The Eternal Debate Continues. . .

[nate_dennis]

I am super curious what each of you use for your PREFERRED recording medium. I am just as curious as to WHY you pick that medium. So, lets keep it civil, but let's have it. Why are you a member of Analogaholics Anonymous or why are you Die Hard Digital? I'll refrain from answering just yet (though it probably isn't hard to figure out based on my posting history.) I look forward to hearing your replies.




I meant to post a poll but I had fat fingers .. . . oops.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

As an academic question, I personally don't see it as an either/or. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and in a perfect world where I had the money to build my new studio (soon....soon...), I'd have both there and - when the project called for it - I'd use both.

G.

 

[Rokket]

As an academic question, I personally don't see it as an either/or. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and in a perfect world where I had the money to build my new studio (soon....soon...), I'd have both there and - when the project called for it - I'd use both.

G.

I'm with you. But tape is getting really SCARCE nowadays. I think when I finally do get my fully operational studio going, I will go hybrid. But I am still not sure which digital machine I will record to.

 

[Chili]

Yup, both have the pluses and minuses. For me, I'm all digital and plan to stay that way. Only out of convenience (which is one of Digital's pluses).

peace.

 

[WhiteStrat]

I'm digital, but it has nothing to do with the music or the recording of it.

I'm a cyborg.

Working digital for me is like spending time with family.

 

[nate_dennis]

I'm a cyborg.

Working digital for me is like spending time with family.

Nice!!!!

I'm surprised that out of three responses there hasn't been one hardliner. So those of you that appreciate both . . . Do you not have any real bias? If you had to pick one or the other? I mean, I understand being a cyborg, but the others?

 

[dastrick]

Digital

I'm all digital. Honestly, I've never even recorded to analog. Well, except for a long time ago recording to a mini-cassette, but nothing serious.

For me, digital is convenient & cheaper. When my hard drive fills up, I buy another one...(I saw a 1.5 TB Seagate Berracuda for $100 @ newegg.com). I can record 16 tracks with just 2 Firepods & a laptop. I think I would have to have a lot of gear to record live shows to analog.

Anyway, I'm digital.

 

[mrhotapples]

I pick tape for loud shit. I pick digital for sweet shit.

Blah blah, they both win. That's like "which mic?" or "what Q?" it's random and unanswerable.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Do you not have any real bias?

They are complimentary technologies - analog has the edge on sound, digital has the edge on workability; to put the two together and get the ideal combo is my bias. I'd much rather have both than just one or the other.

As a practical matter - not as a bias, but as a business decision - if one HAD to choose between them, it's a no-brainer: you have to choose digital for it's cost, it's flexibility, it's power, it's availability, and its wider compatibility.

But my bias is to not make that artificial either/or choice.

G.

 

[legionserial]

I use digital because it's cheap, it convenient, and I already owned a decent computer when I started. I couldn't afford to shell out on tape all the time, and I hate rewinding and fast-forwarding stuff. I'm also a computer geek.

I've never done any analogue recording beyond using a double tape deck and a microphone as a makeshift multitracker. But I'm not averse to it. I'm not a professional, so it doesn't seem prudent to shell out on a bunch of analogue gear. If I had the money and my own studio, then I surely would, but I'd still be using digital aswell.

 

[nate_dennis]

But my bias is to not make that artificial either/or choice.

Good point. It's stupid of me to press for an either/or answer.

For me, my personal preferance is analog. I think it's a mix of the idea of working with tape as much as it is asthetic. I just really dig everything about the analog world. Plus I'm not too good with computers. Obviously in order to distribute in todays world, at some point we must conert to digital, but I want to do that as late in the process as possible.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I use digital BUT:
I use a standalone digital recorder and everything else is set up like an analog rig. All outboard fx ..... analog board etc.
I do it that way for a couple of reasons ...... first, because I've recorded so long in analog that it's like second nature to me to reach up and grab a handful of knobs to tweak stuff, but more importantly ..... that's what I have!

