Just curious as to why still analog??

Dr ZEE said:
They are totally different beasts if you look at them from point of view of a professional recording studio engineer (or better say manager), yes, from that point they are - they are designed to serve the purpose of professional recording studio - satisfy the client weekdays through working hours year-round, while maintaining performance and prove its profitability.

From point of view of JUST a music producer.... they are the same - just gear, machines with a function(s).

In respect to a conversation we had, you said "You can't mix them up". Meaning what?
The guy is saying, that in 60s recording was HELL. It was too hard. Right? well, - let's say - right? Comparing to what? Comparing to the way recording is today? Well, you can maybe say it today.... but back in 60s - that's just the way it was. You don't know the future and how "easy" it is going to be.... so how on earth can you "feel" that it's 'HELL'.?

arghhhhhhhhhhh.... the whole blah is justa' blah... anyway

Now, what the heck all this has to do with "consumer" and "pro" machines... and how 'different beasts they are' .... You tell me :D ?

/respects
Click to expand...

Unless you have used them, you will never know what he was talking about. The problems with tape machines back then were plenty. The tape machine (when they sold them to the home recording market) were totally painless to use. The "consumer machines" did not exist back then. The "pro machines" were all they had.

Back then, recording was hell with those dinasours in most every area you could think of. You think of things like punching in as being no big deal. These old machines could not do it at all. One mistake = take two etc.
 
Why analog?
Give me vinyl records over CD or hard disk if it is simply a matter of sound preference anyday. There are nuances and details that a digital recording does not capture. These seemingly insignificant nuances give the overall music sound its character. Same with my guitar rig. I'll take my vintage stomp boxes in all their cumbersome glory against a POD anyday. It is about the tone and the overall sound product that is produced. Not that the good digital sounds bad, it just doesn't seem to capture the same character and energy as analog. If it is about sound only, and not convenience (can't imagine playing albums in my truck on the way in to work each day!), I'll take analog.
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
Did you ever wonder why people who are so fimly "digital" oriented, visit here so often? That tells me something. What the fuck do they care about analog.....unless.....their sonic tastebuds are still unhappy hmmm :D
fitZ
Click to expand...

Because I do both. Funny how a few of you think you own the forum, huh?

Why do you guys degrade every thread that you post in? I think it is better to get off of your high horses and at least *entertain* the thought of seeing the other side of things.

And now, you drop a snide comment for the others to think you are cool, and wait for the others to finish trashing what was a thread with some information in it.


And, lastly, it is people like you that will argue and argue with no facts other than your opinion, and when your opinion no longer bails you out of the discussion, you go crying to the moderator to save you.

Make an argument and back it up with facts or please don't post at all.

Make sense?
 
acorec said:
Unless you have used them, you will never know what he was talking about. The problems with tape machines back then were plenty. The tape machine (when they sold them to the home recording market) were totally painless to use. The "consumer machines" did not exist back then. The "pro machines" were all they had.

Back then, recording was hell with those dinasours in most every area you could think of. You think of things like punching in as being no big deal. These old machines could not do it at all. One mistake = take two etc.
Click to expand...

arghhhhhhh. does not look like i'm getting through here :(

what I'm saying is: It was Heaven in 60s, because guys back then were '"seeing Hell" as , let's say ...pre-bias mono recorders... or, ahhh... wire!, or what have you back in time - wax! :eek: .
One mistake = take two etc... - yes, that was no big deal - it was the way things "are"... that's how you do record - it's normal: no good playing - no record. (in a sense, I wish it was still like that nowdays ...heh heh :D )
**********
Unless you have used them, you will never know what he was talking about.

Yeah, I know.... I'll stay in the darkness. I'll never know. Dark secrets and mysteries of the past. vieeeeuuuuwwwww :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

/respects,
 
Quantagee said:
He is talking about "Bad (inexpensive) digital" vs. "Good (expensive) analog".

Bad anything is worse than good anything period.
Click to expand...

Well he’s talking about a lot of things, but no… the title is “Why Retro is Better and Cheaper.” The point being you can get better quality for less with analog than by mortgaging your house to buy the best digital available and that the performance/price advantage is with analog – that is the central theme of the article.

The article was also written when 16-bit was the cat’s meow and digital aficionados were espousing it like they do 20 and 24 bit today; neither of which have arrived as promised.

And hopefully no one missed the significance of this historical snapshot from 1997 and his reference to the rise of tube technology, and his statement that there is a lot more bad digital than good.

A few years after this article, Bob Orban had this to say about converters:

“There are almost no A/D converters that can achieve more than 20 bits of real accuracy, and many “24-bit” converters have accuracy considerably below the 20-bit level. “Marketing bits” in A/D converters are outrageously abused to deceive customers, and, if these A/D converters were consumer products, the Federal Trade Commission would doubtless quickly forbid such bogus claims.”

-Tim
 
acorec said:
Because I do both. Funny how a few of you think you own the forum, huh?

Why do you guys degrade every thread that you post in? I think it is better to get off of your high horses and at least *entertain* the thought of seeing the other side of things.

And now, you drop a snide comment for the others to think you are cool, and wait for the others to finish trashing what was a thread with some information in it.


And, lastly, it is people like you that will argue and argue with no facts other than your opinion, and when your opinion no longer bails you out of the discussion, you go crying to the moderator to save you.

