Just curious as to why still analog??

[CoolCat]

nothing

i liked Becks article. interesting.
like a digital camera vs a film based camera?

digital can offer some nice options, but like those big huge lense film cameras just have "that" picture quality, pleasentness of analog.

i liked Becks comment.."there's nothing inexpensive or convienient about analog". sounds like a pro talking who takes care of the gear to maintain the highest level performance.

i'm not that articulate, but have noticed,
sometimes no matter what the hard-data plotted charts says, or how much technical babbling bllsht is attached...
(I've sat in meetings on projects with Engineers and PHDS's for years...)

a person can just tell something is missing ...it just ain't there.
and very often "it" just doesn't work no matter how much hype and bllsht is behind it.

 

[regebro]

digital can offer some nice options, but like those big huge lense film cameras just have "that" picture quality, pleasentness of analog.

Large film cameras simply have a resolution that would be to expensive to do with digital.

Film is in it's nature "digital". There are silver crystals, known as "grains" that get affected by light and turn dark. There is nothing much analog about it.

But then again, the same is true for analog tape...

 

[arjoll]

OK, first let me say that I don't want to start the digital vs analogue debate again . I seriously don't want to!

I understand the argument that analogue tape is, in a way, digital because the magnetic poles are either north or south. I'm not sure if there is a continuous scale between these - some parts being 'northish' or 'southish' or 'in the middle'; in a way I suppose this could relate to the flux density or whatever. I'm not a physicist!

But when it comes to the film argument I'm pretty sure that the grains in photographic film can be anywhere on a continuous, analogue if you will, scale from 'black' to 'white' ('light' to 'dark' on the negative) through various shades of grey - not discrete steps (as in, say, an 8 bit 256 grey shade image). There may be a finite number of grains - something you can see easily with high speed film - but the actual shade (or colour) of the grains could be anything, not approximated to the closest available shade (or colour) in a digital image.

Found this link while checking up to see if my understanding was correct - its quite interesting.

Please note - per the disclaimer above - I do not wish to inflame passions about the merits of digital or analogue! Take this at face value, and please let me know politely if I'm wrong!

 

[regebro]

Well, no there are discrete steps there too. But you are right in that low ISO films will have a higher "resolution" than digital. This is however nothing we can see. However, high-class film has grain sizes in the micron-scale. That's at least several hundreds per millimeter. Medium format cameras uses 60x60 mm film. That's comparable to a minimum of 10.000x10.000 pixels. That's like a hundred megapixel camera. Large format cameras of course use films that can be upward 500mm or so.

So, we can resume this discussion when we have gigapixel cameras.

The idea that analog is better becuase it's analog, or becuase information is missing in digital is a myth. Nature is, in it's details, digital. Analog tape sounds different than digital. That is *different*, not better. Which sounds better is a matter of taste. Most agree that analog sounds better. But this is not becuase it is a mote accurate representation than digital.

When we record we don't want accurate representations. If we did, eartworks mics would be the most popular. But in fact, people tend to call them cold and unforgiving. Just what they call digital.

And it's hard not to talk about analog vs digital in a "why analog" thread.

 

[Beck]

But this is not becuase it [analog] is a more accurate representation than digital.

That's true. Both add and detract something. I do think there is something missing in digital though that has something to do with the fact that it is just sampling no matter the resolution.

The eye is more easily fooled than the ear. Thus digital will always look good (on paper) even if it sounds bad.

-Tim

 

[arjoll]

So, we can resume this discussion when we have gigapixel cameras.

I look forward to that! (both the cameras and the discussion!)

Analog tape sounds different than digital. That is *different*, not better. Which sounds better is a matter of taste.

That's exactly what I've been saying. The overall differences are subjective; especially when considering recording an art form (either a photographic image or musical performance).

In many cases the perceived 'warmth' of analogue recording adds to the art, but other aspects such as tape hiss can subtract from it. In the same way aspects of digital can either be seen as 'accuracy' which adds to the performance or a 'cold, sterile' sound that detracts from it.

Assuming equivalent technologies it really does come down to personal opinion. If the technologies are not equivalent then its not a fair comparison - the recordings I've made of my wife's classical voice performances with two 414's and a Tascam US122 into Audition on my nc8230 may not sound as good as if they were recorded on a Studer 1/2" 2 track (if there is such a thing), but I would suggest they sound a lot better than earlier ones I recorded on a Teac V680 on metal tape with Dolby C .

