Thread to discuss Digital Vs. Analog

B

Beck

Guest
My apologies to Sonic Idiot for helping to turn the Cassette vs. Reel-to-reel thread into a pissing match between Blue Bear and me.

I've posted this thread to help clean up the other one.

Ok Bear,

First of all you're assuming I'm not up on the latest digital technology. You know what happens when you assume....

Because of the music community I associate with here I have more experience with state of the art digital technology than many digital advocates. My preference of analog over digital is an educated choice. My understanding of digital recording is not stagnated in yesteryear.

Wouldn't it be nice though if everyone we disagreed with was stupid, uninformed, or insane?

There's a lot to this controversy. We can talk state of the art, but this being a home recording forum we should also talk of what people actually use and can afford. We could also talk analog tape and analog mixers and processors. The issue is multifaceted.

I think this is one of the most important issues in the home recording community. And all things being equal, when asked what people can do to improve their sound I will always say put it on tape and mix in the analog realm. You're just going to have to get over it.

Pro-studios all over the world have reintroduced analog tape into the process after less than satisfactory results with all-digital setups. In some cases it is at the multi-track level, but the most popular use of analog tape today is at the mastering and pre-mastering stage. Many studios are Hybrid analog/digital.

The use of analog tape to warm up digital tracks in the pre-mastering stage is now so prevalent I'm just astonished that you are apparently unaware of it.

Most serious mastering and duplication houses still accept 1/4" and 1/2" half-track open reel. Many that stopped accepting analog masters in years past have started again because of demand.

There is something wrong with digital. Too many people can hear it. It's not just me and this issue was not invented on this forum. Over the years we've witnessed the resurgence of an entire industry based on tube processors, of all things -- all because of the failure of digital technology! Your refusal to acknowledge the breadth and depth of the issue is mind-boggling and only weakens your position.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
*yawn*

Same old rhetoric........

I'm really not interested in a religious war with you - I have my opinions, and you have yours. In actuality I advocate using whichever mechanism gives the desired sound - analog OR digital.

The only thing I DO object to is nonsense that propogates "religious" myths ("cold digital", "shock absorbers for cables", "green marker rimming CDs", etc...)

Since we've both established that our own experiences have shaped our opinions and are not likely to change them, further debate really seems quite pointless............
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
*yawn*

Same old rhetoric........

I'm really not interested in a religious war with you - I have my opinions, and you have yours. In actuality I advocate using whichever mechanism gives the desired sound - analog OR digital.

The only thing I DO object to is nonsense that propogates "religious" myths ("cold digital", "shock absorbers for cables", "green marker rimming CDs", etc...)

Since we've both established that our own experiences have shaped our opinions and are not likely to change them, further debate really seems quite pointless............
Click to expand...


Well that's strange coming from someone who drew first blood by taking pot shots at everyone in this analog forum simply because they replied to the thread with their recommendations.

Yes there're a lot of misconceptions and voodoo out there concerning the issue. I don't care anything about cable shock absorbers or green-rimmed CDs.

However, the word cold will probably be associated with the character of digital for some time to come. It's not religion; it's a phenomenon that can't simply be dismissed without some investigation.

To ignore it is to make your world just that much smaller.

I will continue to post to this thread as an advocate for analog technology with information that may be new to a lot of people. If you feel you have some insight that will contribute to the goal of sorting out the particulars, then by all means speak up.

In my opinion, an analog forum with no active discussions of the pros and cons of analog and digital has no life.

:cool:
 
There has been thousands of posts on the many forums about the subject and as a matter of fact digital still has many problems that are not solved yet.

Analog is fully developped and a very mature format. There has been a test in a Dutch pro audio magazine where they recorded a 15khz square wave to an Ampex ATR 102 master machine and a DAW.

The reproduction of the Ampex looked like an almost perfect square wave on the scope, the reproduction of the DAW looked more like a sinus.

