Words From the Analog Faithful

B

Beck

Guest
Here are a few quotable quotes I've run across over the years in magazines and online. Enjoy!


"DAT machines. They sound like shit and every crappy studio has one now because they're so cheap. Because the crappy engineers that inhabit crappy studios are too thick to learn how to align and maintain analog mastering decks, they're all using DAT machines exclusively.

DAT tapes deteriorate over time, and when they do, the information on them is lost forever. I have personally seen tapes go irretrievably bad in less then a month. Using them for final masters is almost fraudulently irresponsible. Tape machines ought to be big and cumbersome and difficult to use, if only to keep the riff-raff out. DAT machines make it possible for morons to make a living, and damage to the music we all have to listen to."


--Steve Albini "The Problem With Music"
MaximumRocknRoll #133 June 1994



"I simply prefer analog to digital. The only way I can explain it is with an analogy of rubbing your fingers over velvet or silk. You can feel a textural difference between the two fabrics. Well, I hear a textural difference between analog and digital recordings. There's a certain amount of tape compression and harmonic distortion that occurs in the analog realm that is very pleasing to my ear."

-- Gary Wright, Electronic Musician Magazine, October 1995



"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."

--George Graves, Chief Engineer - Lacquer Channel Mastering, Toronto
Professional Sound Magazine, April 1998



"As the new equipment got cheaper, lighter and easier to operate, the general quality of the recorded sound deteriorated. True to Gresham's law in economics, bad product pushed out good product and unfortunately, the new, bad sound became established as the norm.

As the professional studios switched to digital recording, the sound got so bad that anyone could do it as badly at home using the same equipment or the newer, cheaper home digital multi-tracks. They got the same terrible, unmusical results."


--Walter E. Sear 1999



"I will never leave analog. I won't. I will never leave it and it blew my mind when I heard that there are no more tape machines being produced. Studer ran their last production of analog tape machines. Otari does not make them anymore. There are no analog tape machines being produced right now. Then you go and you open up Mix and it's like one page after another it's digital, digital, digital. And I'm like, "What the hell is happening?" But with the whole Pro Tools thing, I would never use this as a stand-alone recorder. It's never going to be - Okay turn on the Pro Tools and let's rock!"

--Roger Moutenot
TapeOp Magazine #20 Nov/Dec 2000



"The instant you digitize a signal, you destroy the phase-angle relationship between the high frequencies and the lows. That’s why you can’t make a decent chorus with a digital delay unit. Phase-angle distortion has been with us since the day 3M introduced their incredibly expensive, 15kHz digital-recording deck. I still remember the famous quote from their marketing department: “There is an introduction of phase-angle distortion, but the human ear can’t hear it.”

I find that so hysterical because the human ear can hear things we can’t measure yet. And the ear does use phase-angle information to determine the location sounds originate from, and the space within which you’re standing when you hear those sounds. Simply put, that’s what tells you, “Oh, that sound came from over there.” The end result is that digitized music destroys the spatial characteristics of the music....

... The two advantages of digital are that it’s cheap, and it gives you lots of features. As far as sound quality goes, digital is always worse."


--Tom Scholz, - Guitar Player Magazine, May 2003



"The quality of analogue tape has become better, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference... We had quality tape back then as well. In the early days I used Scotch 3M 250, switched to 3M 226 at some point, and on the last record we used BASF 900. I grew up and learned analogue and I'm an analogue geek. It's not that I'm kicking digital, but analogue has a much better sound. When you are able to A/B analogue and digital, which we could do in this case, there's simply no comparison. The top end is so sweet and beautiful. I've never heard anyone say about digital, even at 24-bit/96kHz or 192kHz: 'Isn't the top end as sweet and beautiful as you've ever heard?' You don't because digital just doesn't sound that way."

--Elliot Scheiner - Sound on Sound Magazine, Aug 2003

:)
 
Last edited:
No need to preach to the converted here. Oh, and yes I'm going to look at that Studer tomorrow. Just a look for now. I promise. Really. Just a look. :D
 
snipeguy said:
No need to preach to the converted here. Oh, and yes I'm going to look at that Studer tomorrow. Just a look for now. I promise. Really. Just a look. :D

Yeah I know, I'm preaching to the choir. Well... sometimes the choir needs a little encouragement.

