Why Analog?

[Beck]

We're living in a post-CD age. MP3 is the delivery method of choice. The average listener doesn't care about quality as much as they do convenience… partly because they don’t even know what quality is. A generation has grown up on CD. We've been in a sonic dark ages for sometime now.

CD sales have been declining at an unprecedented rate… and not because something sonically superior is replacing it. We can't compare this age to any other point in recording history. The pursuit of Hi-Fi went out with tape and vinyl, not long after CD became the dominant format (1993). Yep, it took 10 years for CD to overtake tape and vinyl sales.

CD is partly to blame for this present situation. Compared to CD, MP3 is not that much of a loss. But compare MP3 to vinyl or even cassette (which I can do) and you’ve got a problem. The difference is striking.

Who are "they"?

The CD as a consumer format at 44/16 came out in 82.
27 years on, we still have the CD unchanged as a consumer format.

Some years ago, higher than CD res formats came out such as SACD and DVD A. The uptake from consumers has been small.
Many consumers especially the young and mobile listen almost exclusively to mp3's, a lower than CD quality format.

I only mention consumer formats here. Yes, manufacturers have provided higher res formats and the public have mostly left them sitting on the shelves. Why would that be?

Cheers Tim

 

[famous beagle]

Who are "they"?

The CD as a consumer format at 44/16 came out in 82.
27 years on, we still have the CD unchanged as a consumer format.

Some years ago, higher than CD res formats came out such as SACD and DVD A. The uptake from consumers has been small.
Many consumers especially the young and mobile listen almost exclusively to mp3's, a lower than CD quality format.

I only mention consumer formats here. Yes, manufacturers have provided higher res formats and the public have mostly left them sitting on the shelves. Why would that be?

Cheers Tim

By "they," I meant the manufacturers of the digital recording industry. I was talking about the recording quality, not the consumer end quality --- rarely do people record in 16 bit anymore.

With regards to your other question about why 44/16 is still the standard consumer format (and that's debatable ... mp3s are taking over quickly), this is what I honestly think:

When digital came out, people were spellbound by the quietness/cleanness of it -- i.e., the lack of hiss. It became identified with things like "crystal clear" and "prisitine" and "non-linear editing" and "perfect sound" and "lossless transfer," etc. The industry did everything they could to perpetuate this, basically throwing analog under the bus. And it made very good sense from a business model standpoint; it costs much less to manufacture CDs, and that means much higher profit margins. They even jacked up the price of CDs, claiming it was due to manufacturing costs, promising that eventually they'd come down. Of course, that never happened.

Eventually, when the novelty wore off, discerning ears began to realize that, while digital certainly sounded cleaner, it also sounded more sterile. It lacked punch and warmth and body. Many pros in the industry that originally hailed the digital revolution (such as Peter Gabriel and Neil Young) began to recant, stating that it definitely wasn't all it was cracked up to be. "We gained flexibility, but we lost the sound." By that point, though, the damage was done. "Digital" was the buzz word, and the revolution was well under way. People had already replaced their vinyl/tape collections with CDs and thrown out their tape/record players. And most of the general public doesn't hear with a scrutinizing ear anyway. They listen to the very surface. The surface cleanliness is all they hear with digital, and that automatically sounds better to them than the surface hiss of tape or the surface crackle of vinyl. Plus, CDs were portable, you could skip to any track with a remote, and they never degraded (although they do scratch very easily, as do DVDs).

The industry has successfully brainwashed the general public into thinking that digital = better (when compared to analog) or digital = high quality. This applies to many other fields than just music. I remember when digital phone came out. I was living with a roommate, and he was going to set up our phone line. He ended up going with a digital package. I remember thinking, "What was wrong with the old phone style? It always sounded perfectly clear to me, and I never had any problems." After telling me all the features it had, he closed up his explanation with, "Plus, it's digital ... so ..." As in, "it's digital, so it's better."

And now, thank the lord, all TV has gone digital! I dreaded this, and for good reason. When I had my old-school cable TV, the picture was always clear, and the reception was perfect except for the odd times when possibly a tree had fallen on a line during a storm or something. Now? It's usually fine, but every day at least a few times, it'll get pixely for a few seconds and sometimes just go out all together (with "no signal" on the screen). Yay 100% digital TV!