I'm not here to bash digital or start another debate, but you must understand that many engineers still prefer a two inch and a big board with a significant reason and I'm one of them, though I have Nuendo 2.01, Adobe 1.5, Cubase SX, Logic, Samplitude and a couple of other nice toys.

A hi end analog board will sum 72 signals in an eye blink without any problem, where the DAW is calculating like hell and degrading the quality of the sound.

Look also here: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/872/0

And yes, analog can be a PITA too, don't forget to recap your 15 year old analog board. Have you ever recapped a board? Do you have any idea how many caps a big board has? Not even to mention an old tape machine!

For example, a pinch roller of an old 2" Studer can cost $800, a reel motor $2500, but is sure sounds good.
 
I'm interested in digital as a social movement. It cost me about $4,000 to get my digital home studio to a point I deem acceptable. I've played guitar and written songs and loved music since I was a small. The joy and satisfaction my digital setup gives me on a daily basis has an intangible value, as I'm sure it does to many others. This was not possible 10 years ago. Look at all the websites offering music people are making in thier basement. It's the new folk music.

I've studied music at a high level and trust my ears. Can I get my little studio to sound like a great Motown record? Of course not! But it sounds pretty darn good. in fact, I think it's AMAZING how good it does sound considering what it cost.

I've been recording for seven years--all digital. I'm at the point now where I know my shit and I get pickier everyday. I really feel like I'm learning the art of recording. I've managed to record several of my own albums on my own. Had it not been for the advent of digital, I would be severely limited by my options--like so many musicians before me. This is where the real value of digital lies--not in its capability (or incapability) to one-up analog--a form of technology that has an undeniable track record of producing countless albums loved by millions.
 
Summary of the analog/digital discussion, as it always happens:

Someone: Blablablahblahblha!
Someone else: Blehblehbleh bleeeeh bleh BLEH!
SO: Blahblahblah BLAHBLAHABLAH!
SE: BLEHBLEH BLEEEEH BLEH BLEH!
SO: BLAHBLAHBLHA BLAH BLAAAAAAAAARGH!
A third person: Now, look here guys...flufff fluff fluuf and roses and pink glasses...
SE + SO at the same time: SHUT THE FUCK UP, MORON!


Me: This has been discussed to death in this forum. Use The Fucking Search!

EOD.
 
Regebro,

Digital techology evolves almost daily and perhaps warrants on-going discussion. Regardless, if you're not interested, why don't you simply refrain from reading or posting? Have you discussed, ad nauseum, the advent of digital recording indirectly creating a folk art movement? By all means, enlighten us.
 
There's an interesting thread going here: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/675/0

Let me take the liberty to copy a post of Mixerman here:

QUOTE:

Erik wrote on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:28

ivan40 wrote on Mon, 31 May 2004 13:54

The difference between tape and alsi- is HUGE



Not so huge.



HUGE!

Quote:

The differences are actually rather subtle and highly dependant on engineering technique and the tape machine used. In particular, there's a lot of talk about 'tape compression' and I'm quite certain that 99% of the folks blathering about it have not spent significant time using a properly calibrated machine with decent heads in something resembling a proper professional environment.



Well, I have used phenomenal tape machines in phenomenal rooms, and mediocre tape machines in stellar rooms, and stellar tape machines in mediocre rooms, I've used big tape machines, small tape machines, red tape machines, blue tape mahines...you get the picture. For 17 years I've been using tape machines. For 14 years I've been using digital multitrack machines of every variety. I made my first gold album in LA in 1992 on a DAW. I've used every professional (albeit often borderline professional) grade digital machine you can think of, including hundreds if not thousands of hours on HD, and that's time I racked up in trying to avoid the piece of garbage. Given this, I think that I have the "significant time" necessary to "blather" about both mediums.

You will rarely see me discussing tape compression. This is not the reason that a quality 2" machine smokes Alsihad sonically, and it does, ESPECIALLY on drums and vocals. Every now and then an assitant tells me about a "shoot-out" done on a session between Alsihad and 2". Any time I'm told that the engineer determined that Alsihad won I ask the same question. "Did the engineer get his sounds off the repro head?" Thus far, the answer has always been "no."