And it's hard not to talk about analog vs digital in a "why analog" thread.

I agree its a valuable discussion; as long as it doesn't deteriorate like the last one! So far, so good .

 

[cjacek]

Can anyone explain then why Laser Discs (but not DVD's), certain films 30, 40 and 50 years ago and film photo cameras, despite HUGE advances in digital technology, are still more pleasing to the senses ? Why is it that when you record sounds or pictures to digital, it loses that certain "something", like it doesn't "breathe" or truly "live" ? Sure it may be "accurate" but can it also be "dead" at the same time ? Do you really feel it's subjective ? I'm talking "real life" here and not "on paper".

Some time ago, I've read an article by a well known studio engineer (can't recall his name tho) and he said something to the effect that the "peak" of recorded sound (voice I believe) happened at around the 50's and 60's and then started to decline after that when new technology and solid state gear started appearing in studios. He commented on how tubes were one of the main ingredients of getting a pleasing sound and putting that onto tape .... Interesting article .. Too bad I didn't save the link tho ....

I really do believe that it's more about outboard gear too and not only about tape. For example, if I take a cheap behringer mixer and one of their dynamics and record that onto a half track studer and do the same with an EV RE15 dynamic through a good 60's tube amp, provided I use the same good recording technique, obviously it's gonna sound different each time.

As per the above, I would like to add that I feel it is certainly possible to obtain pleasing digital recordings if certain outboard gear is used which will give its own specific signature sonics to the digital medium.

~Daniel

 

[regebro]

I feel it's subjective, yes. Can't say I have ever thought of laserdisc as superiour. But then, I haven't made double-blind testing on the issue, so i can't possibly know for sure.

 

[cjacek]

I feel it's subjective, yes. Can't say I have ever thought of laserdisc as superiour. But then, I haven't made double-blind testing on the issue, so i can't possibly know for sure.

I once owned a shit load of Laser Discs and when DVD's came out, I though I'd dump 'em (as in sell) for the smaller and convenient DVD's. I replaced most of my LD's with the same movies on DVD and have always regretted it. The Laser Discs were "film like" (whatever that means) but the DVD's seemed to lack "something" that the LD's had. Again, I was very open to DVD's but I sensed something was wrong .....

~Daniel

 

[arjoll]

Laserdisc had zero presence on this side of the world; we basically went from VHS to DVD.

I'm guessing lack of PAL software was the problem. Until the late 90's most TVs here were PAL only (you now see the odd multi-standard one), but the only couple of LD players I ever saw were 120 volt NTSC ones, run from a step-down transformer onto a 120 volt NTSC TV. Not exactly convenient!

I wasn't really impressed with the quality, but like Regebro can't say it was worse than DVD because I've never done an A/B. Maybe i'm just used to the extra 100 lines we get in PAL (and SECAM, eh Regebro?).

 

[FALKEN]

I still use the argument that if space aliens 10,000 years from now came upon the remains of our civilization and found our music, their hearing capabilities might be so advanced that the 44,000 samples per second sounds choppy and unlistenable..and they will keep digging till they find vinyl records.

 

[regebro]

Exactly! Except that after conversion to analog there is nothing "choppy" about it. It just has a upper limit of frequencies, which in theory is 22khz (but in practise is slightly lower, of course).

You won't find many vinyls with higher frequencies than that either.

 

[SteveMac]

I still use the argument that if space aliens 10,000 years from now came upon the remains of our civilization and found our music, their hearing capabilities might be so advanced that the 44,000 samples per second sounds choppy and unlistenable..and they will keep digging till they find vinyl records.

What about space aliens from NOW? Thier ears may already be advanced.

 

[cjacek]

It's still possible to restore and give new life to analog gear of the 50's and play tapes of that era. People restore and still use "vintage" gear of 20, 30, 40, 50 years back. I seriously doubt that cds or dvds and its hardware will last that long or will be repairable. What about people who bought into digital some years back, whether it'd be an all in one multitracker or DAW or whatever, and either have to continually update their (many times "buggy") software or the technology is too old to be usable any more ? Pick up a 20 or 30 year old open reel recorder and tapes and it'll still outlast any "new" technology that will be introduced for audio recording. Analog has longevity, will be easy to bring back to life, repair, restore, will be easy to use, have predictable outcome and it'll always sound good and that alone speaks volumes about why to go with the format. I'm not saying Analog doesn't have "issues" but they pale in comparison to digital. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, the temporary convenience of digital is really not worth it in the long run ..