But with each generation's attention span getting shorter and shorter, and technology becoming more and more of a factor in kids' lives, there's simply no way analog can compete on a large scale. Digital is too cheap, fast, and powerful (in certain respects).

So, in short, I'd say the reason I think that is (CDs are still the standard) is that most people just don't care enough to listen closely. They're dazzled by the flashing lights and interfaces of digital everything. But, in my opinion (and many others), all that glitters is certainly not gold in that respect.

Digital certainly has strengths, and I make use of those. But I don't think sound qaulity is one of them.

That's what I think.

 

[evm1024]

Sampling rate.....

Might as well toss this out...

Let's compare 24 bit, 192 kHz digital to tape at 15 ips on a half-track like the tascam 32. First this is not apples to oranges (well duh!) and I'll use bits per second as the metric as that it is an indicator if information capacity.

OK 24 bits times 192 kHz gives us about 4.608 million bits per second. Not bad for a single audio channel.

On to tape. Typical oxide particles are 20 by 2 micro inches in size. The coating on Quantegy 456 is 500 u" deep and the track width is 79,000 u" wide. At 15 ips we see that some 7,406,000,000,000 oxide particles go under the head per second. Of course the particles have an overlap so the particle density may be higher.

If we conisder one particle as representing one bit we find that tape has a "bit rate" that is over 1.607 Million times the bit rate of 24/196 digital.

Of course a bit is just a bit where as the oxide particles can have more or less magnitism thus increasing the "bit depth".

1.6 million times more is not an infinite times more! but then again who is counting?

Tape has that random noise that shows up as hiss and such. Then again humans know what to do with physical system noise.

--Ethan

 

[Tim Gillett]

Might as well toss this out...

Let's compare 24 bit, 192 kHz digital to tape at 15 ips on a half-track like the tascam 32. First this is not apples to oranges (well duh!) and I'll use bits per second as the metric as that it is an indicator if information capacity.

OK 24 bits times 192 kHz gives us about 4.608 million bits per second. Not bad for a single audio channel.

On to tape. Typical oxide particles are 20 by 2 micro inches in size. The coating on Quantegy 456 is 500 u" deep and the track width is 79,000 u" wide. At 15 ips we see that some 7,406,000,000,000 oxide particles go under the head per second. Of course the particles have an overlap so the particle density may be higher.

If we conisder one particle as representing one bit we find that tape has a "bit rate" that is over 1.607 Million times the bit rate of 24/196 digital.

Of course a bit is just a bit where as the oxide particles can have more or less magnitism thus increasing the "bit depth".

1.6 million times more is not an infinite times more! but then again who is counting?

Tape has that random noise that shows up as hiss and such. Then again humans know what to do with physical system noise.

--Ethan

Nice to see you chiming in Ethan. I thought you might.

OK, with all those extra bits available, why is the analog still noisier??? You dismiss your own finding so easily!

Not only that, the most educated and informed people on digital audio dismiss a sample rate of 192 or even lower as a waste of resources. Even the Dan Lavry line of converters dont go any higher than 96, the last time I checked, and partly (I believe) as his own personal stand against the people who insist otherwise, which apparently includes yourself.
So the data requirements of a practical high quality digital recorder are even less than you suggest. ( I know you have cited 192 as a sort on minimum in the past.)

Using wider and wider tracks to compensate for the inherent noisiness of analog methods of recording (and tape is probably the quietest practical analog medium) is a case of diminishing returns. Double the track width and you only get about 3 db improved S/N.
By comparison digital deliberately uses narrow tracks and therefore noisy (from an analog point of view) media because the noise doesnt register in the encoding.

All you end up proving is the inefficiency of analog means to achieve good quality S/N without resort to complex, expensive and difficult to align compander noise reduction systems.

Then there's analog tape head bump and the other limited bandwidth due to head inefficiencies including LC issues.

If analog recording methods at 15ips half track have such a data head start over even 192/24, why doesnt that translate into better bandwidth and better S/N? The audio result is actually far worse! Put another way, why doesnt analog make far better use of all those extra particles?