I like being able to cut and paste so that aspect of digital is extremely useful and much easier than splicing tape. But I prefer the versatility of having lots of outboard fx and eq's that I can patch anyway I want and use as many as I want in any possible configuration.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

For me, my personal preferance is analog. I think it's a mix of the idea of working with tape as much as it is asthetic. I just really dig everything about the analog world.

First, allow me to make a distinction here; a lot depends upon one's purpose. It's the whole tool vs. toy dichotomy. I was speaking from a practical standpoint, not an enjoyment one.

If one is doing this stuff strictly as a hobby, then all bets are off; hobbies are all about personal enjoyment, and the path one chooses to pursue that enjoyment is an entirely personal and subjective opinion with no wrong answers.

But even then, there's absolutely nothing I miss about having to hand-cut and tape analog tape . Or be limited to what I can do with two hands and a nose when it comes to real-time mixing on a board w/o automation (which most analog boards in our price ranges are). One can also get spoiled by a quality plug (like RND's Unequalizer) that let's you run 8 different filters on one track simultaneously, something that would cost an arm and a leg to do in analog.

In a perfect world, let me track to analog tape, dump that to digital for editing and automation in digital, and run the final mix down through a nice analog summing amp.

G.

 

[deejaytrixx]

They are complimentary technologies - analog has the edge on sound, digital has the edge on workability; to put the two together and get the ideal combo is my bias. I'd much rather have both than just one or the other.

As a practical matter - not as a bias, but as a business decision - if one HAD to choose between them, it's a no-brainer: you have to choose digital for it's cost, it's flexibility, it's power, it's availability, and its wider compatibility.

But my bias is to not make that artificial either/or choice.

G.

Is it possible to agree and disagree with you at the same time lol?
I think both analog and digital sound great depending on the operator..Ask me that 8 years ago, and I would have told you digital could never sound like analog.

I think they both have their limitations..and you feel the limitations in the same way (MONEY). If you have the money, digital is great, convienent and fast. If you have the right plug-ins and the right know how to apply those things, you get as good a project as if you did it all in analog.

What it really has boiled down to with most of the engineers that I have talked to on the topic is "how they are used to working" If you spent the last 20 years in analog, its easier for you to achieve your sound. You know what machines add what color to what sounds..to do it in digital is a different animal that a lot of them just don't understand.

Same as in analog, you are limited by your budget..Cause if you only have shit equipment, you won't get better results that someone with shitty digital equipment.

All thing being equal, I think they both sound great, and money and know-how are the biggest obstacles into audio bliss in either domain. (yes I'm only disagreeing with the "edge on sound" and agreeing with everything else)

BUT...I much rather digital..takes up less room, less on the electric bill, its faster to work with (imagine going back to splicing tape, or walking around with those ghastly wax pencils )and you can achieve a level of control that is close to impossible using the best audio gear..I mean, automation recall of every single knob...simply amazing

 

[nate_dennis]

First, allow me to make a distinction here; a lot depends upon one's purpose. It's the whole tool vs. toy dichotomy. I was speaking from a practical standpoint, not an enjoyment one....

Yes, that is what I was assuming. I know there are some pros on here. But most of us on here are home recordists who do this to put out their own music or that of their friends.

. . .Or be limited to what I can do with two hands and a nose when it comes to real-time mixing on a board w/o automation (which most analog boards in our price ranges are

I mean, automation recall of every single knob...simply amazing

See, those are some of the things I like about analog. I don't know. It just doesn't feel as right to me rolling a mouse instead of tweaking knobs and moving faders. Automatic recall, automation, VST plugins, they all just get a little much for me. Just my personal prefference. Nothing wrong with computers, just not my thing.

 

[deejaytrixx]

Yes, that is what I was assuming. I know there are some pros on here. But most of us on here are home recordists who do this to put out their own music or that of their friends.