I would love to have an old Studer just from a collector's perspective, even if it wasn't in perfect shape. I don't have the room though. We wear too many hats, don't we? Musician, singer, composer, engineer, producer, collector, etc. It's fun though.

-Tim
 
I just switched back to analog today and I love it. After pooring money into alot of digital equipment I found along the way that I was trying to emulate the sound I was getting with tape. Not only that, but I lost alot of creativity along the way with digital, instead of concentrated on my riffs and style, I ended up just sitting for hours in front of a moniter playing around with delays and crap.I feel like I've been more creative in the past 8 hours than I have been in 3 years. I missed the sound of tape and I'm glad I went back to analog.
 
Beck said:
Here are a few quotable quotes I've run across over the years in magazines and online. Enjoy!

The above is especially important reading to "Analog Newbies" who keep on popping in, at an alarmingly increasing rate, to this forum ;) BUT it is also good info for us "regulars" here to know that whatever we think of Analog, Digital etc ... is backed, supported, whatever you wanna call it, by some of the greats in the music industry.

Thanks Tim!

Daniel :)
 
billyshuler said:
I just switched back to analog today and I love it. After pooring money into alot of digital equipment I found along the way that I was trying to emulate the sound I was getting with tape. Not only that, but I lost alot of creativity along the way with digital, instead of concentrated on my riffs and style, I ended up just sitting for hours in front of a moniter playing around with delays and crap.I feel like I've been more creative in the past 8 hours than I have been in 3 years. I missed the sound of tape and I'm glad I went back to analog.

Great summing up of my thoughts exactly. Been there, done that! :eek:

~Daniel :)
 
indeed

Just got a nice Fostex B-16, along w/ a plethora of other gear. Can't wait to get started!!!!!!!!!!! (I know, B = belt driven. But the price was right, and the things works, so there :p )

-callie-
 
How can you expect to reduce something to ones and zeros, and not lose everything that falls in between? :confused:

.....and in my (albeit very limited) experience, that's where the good stuff is........ ;)
 
billyshuler said:
I just switched back to analog today and I love it. After pooring money into alot of digital equipment I found along the way that I was trying to emulate the sound I was getting with tape.

If digi is so good then why don't they sell any digital emulators? :D 01000100011000010111011001100101 (Dave)
 
my theory is this...
if you buy a digital recorder like an ADAT, then youve got to spend $1000s of dollars on fancy preamps/compressors to make the sound "warm" and less "sterile"... basicly to make it sound like analog! plus your digital shit will be outdated in 6 months...
thats why I went analog at least. I spent 600 on a TSR-8 and it sounds great, better than $4000 Digital workstations that ive heard, even with my limited experience...

****************************************
oops- no doy! looks like Billy____ said that already!
 
The power of influence

You know I'm an analog guy through and through, however at the risk of getting stoned, sometimes I think the difference is not quite so clear. I read an article, I think in Mix mag, where some engineers and producers where shown two recordings of the same song, one was made on Tascam HR-78s (I think that's the right one) or DA? Anyway, they were told just the opposite that the digital recording was the analog and vice versa ... low and behold all agreed the "analog" recordings sounded better, warmer, more dynamics, etc., and a couple of them ripped the "digital" recordings. Just goes to show how the mind can work.
 
388woes said:
You know I'm an analog guy through and through, however at the risk of getting stoned, sometimes I think the difference is not quite so clear. I read an article, I think in Mix mag, where some engineers and producers where shown two recordings of the same song, one was made on Tascam HR-78s (I think that's the right one) or DA? Anyway, they were told just the opposite that the digital recording was the analog and vice versa ... low and behold all agreed the "analog" recordings sounded better, warmer, more dynamics, etc., and a couple of them ripped the "digital" recordings. Just goes to show how the mind can work.