Your own facts appear to undermine yor own case. Over to you.

Cheers and greetings, Tim from down under.

PS, what did you mean by "humans know what to do with physical system noise"?

 

[famous beagle]

Nice to see you chiming in Ethan. I thought you might.

OK, with all those extra bits available, why is the analog still noisier??? You dismiss your own finding so easily!

Not only that, the most educated and informed people on digital audio dismiss a sample rate of 192 or even lower as a waste of resources. Even the Dan Lavry line of converters dont go any higher than 96, the last time I checked, and partly (I believe) as his own personal stand against the people who insist otherwise, which apparently includes yourself.
So the data requirements of a practical high quality digital recorder are even less than you suggest. ( I know you have cited 192 as a sort on minimum in the past.)

Using wider and wider tracks to compensate for the inherent noisiness of analog methods of recording (and tape is probably the quietest practical analog medium) is a case of diminishing returns. Double the track width and you only get about 3 db improved S/N.
By comparison digital deliberately uses narrow tracks and therefore noisy (from an analog point of view) media because the noise doesnt register in the encoding.

All you end up proving is the inefficiency of analog means to achieve good quality S/N without resort to complex, expensive and difficult to align compander noise reduction systems.

Then there's analog tape head bump and the other limited bandwidth due to head inefficiencies including LC issues.

If analog recording methods at 15ips half track have such a data head start over even 192/24, why doesnt that translate into better bandwidth and better S/N? The audio result is actually far worse! Put another way, why doesnt analog make far better use of all those extra particles?

Your own facts appear to undermine yor own case. Over to you.

Cheers and greetings, Tim from down under.

PS, what did you mean by "humans know what to do with physical system noise"?

S/N ratio isn't the only important component of audio recording. No one's going to argue about digital being quieter.

At least, that's not what I'm arguing about.

 

[evm1024]

Asking the question is the first step......

Hi Tim,

Interesting that you should ask what I meant i.e. "Humans know". Is that a real question that you want an answer to? Or did it just baffle you? It is a key question and understanding it is the first step to understanding.

--Ethan

 

[SteveM]

There's constantly noise in the air anyway. If you were to remove all soundwaves you'd probably still here a hiss of electons. It wouldn't be a digital vaccum.

Nice spelling. I must have been in a rush.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Hi Tim,

Interesting that you should ask what I meant i.e. "Humans know". Is that a real question that you want an answer to? Or did it just baffle you? It is a key question and understanding it is the first step to understanding.

--Ethan

Yes it was a real question and I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in what you meant. Sounds important. Fire away. Cheers Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

S/N ratio isn't the only important component of audio recording. No one's going to argue about digital being quieter.

At least, that's not what I'm arguing about.

Sure. It does bear though on your earlier point about increasing bit rates. 24 bit is a potential improvement over 16 bit but 24 bit represents a whopping 148 db below 0 noise floor and no real world amp, no human ear has that ability. We have converters that are better than 16 bit but none are as good as the theoretical 24 bit. So there's no point in going higher.

Even 16 bit in a release format is quite generous. The humble original CD is very quiet, even with dithering, and it's "only" 16 bit.

Cheers Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

There's constantly noise in the air anyway. If you were to remove all soundwaves you'd probably still here a hiss of electons. It wouldn't be a digital vaccum.

Exactly. If the human ear was any more sensitive, according to F. Alton Everest, we would just be hearing the sound of molecules bouncing off our eardrum, or something like that IIRC. The ear is an amazing instrument.

As I said to Famous Beagle, that's why there's no point going any higher than 24 bit. Even 24 bit quietness is unattainable in practice due to real world limitations.

Cheers Tim

 

[famous beagle]

Sure. It does bear though on your earlier point about increasing bit rates. 24 bit is a potential improvement over 16 bit but 24 bit represents a whopping 148 db below 0 noise floor and no real world amp, no human ear has that ability. We have converters that are better than 16 bit but none are as good as the theoretical 24 bit. So there's no point in going higher.

Even 16 bit in a release format is quite generous. The humble original CD is very quiet, even with dithering, and it's "only" 16 bit.

