, cliche-ridden, badly performed and ineptly and unartistically recorded. This is a huge vat of un-talent, and like an iceberg, this ugly bulk sits below the waterline of musical acceptability.

The home recording business is doing exactly what we experienced with desktop publishing just on a couple of decades ago. Producing posters, pamphlets, magazines and other printed material became very easy to do, and printing houses around that era lost huge amounts of work to the do-it-yourself brigade. But 'easy to do' doesn't always translate to 'well done', and we saw a blooming of appallingly bad printwork, created by people with little or no graphical, layout, journalistic and linguistic or grammar skills.

Some twenty years later, printing houses have largely recovered after this structural upheaval, and the ones left are doing pretty well as astute people realise that perhaps some expertise in the field is desirable, and send their material off to printers who know what they are doing, rather than just doing it themselves because they can.

This sounds like I am anti-home recording (or anti home publishing), but I am not really. It is hugely satisfying to do something yourself, and as the others have observed, some have taken the time to learn not just how to use the technology, but how to use it exceptionally well. They have developed skills every bit as refined as those found in professional circles, and apply those skills well.

But there are many out there who are seekers of instant gratification; who want to produce great work (nothing wrong with that) but don't understand that great work requires skill, dedication and experience, and that the absence of succesful results or talent (even if not realised) is not overcome by throwing more technology at the problem.

For this reason I think the discussion about digital versus analog is largely irrelevant; that at the level we are mostly dealing with it makes little difference and that there are too many other factors that are more influential on quality. Where it does make a difference, the practitioners have already worked out for themselves the process that delivers the results they want.

 

[Beck]

You have to admire the analog guys...Its like the early christians...back then there were no churches or TV shows...they all went door to door like Jehovahs Witnesses.

So all those old tape guys are like the Mormans doing things the hard way...so dont run over them on thier bicycles...and feel a little guilt when they ring your door and you pretend like there is noone home.

What about the young tape guys?

And the early Christians didn't have bicycles; they drove Honda Accords. And they used to cram lots of people into them. It's in the New Testament, man… look it up!

"When the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with One Accord in one place."
Acts 2:1

 

[Beck]

No one's ever going to win this argument nor convert anyone to their line of thinking. Threads like this almost always turn into shit throwing. That's what I'm saying. The quicker one realizes, the better.

That's true, Daniel, but unfortunately it's because most of the participants know little to nothing about either digital or analog. It would be nice to have intelligent discussions without the stereotypes and all that, but when you count everyone with a PC and a sound card, the people who really understand anything about audio recording to any great depth comprise a very small minority.

And thus most of these conversations never move beyond what people think they know from marketing blurbs and glossy brochures.

 

[MCI2424]

No one's ever going to win this argument nor convert anyone to their line of thinking. Threads like this almost always turn into shit throwing. That's what I'm saying. The quicker one realizes, the better.

The argument will cease when the last tape machine crumbles to pieces. Since there are no new ones sold, it has to end one fine day. Until then, enjoy the analog tape machine for all its worth.

 

[MCI2424]

That's true, Daniel, but unfortunately it's because most of the participants know little to nothing about either digital or analog. It would be nice to have intelligent discussions without the stereotypes and all that, but when you count everyone with a PC and a sound card, the people who really understand anything about audio recording to any great depth comprise a very small minority.

And thus most of these conversations never move beyond what people think they know from marketing blurbs and glossy brochures.

It is with great thanks that most of the participants here are saved by the mighty ones with all the knowledge. Why you are here is a great mystery. If you want to talk in great depth about recording, there are many professional BBs sites. Maybe you should join one? This place is for Home Recording, the very definition of people with PCs, soundcards and many questions about how to sound better.

 

[Beck]

It is with great thanks that most of the participants here are saved by the mighty ones with all the knowledge. Why you are here is a great mystery. If you want to talk in great depth about recording, there are many professional BBs sites. Maybe you should join one? This place is for Home Recording, the very definition of people with PCs, soundcards and many questions about how to sound better.

Ha, I think many things are a great mystery to you, like about anything that has to do with recording. Without a good number of people that have been around a while in the recording industry the classroom would be run by perpetual noobs and pretenders like you.

LOL... Your perception that the web is divided into amateur and professional music forums is simply laughable. I frequent several forums. The range of knowledge and experience represented in those forums is roughly the same, regardless of what the forum is called. My comment about the participants applies to recording musicians in general everywhere, not just HR.

Anyone that thinks just because a form is called Pro Sound or whatever means that forum is for “Pros” is a verifiable dolt. WTF?

And home recording means different things to different people. I started recording professionally in 1978 and currently have a home/project studio for my own use. That’s right… "home recording" … how ‘bout that?

But the fact is the recording community is much larger due to all the new people getting the recording bug. It’s a simple matter of math that there are more people trying to figure things out than there are people that already know what they’re doing. But if they listen to people like you they will stay in the noob stage indefinitely. Maybe that's you want. others among us are trying to raise the bar here. That might mean you get left behind, and people that were noobs last year at this time have already surpassed you. Well, that's just too bad.

People like me come to this forum to connect with peers, and to help members get their heads around the art of recording, out of a spirit of volunteerism. We don’t get paid for this. We should not have to put up with trolls like you while providing all this free consulting. (So, how many times have you been banned over the years only to come right back with a new user ID? I've lost count).

 

[MCI2424]

Ha, I think many things are a great mystery to you, like about anything that has to do with recording. Without a good number of people that have been around a while in the recording industry the classroom would be run by perpetual noobs and pretenders like you.

LOL... Your perception that the web is divided into amateur and professional music forums is simply laughable. I frequent several forums. The range of knowledge and experience represented in those forums is roughly the same, regardless of what the forum is called. My comment about the participants applies to recording musicians in general everywhere, not just HR.

Anyone that thinks just because a form is called Pro Sound or whatever means that forum is for “Pros” is a verifiable dolt. WTF?

And home recording means different things to different people. I started recording professionally in 1978 and currently have a home/project studio for my own use. That’s right… "home recording" … how ‘bout that?

But the fact is the recording community is much larger due to all the new people getting the recording bug. It’s a simple matter of math that there are more people trying to figure things out than there are people that already know what they’re doing. But if they listen to people like you they will stay in the noob stage indefinitely. Maybe that's you want. others among us are trying to raise the bar here. That might mean you get left behind, and people that were noobs last year at this time have already surpassed you. Well, that's just too bad.

People like me come to this forum to connect with peers, and to help members get their heads around the art of recording, out of a spirit of volunteerism. We don’t get paid for this. We should not have to put up with trolls like you while providing all this free consulting. (So, how many times have you been banned over the years only to come right back with a new user ID? I've lost count).

Is there any reason you have to berate me (as well as others) in trying to make your point?

 

[mshilarious]

And thus most of these conversations never move beyond what people think they know from marketing blurbs and glossy brochures.

I recall one conservation where I posted lots of detailed analysis, including recordings of real-world acoustic sources, in an illustration of the (lack of) quantization distortion in digital sampling. No one responded to those audio files, nor the analysis thereof.