I have a great digital setup consisting of the Fostex D2424LV 24 track recorder and I find that the sound is super close to analog if recording in the linear range. No one I know can tell the difference. If I have to slam the tape for the tape compression ( the non-liner range) than the digital recorders cannot get the punchy sound on the drums or bass. Tape compression is hard to get in the digital domain, but for clean sounds, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between my Fostex and my MCI.
 
Milkfaj said:
my theory is this...
if you buy a digital recorder like an ADAT, then youve got to spend $1000s of dollars on fancy preamps/compressors to make the sound "warm" and less "sterile"... basicly to make it sound like analog! plus your digital shit will be outdated in 6 months...
thats why I went analog at least. I spent 600 on a TSR-8 and it sounds great, better than $4000 Digital workstations that ive heard, even with my limited experience...

****************************************
oops- no doy! looks like Billy____ said that already!

The thinking in this comparison is usually wrong. The analog equipment from yesteryear was very expensive. A good pro recorder went for way more than $10,000. If you were to sink $10,000 for digital stuff today, you would understand that pro digital stuff does not sound "cold" at all. A RADAR system sounds incredible and *very* tapelike. I have used them and can attest to their sound. They still cannot get the tape compression though. That is mainly why I still go to 2" for bed tracks and finish up in digital at 48kHz 24 bit (or straight 24 track analog, depends) mixed through a big analog board.
 
Forgiving

Even going back to my 424 and 488 cassette days I just find tape more forgiving. It is much easier, at least for me, to maintain hot levels without worrying about clipping. BTW-I just started my first MSR16 project last night. I'm in love once again, Dave.




------------------------------------
AKA-nowigotachubby
 
388woes said:
You know I'm an analog guy through and through, however at the risk of getting stoned, sometimes I think the difference is not quite so clear. I read an article, I think in Mix mag, where some engineers and producers where shown two recordings of the same song, one was made on Tascam HR-78s (I think that's the right one) or DA? Anyway, they were told just the opposite that the digital recording was the analog and vice versa ... low and behold all agreed the "analog" recordings sounded better, warmer, more dynamics, etc., and a couple of them ripped the "digital" recordings. Just goes to show how the mind can work.

No stones :) but consider this:

There will always be stories that seemingly counter the analog argument, but in the final analysis these are really just exceptions that prove the rule. And I've heard similar stories in reverse -- the listeners went on and on about the quality of digital when they were unknowingly listening to analog. Sure, there are people that can't hear the difference just like there are people that can't visually appreciate art on any high level.

Yet people are still affected by colors in the environment on a subconscious level. Likewise, people are affected by colors in sound. They're just not enough in tune with their senses to be able to grasp what is going on and to verbalize it.

The dissatisfaction with digital audio started with seasoned engineers, artists and listeners. It is a universal rebellion, much too extensive and consistent over time (some 20 years) to be explained away by a handful of anecdotes.

The story of digital audio to many of us has been a story of promises and waiting and then more promises and more waiting... we're still waiting.

-Tim
 
Hi Beck,

Actually the point I was making was really about how you hear what you want to hear when you "think" you are hearing something other than what you really are!

I have a song I recorded years ago and just love the way it sounds. For the longest time I thought I did it on my 388 and would use the demo to show what the 388 can do. Low and behold my brother recently pointed out it was really done on our old 688 cassette deck, ha! He had an video tape of his girlfriend recording us while recording that song and sure enough it was the 688! Still sounds damn good but surely not as good as my 388 recordings ... or does it?

The mind plays tricks when you think you are hearing what you want. One of the Dixie chicks producers just went digital after swearing on analog and saying he'd never go digital. When all the hoopla was over they compared tracks done on both and all agreed the digital sounded better. Van Halen for the first time recorded digital in 2003 on three tracks that were included on their greatest hits release. Eddie Van Halen (an analog nut) said he wished he'd stayed with his old analog board, only because the digital took him days before he could even get a sound recorded, he said he was so frustrated he was close to tears, BUT, he said he can't deny the sound was fabulous. I think for the home market there's nothing like analog, it just sounds better than digital from what I've heard, but when you get up into super high end gear I don't think the difference is as desrenable, at least not to some former analog freaks. I love my 388 and I'm not giving it up.
 
Back
Top