Cheers Tim

Again, quiet is fine and all, but chopping off the top abruptly and only sampling 44K doesn't do much for those smooth cymbal decays and ultra-high sweet harmonics.

 

[famous beagle]

Ha! Here's the exact point I was making regarding the early digital pioneers returning to analog after the novelty wore off.

And ... holy crap ... Dave Mustaine was (or maybe still is) one idiotic SOB!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7227_ndqQ

 

[famous beagle]

Nice to see you chiming in Ethan. I thought you might.

OK, with all those extra bits available, why is the analog still noisier??? You dismiss your own finding so easily!

Not only that, the most educated and informed people on digital audio dismiss a sample rate of 192 or even lower as a waste of resources. Even the Dan Lavry line of converters dont go any higher than 96, the last time I checked, and partly (I believe) as his own personal stand against the people who insist otherwise, which apparently includes yourself.
So the data requirements of a practical high quality digital recorder are even less than you suggest. ( I know you have cited 192 as a sort on minimum in the past.)

Using wider and wider tracks to compensate for the inherent noisiness of analog methods of recording (and tape is probably the quietest practical analog medium) is a case of diminishing returns. Double the track width and you only get about 3 db improved S/N.
By comparison digital deliberately uses narrow tracks and therefore noisy (from an analog point of view) media because the noise doesnt register in the encoding.

All you end up proving is the inefficiency of analog means to achieve good quality S/N without resort to complex, expensive and difficult to align compander noise reduction systems.

Then there's analog tape head bump and the other limited bandwidth due to head inefficiencies including LC issues.

If analog recording methods at 15ips half track have such a data head start over even 192/24, why doesnt that translate into better bandwidth and better S/N? The audio result is actually far worse! Put another way, why doesnt analog make far better use of all those extra particles?

Your own facts appear to undermine yor own case. Over to you.

Cheers and greetings, Tim from down under.

PS, what did you mean by "humans know what to do with physical system noise"?

And by the way, the reason that tape has noise is because we need bias in order to excite all those oxide particles. That's the trade-off: more fidelity, but more noise. However, with NR systems, the noise was/is extremely a non-issue to me.

 

[The Great Cobb]

hm

Lets just hope that the act of arguing about recording analog vs digital never becomes more important to human beings than the act of recording itself.

 

[The Great Cobb]

A v D

I know the argument isnt really whether either method can be used to capture a good performance, but i thought id throw this in just for the hell of it.

The other day i got turned onto a singer/songwriter who completely blew my mind. Not only did he have brilliant songwriting ability and voice, the recordings sound amazing. Not too hi-fi, not too lo-fi, just kinda dark and and creatively thick.

As i sat and listened to these songs with utter envy and cursed myself for not "doing it first", i got all bent out of shape thinking that maybe i had not gone analog enough in my recordings. His songs sounded so organic and real to me. Like tape should be.

So anyways two days later i found out after talking with the guy that he recorded it in his hotel room on a cheap laptop with a cheap mic, cheap amp, a 100 strat copy, a 12 dollar bass, and not one shred of analog involved.

So basically, my world caved to jealousy and artistic envy over a laptop and an sm58. This story doesnt prove or disprove the sonic qualities of analog vs digital, but it certainly proves something about the true artistic worth of those differences.

 

[Dr ZEE]

... Dave Mustaine was (or maybe still is) one idiotic SOB!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7227_ndqQ

ah, yeah. I recall we had a thread here before in which Dave was beaten up badly for that one
I've heard in an interview Dave saying (paraphrase it): "I have said things in the past I wish I hadn't. But I just have to live with that"
And Dave is on the RIGHT SIDE in the struggle of Humanity against the creeping New World Order. And for that he's The Man in my book , as I'd have to agree with Mr The Great Cobb, there are things more important than arguing about recording analog vs digital.

 

[SteveM]

The industry has successfully brainwashed the general public into thinking that digital = better (when compared to analog) or digital = high quality. This applies to many other fields than just music. I remember when digital phone came out. I was living with a roommate, and he was going to set up our phone line. He ended up going with a digital package. I remember thinking, "What was wrong with the old phone style? It always sounded perfectly clear to me, and I never had any problems." After telling me all the features it had, he closed up his explanation with, "Plus, it's digital ... so ..." As in, "it's digital, so it's better."