Disclaimer: I write from my own perspective - my own opinion. That's all.

~Daniel

 

[snipeguy]

I love the way analog sounds

I can't work with digital for too long because my ears get tired more quickly

I like knobs and switches and faders and analog VUs and reels and motors

I can fix and maintain my analog gear

My vinyl records sound better than my CDs

I find analog relaxing

I feel more connected to my music

Analog is versatile and forgiving

Something about, taking old stuff that people don't want anymore even though it works just fine and using it to make my art, has always made me happy

 

[cjacek]

I love the way analog sounds

I can't work with digital for too long because my ears get tired more quickly

I like knobs and switches and faders and analog VUs and reels and motors

I can fix and maintain my analog gear

My vinyl records sound better than my CDs

I find analog relaxing

I feel more connected to my music

Analog is versatile and forgiving

Something about, taking old stuff that people don't want anymore even though it works just fine and using it to make my art, has always made me happy

Well said. Amen!

 

[robin watson]

The eye is more easily fooled than the ear. Thus digital will always look good (on paper) even if it sounds bad.

-Tim

Erm, right.

 

[FALKEN]

What about space aliens from NOW? Thier ears may already be advanced.

maybe one will pipe in and let us know which they prefer.

 

[Quantagee]

It's still possible to restore and give new life to analog gear of the 50's and play tapes of that era. People restore and still use "vintage" gear of 20, 30, 40, 50 years back. I seriously doubt that cds or dvds and its hardware will last that long or will be repairable. What about people who bought into digital some years back, whether it'd be an all in one multitracker or DAW or whatever, and either have to continually update their (many times "buggy") software or the technology is too old to be usable any more ? Pick up a 20 or 30 year old open reel recorder and tapes and it'll still outlast any "new" technology that will be introduced for audio recording. Analog has longevity, will be easy to bring back to life, repair, restore, will be easy to use, have predictable outcome and it'll always sound good and that alone speaks volumes about why to go with the format. I'm not saying Analog doesn't have "issues" but they pale in comparison to digital. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, the temporary convenience of digital is really not worth it in the long run ..

Disclaimer: I write from my own perspective - my own opinion. That's all.

~Daniel

Great opinion. In my opinion, analog has it's attributes, and digital has it's attributes. The two are being used together in a positive way for their strengths in the modern studio. Analog has a certain sound that is sought after by some producers and engineers. Digital has editing abilities that are impossible to do in analog. Analog and Digital can both sound the same or different depending on who is in the driver's seat. There are so many albums out there that sound so good (done entirely digital) and so many that sound so bad (done analog) that the difference is up to the talant at the helm.

Arguing for or against either format is useless because you can always find a person to prove you wrong. That is my opinion only. Use whatever you like and work on recording skills. That is what it is all about anyway.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Analog has a certain sound that is sought after by some producers and engineers.

true. Actually, I'd say: "... certain sound that is sought after by MOST producers and engineers, regardless of how exactly (from technical point) they are trying to get it" Btw, analog gear "emulation" software is a HUGE business... no wonder why

Digital has editing abilities that are impossible to do in analog.

That's not necessaryly a bad thing. It makes musicians to play better music and to play better period Another words, if the band members (or musician) are (is) not happy with the result, then they (he/she) look "at the mirror", rather than at "what's in drop-down menue".

Analog and Digital can both sound the same or different depending on who is in the driver's seat. There are so many albums out there that sound so good (done entirely digital) and so many that sound so bad (done analog) that the difference is up to the talant at the helm.

Arguing for or against either format is useless because you can always find a person to prove you wrong.

well, that's a no brainer. I'd say, however, that arguing for or against either format is NOT useless, if you simply compare apple to apple, compare your own result when working on a specific task - it's all yours: tallent, instrument, gear you use, your knowledge, your experience, your taste, your goal.... and see for yourself. You'll know what's better for what, and then you also may start leaning one way or the other in general.

/respects