See, those are some of the things I like about analog. I don't know. It just doesn't feel as right to me rolling a mouse instead of tweaking knobs and moving faders. Automatic recall, automation, VST plugins, they all just get a little much for me. Just my personal prefference. Nothing wrong with computers, just not my thing.

I definitely understand that..which is why I have an interface with knobs I can touch and program to different parameters instead of using the mouse..you never get the sweet spot when riding faders (IMO) when using a mouse.

 

[Beck]

Primarily analog, but my studio has always been a hybrid tape/MIDI/Digital... adding each new technology as it became useful for my purposes. I started in the late 70's as an apprentice in television production, and from there went into commercial music recording as an engineer. I have a different career now as a network/wireless consultant, but I have an extensive home studio and have never given up music or recording.

I went through the whole digital revolution thing... DIS, DAT, ADAT, RDAT, Gimme DAT Ting. Yeah, watched all that happening around me and became a part of it for a time. It wasn't long before I went back to analog for the sound I preferred.

As digital matured over the years I've been able to use it for some things, but it basically augments my analog setup, which is still the core of the studio.

How a person uses one technology or the other makes all the difference. For example, I rarely use plugins and each channel of my digital audio interface runs through its own channel on my console... same as my analog tracks.

I try to avoid ITB. I have racks of outboard gear, so I don't have to worry about it.

I still master to analog half-track reel-to-reel, and from there the mix enters the digital realm. Analog and digital can play nice together. IMO, a nice blend of digital and analog tracks can be pure magic.

~Tim

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Most of us on here are home recordists who do this to put out their own music or that of their friends.

So your saying that most people here are NOT doing it as a hobby.

This is (respectfully) another one of those artificial either/or bifurcations, IME. Either your a "pro" or your a hobbyist. Personally I find the majority of folks here to be neither pros nor hobbyists, but rather as you describe; home recordists looking to publicize themselves or their band. As such their gear is a tool, not a toy...or at least that's how they should approach their gear choices. IMHO YMMV H1N1 ETC.

G.

 

[MCI2424]

I am super curious what each of you use for your PREFERRED recording medium. I am just as curious as to WHY you pick that medium. So, lets keep it civil, but let's have it. Why are you a member of Analogaholics Anonymous or why are you Die Hard Digital? I'll refrain from answering just yet (though it probably isn't hard to figure out based on my posting history.) I look forward to hearing your replies.




I meant to post a poll but I had fat fingers .. . . oops.

I PREFER Tape (2") but I LIKE HD recording because there are no hassles.

Die hard analog or digital fans both have blinders on full tilt. Any recording dismissed as being flawed soley because it was done on analog or digital equipment means that the recording is not the issue at all.

 

[ofajen]

Music has been a hobby for 40 years. It's also something I share with and teach to my kids.

I started using 4-track and then 8-track tape machines in the early 80's. From about 1985 to 2000, I mainly recorded on a Tascam 388, later synced via SMPTE timecode to a Mac running Opcode Vision to slave MIDI stuff.

About 10 years ago I focused more on recording audio and less on MIDI so I went to wide-track analog machines.

As recently as three years ago I had no computer in the studio and five analog machines in big consoles.

Now I'm back more in a composing mode, so I'm back using MIDI and softsynths on a Receptor. All that's left of the tape machines is a 3M M-23 2-track.

I have five kids, so I like gear to be small and simple. A lot of my music time is late at night when kids are sleeping overhead, so I have to use headphones and keep the sound level down, hence, a lot of MIDI and direct in recording.

These days, I mainly record on a Yamaha AW1600 standalone digital that reminds me ever so much of my Tascam 388 that I used back in the 80's and 90's. I have an old Mac G4 that can do various audio mayhem, too, but I haven't fully gotten used to tracking and mixing in a DAW.

I actually am using an older OS 9 laptop with Opcode Studio Vision for MIDI stuff slaved to timecode from the Yamaha and recording audio on the standalone.

Cheers,

Otto