And now, thank the lord, all TV has gone digital! I dreaded this, and for good reason. When I had my old-school cable TV, the picture was always clear, and the reception was perfect except for the odd times when possibly a tree had fallen on a line during a storm or something. Now? It's usually fine, but every day at least a few times, it'll get pixely for a few seconds and sometimes just go out all together (with "no signal" on the screen). Yay 100% digital TV!

But with each generation's attention span getting shorter and shorter, and technology becoming more and more of a factor in kids' lives, there's simply no way analog can compete on a large scale. Digital is too cheap, fast, and powerful (in certain respects).

So, in short, I'd say the reason I think that is (CDs are still the standard) is that most people just don't care enough to listen closely. They're dazzled by the flashing lights and interfaces of digital everything. But, in my opinion (and many others), all that glitters is certainly not gold in that respect.

Digital certainly has strengths, and I make use of those. But I don't think sound qaulity is one of them.

That's what I think.

The marvels of modern technology. I love all the out of sync audio too.
That stuff used to be only on old Kung Fu movies.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I know the argument isnt really whether either method can be used to capture a good performance, but i thought id throw this in just for the hell of it.

The other day i got turned onto a singer/songwriter who completely blew my mind. Not only did he have brilliant songwriting ability and voice, the recordings sound amazing. Not too hi-fi, not too lo-fi, just kinda dark and and creatively thick.

As i sat and listened to these songs with utter envy and cursed myself for not "doing it first", i got all bent out of shape thinking that maybe i had not gone analog enough in my recordings. His songs sounded so organic and real to me. Like tape should be.

So anyways two days later i found out after talking with the guy that he recorded it in his hotel room on a cheap laptop with a cheap mic, cheap amp, a 100 strat copy, a 12 dollar bass, and not one shred of analog involved.

So basically, my world caved to jealousy and artistic envy over a laptop and an sm58. This story doesnt prove or disprove the sonic qualities of analog vs digital, but it certainly proves something about the true artistic worth of those differences.

Interesting discovery!
So?
Get a laptop and sm58 and start creating already

/respects

 

[jjones1700]

I'm just wondering: is it that disturbing to people that there is inherent tape hiss, even with various forms of noise reduction? Is that why everyone made a mass exodus to digital in the mid 90's? I find it funny, actually.

To go to a symphony and listen to a piece in a live environment, there is still going to be some sort of background noise, other than the occasional ticket holder coughing or clearing their throat. Road noise, air handlers, boilers/chillers, pumps, supply and return diffusers, aircraft, etc. are going to play a role in the "background" noise that you will hear. It may not be noticeable, but it is there. The building can't be perfectly isolated from all of those sounds, especially since some of the sources are from within. When Beck was recording those instruments and artists in that environment, it may have never been picked up by the mic, therefore, nobody really ever noticed it.

I can't see how it is such a passionate issue unless you are listening lengthy segments of quiet passages. I'm thinking with the transients you would have the volume at some sensible level and wouldn't really notice the hiss anyway. You would have to be actively listening for it.

If digital was the undisputed medium of choice, then nobody would be bothering with old portastudios or multi-channel reel to reel decks. They would simply end up in a landfill. From what I've seen, analog is doing pretty well for a dead medium.

I think it comes down to a choice, convenience or quality. I'm not saying that digital isn't quality, but it has definitely watered things down in terms of quantity of material out there since anyone can own a digital recorder and cut an album. It is extremely convenient, to a fault.

I'm not professional recording engineer, nor am I experienced. I can, however, see and hear the effects digital has on music. How much time is spent, in a professional studio and mastering environment, putting a single album together, in digital vs. analog? I ask that because I come from a different background that has been affected by digital: photography.