I mean, anyone that has been working with 2" for more than a week knows you HAVE to get your sounds off the repro heads. You set your levels by listening off the repro head. You adjust your mic placement by listening off the repro head. You adjust your processing (if any) by listening off the repro head. You name it, you adjust it off the repro head. And when you're done, your drums will sound fantastic, and they will not change. Not so with Alsihad. And god forbid you move your internal faders, because you can say goodbye to your drum sound once you do that.

I hardly think that learning to get sounds off the repro head is skill dependant.

As an expert on this subject, the difference in sound quality that a good sounding analog tape machine offers for drums as compared to Alsihad can be HUGE.

Quote:

But even MORE importantly, the sound of drums on tape sucked into Pro Tools is a very, very subtle difference. I personally haven't found it to be an improvement.



You also personally think the BF 1176 plug sounds like an 1176. Ahem.

Yes, there's a big difference in transferring the drums from 2" into Alsihad, than just recording the drums in Alsihad. It is better for the drums to remain on 2", I'll grant you that, but there is still aldifference. In my experience, you are much better off recording to a good 2" machine first, and then transferring to Alsihad, than recording directly to Aslihad.

Quote:

And the solution -- slaving a deck for three weeks -- is a definite hassle. The poster admits he's not willing to do this. So I think an A/B is in order.



Wait a second. Slaving the deck for three weeks? Why can't he just transfer the drums to digital, until mixdown time? Why is that not an option? Who slaves a 2" machine during tracking?

Quote:

Quick summary:

- I'm advocating listening tests.
- You're suggesting he blindly take your advice, advice you gave without even knowing the band, the sound, or the brand of tape machine in the studio.



You're also advocating your opinion. Mine is the opposite opinion. I too advocate his own personal listening tests.

Quote:

I own plenty of tape machines, including a 2" 8-track. I love the sound of tape, too.



I don't understand. Why do you love the sound of tape if you think there is only a marginal difference between Alsihad and tape? Shit, I'd hate tape if that were the case. Make up your mind. If you love tape, then it's obviously because of the sound quality.

Mixerman
 
I’d like to butt in here with an analogy. I liken analog to film, as digital is to digital video. I’d much rather see a flick on grainy film than stark digital video. Film adds that ambiance that the digital lacks. My 2 cents…continue gentlemen.
 
The Ghost of FM said:
I agree with brother Monty.

The old pornos on film were way better then the new Dr. Fellatio series done on MiniDV cam.

Cheers! :)
Click to expand...
Doh! :eek:

Well anyway, I'm glad tape is still around. I've always liked tape and tape decks. I like to just sit and look at them if nothing else...really...I'm fascinated by them. The technology is so basic. Something you can get your hands on. After the nuclear holocaust, it will be easy to get tape technology rolling again. Rollin' rollin' rollin', keep those heads a rollin', tape heeeaaads...
 
From NASA, concerning the time capsule placed aboard the Voyager 1 and 2:

***

The Voyager message is carried by a phonograph record-a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk containing sounds and images selected to portray the diversity of life and culture on Earth...Each record is encased in a protective aluminum jacket, together with a cartridge and a needle. Instructions, in symbolic language, explain the origin of the spacecraft and indicate how the record is to be played. The 115 images are encoded in analog form. The remainder of the record is in audio, designed to be played at 16-2/3 revolutions per minute.

***

Now this could be taken in one of two ways: Our expectations of life on other planets is either very high or very low--take your pick.

I think that if we were going to send a phono album up, we should have stuck an old Parliament, Funkadelic record in the time capsule...cause aliens would have listened to it and thought, "Damn, those motha fuckin' earthlins' be funky."
 