Make an argument and back it up with facts or please don't post at all.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

damn you're a piece of shit. it is you that "degrades every thread you post in". who cares if people are not backing up their opinion with fact?? this thread started out asking for opinions. fucker.
 
Acorec, you obviously have a lot of knowledge, experience, and content to contribute in several areas, as I have read through some of your posts, but I disagree that anyone else is trashing this thread right now.
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
Did you ever wonder why people who are so fimly "digital" oriented, visit here so often? That tells me something. What the fuck do they care about analog.....unless.....their sonic tastebuds are still unhappy hmmm :D
fitZ
Click to expand...

That's a good point Rick. I started wondering the same thing, namely, why in the hell would people, that obviously stand by digital so fiercely, come here to argue ?? Last time I checked this is the ANALOG ONLY forum! They're pretty much trespassing, don't you think ?

~Daniel
 
acorec said:
Because I do both. Funny how a few of you think you own the forum, huh?

Why do you guys degrade every thread that you post in? I think it is better to get off of your high horses and at least *entertain* the thought of seeing the other side of things.

And now, you drop a snide comment for the others to think you are cool, and wait for the others to finish trashing what was a thread with some information in it.


And, lastly, it is people like you that will argue and argue with no facts other than your opinion, and when your opinion no longer bails you out of the discussion, you go crying to the moderator to save you.

Make an argument and back it up with facts or please don't post at all.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of your replies are PRO digital - that's the way you come off. Do you still track to open reel tape ? It seems, at least from your posts, that you have become disenchanted with it ... :confused: That's the vibe I get.

~Daniel
 
Guys, seriously .... There are TONS of other benefits to recording to Analog than just sound. I know you are well aware of this but I think this bears underlining. Even if digital technology were to allow perfect emulation of Analog, I'll never switch. Point being: There's more to Analog than just the sound.

~Daniel
 
cjacek said:
I started wondering the same thing, namely, why in the hell would people, that obviously stand by digital so fiercely, come here to argue ??
Click to expand...
They don't. There are nobody here that "stands fiercly by digital".
 
Consumer priced digital equiptment is NOT more dynamic than consumer budget analog. I still mix down from analog to digital for bouncing and final mixes for cd. The digital recording advertising is very misleading. Alot of things look great on paper but are not so great in the real world. Computers are great for porn though, I think that's something we can all agree on.
 
They don't.
Click to expand...
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Then why are people constantly defending analog recording technology here.
I think I'm done reading these A/D debate. Its been beat to death here. This is the analog forum so why in the fuck should we have to constantly defend our choice of recording...of all things in the ANALOG FORUM....I don't see ANYONE going to the computer forums and suggesting going back to analog...hmmmm?


OK, that does it. I started yelling for stickies in the Studio Building Forum and I'm going to do it here. This should be the first one....... :rolleyes: :D
fitZ
 

Attachments

  • ANALOGFORUM.gif
    ANALOGFORUM.gif
    15.4 KB · Views: 110
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Then why are people constantly defending analog recording technology here.
Click to expand...
Have you heard of Don Quijote?

Its been beat to death here. This is the analog forum so why in the fuck should we have to constantly defend our choice of recording...
Click to expand...
You don't. Nobody is critizising it. so the questoin is, why do you constantly feel a need to defend it, even in the complete absence of criticism?

of all things in the ANALOG FORUM....I don't see ANYONE going to the computer forums and suggesting going back to analog...hmmmm?
Click to expand...
1. OK, please quote me where people suggest that you stop using analog. 2. Please quote me the places in the computer forum where people talk about the superiour sound quality of digital.

I don't think I need to quote people from here talking about the superiority of analog, and suggesting that people go back to analog, do I? ;)

The digital worshippers that you all hate so much does not exist!
 
The digital worshippers that you all hate so much does not exist!
Click to expand...
Whooooooooa big fella! No one directs HATE towards anyone here :rolleyes: oops...except you towards Dave maybe. :) I've spouted off a few times with extreme prejudice I'll admit. But not directly towards ANYONE who is a member here. At least not hate :(
fitZ
 
the pluses of analogue

I hear and read the word "warm" a lot when describing the analogue sound, which I think is true, but perhaps a more accurate term might be "cohesive" when describing the advantages of analogue sound over digital. The instruments just tend to blend together better as a cohesive whole. Also, the 0 db "room for error" factor is very big for me, because I'm usually playing and engineering at the same time. One little note that peaks over 0 db with digital, and it goes to shit. Analog is much more forgiving.

For me the biggest problem in using analogue (mostly Tascam 122 MkIII, Tascam 112 MkII and Sony TC-KA3-ES) is "transferring" to digital and making sure I don't overload the CD recorder with the occasional peaks. I hate the sound of too much compression and limiting, so I avoid those as much as possible. Thus, when transferring to digital I have to go through each song, find the peaks, set up the CD burner in pause mode, set the level, etc., etc. But hey, the end result is worth it.

Just finished recording a live-in-the-studio CD with my trumpet player, and am sorta thinking of releasing it on vinyl as well as CD!! The music would lend itself well to vinyl. I need to look into the cost of doing this, though, so it may just be released as CD.

Cheers.
Michael
http://www.ambientjazzduo.8m.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top