Sonic Idiot said:
I'm interested in digital as a social movement. It cost me about $4,000 to get my digital home studio to a point I deem acceptable. I've played guitar and written songs and loved music since I was a small. The joy and satisfaction my digital setup gives me on a daily basis has an intangible value, as I'm sure it does to many others. This was not possible 10 years ago. Look at all the websites offering music people are making in thier basement. It's the new folk music.

I've studied music at a high level and trust my ears. Can I get my little studio to sound like a great Motown record? Of course not! But it sounds pretty darn good. in fact, I think it's AMAZING how good it does sound considering what it cost.

I've been recording for seven years--all digital. I'm at the point now where I know my shit and I get pickier everyday. I really feel like I'm learning the art of recording. I've managed to record several of my own albums on my own. Had it not been for the advent of digital, I would be severely limited by my options--like so many musicians before me. This is where the real value of digital lies--not in its capability (or incapability) to one-up analog--a form of technology that has an undeniable track record of producing countless albums loved by millions.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point. However, keep in mind that many of us have been doing this same thing on cassette portastudios since 1979. That's when my first 4-track portastudio, the TEAC 144, was introduced. The home studio craze really started in earnest at that time, and got another huge boost during the MIDI revolution of the mid 80's. Home recording was thriving long before the digital age.

Digital does have some advantages in this area. Foremost is the convenient editing capabilities?

There is some difference between then and now though. People regularly obtained professional finished products on these early cassette based systems. Some of you have heard this a thousand times, but it's worth citing the example for those who haven't, so bear with me -- Bruce Springsteen recorded the 1982 album "Nebraska" on a TEAC 144. Sure he took that tape into the studio and sweetened it, but if he didn't have something good to start with it wouldn't have flown. Phil Colins and Steve Winwood also employed the Tascam machines with great success.

If nothing else it's a testament to the quality that went into some of these early machines. I still recommend the older cassette portastudios over the newer cassette and digital versions that replaced them.

:cool:
 
At this point in time, it shouldn't be a digital vs. analog debate at all.

It should be a digital AND analog discussion on how both technologies have their benefits that can be harvested and used as a means to an end which is to produce pleasant musical recordings that capture the intent of the artist and facilitate a reliable means of capturing, manipulating and distributing the said works.

To that end, many professional studios don't make a debate out of the two technologies, they simply use both of them to do the job at hand.

Professionals look at analog and digital products as tools.

Many studios will track in analog initially, then transfer this to a DAW, where the tracks can be better edited and assembled, then transfered back to analog for a final master, then transfered back again to digital for distribution.

Both technologies serve a purpose and the purpose is to record sound in an efficient, and artistically pleasant manner.

Cheers! :)
 
I agree with Beck entirely but should qualify my remarks a smudge by suggesting the digital age has vastly increased the musical possibilites afforded a home recording enthusiast and the Internet has given those enthusiasts a medium through which they can share their creations.

Certainly the first portastudio type units created a similar scenario. Trouble was, nobody knew about anyone else doing the same thing. So I think the big deal with digital is it sounds good, is flexible, AND can be shared with anyone in the world for free.

As for examples of great music recorded on four track cassette (I'll add the first Iron and Wine record to that list), that speaks more to idea that genuine talent shines through any medium. Rest assured, someone is recording tomorrow's "Nebraska" on their computer as we speak.
 
But don't forget that the best sounding recordings ever were recorded to a two track, or even directly to the lathe (vinyl).

Orchestral recordings of the late fifties/early sixties sound freakin' awesome and they were recorded to a two track and later to a three track analog tapemachine.

And what about the SACD's that come these days with recordings that were made in the fifties and sixties? Listen for example to 'Kind of Blue' by Miles Davis, which was recorded in 1959. Or Dark side of the Moon by Pink Floyd.

The quality of these recordings couldn't be transferred to vinyl, but it is possible to SACD and the 45 year old recordings (Miles) sound brilliant.

The recordings that were done in the ADAT era sound flat and lifeless, compared to the old recordings.

Oh boy, listen to the early Quincy Jones productions and what he's done with Michael Jackson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top