I was a professional photographer for about 20 years. I shot 35mm, medium format, and on rare occasions, large format film cameras. I loved the whole process. It was a field where you had to be good or else you were going to go bankrupt buying, shooting, and processing tons of film to get a handful of good shots. Basically, every shot at a wedding cost a $1 for each frame you took, depending on the choice and size of film. In the mid 90's digital cameras starting creeping up. The quality was mediocre at best. As the years went by, digital cameras made leaps and bounds in pixel count and quality. I hung up my camera when my photo partner decided to go digital. I knew computers, AutoCAD, and basic image editing. I had seen what AutoCAD had done to drafting, and I had a bad feeling about photography. A few years later, I was proven right. My buddy began to complain about spending more time on the "back end", touching up photos and adding effects in Photoshop than time spent at the event itself. Storage concerns popped as well. CD-R/CD+R/DVD-RAM/et. al. It was a world of incompatible and competing formats. The shelf life of said variations of medium were a grave concern as well. Oh wait, hard drive space was a top concern as well. Photographers could shoot all day long and it was just costing them the price of the flash cards, or so they thought. Quantity became the Achilles Heel of photography. It wasn't money that it was costing photographers, it was the time. Photoshop was/is king. Talent no longer mattered. Anything could be fixed with Photoshop. Everyone was a professional. No need to try and get it right "in the camera" anymore. The art of photography is dead. There is now a void in genuine creativity (for the most part) in photography. Am I saying that there is a total lack of quality photography? No. I'm saying it has been made "easy" and even the pros are fidgeting with plug-ins so much that they forget that most of the problems could be solved in the first place by having the firm basics of photography and utilizing that.

Digital recording has suffered the exact same thing. Everything is fixed "in the mix" now. With tape, you were either good or you did a number of punch in/punch out sessions. There was no auto-tune, plug-ins, et. al. Maybe I'm just nostalgic. Maybe I'm just stubborn. Could be, but the effects are still visible and audible. I have no doubt that a good studio and a good band could turn out a great album in digital, but who nowadays is really going to notice? All of us audio snobs? Possibly. With the way terrestrial radio is currently, I wouldn't listen to it anyway. Take a compressed digital signal and compress it again (poorly) for transmission? I'll pass.

For all of the merits of digital, the side effects are usually more painful than the intended design, regardless of the profession. I could be wrong about that, but I've witnessed some of it firsthand.

In the end, analog and digital are a choice. No one has to one exclusively over the other. That's the beauty of it. Getting into wasteful arguments of specs, that's whole other story. Can I get the last 30 or so minutes of my life back now?

 

[ofajen]

I'm just wondering: is it that disturbing to people that there is inherent tape hiss, even with various forms of noise reduction? Is that why everyone made a mass exodus to digital in the mid 90's? I find it funny, actually.

(snip)

I think it comes down to a choice, convenience or quality. I'm not saying that digital isn't quality, but it has definitely watered things down in terms of quantity of material out there since anyone can own a digital recorder and cut an album. It is extremely convenient, to a fault.

I'm not professional recording engineer, nor am I experienced. I can, however, see and hear the effects digital has on music. How much time is spent, in a professional studio and mastering environment, putting a single album together, in digital vs. analog? I ask that because I come from a different background that has been affected by digital: photography.

(snip some more)

(snip even more)

I had seen what AutoCAD had done to drafting, and I had a bad feeling about photography. A few years later, I was proven right. My buddy began to complain about spending more time on the "back end", touching up photos and adding effects in Photoshop than time spent at the event itself.

(snip again)

Digital recording has suffered the exact same thing. Everything is fixed "in the mix" now. With tape, you were either good or you did a number of punch in/punch out sessions. There was no auto-tune, plug-ins, et. al. Maybe I'm just nostalgic. Maybe I'm just stubborn. Could be, but the effects are still visible and audible. I have no doubt that a good studio and a good band could turn out a great album in digital, but who nowadays is really going to notice? All of us audio snobs? Possibly. With the way terrestrial radio is currently, I wouldn't listen to it anyway. Take a compressed digital signal and compress it again (poorly) for transmission? I'll pass.

(final snip)

A great post. I just left in a few cues, but not because the rest wasn't worthy.

My priority is to work on musicianship and craft... and boy, let me tell you, do I need to work on that!

Recordings are only something that helps serve those priorities. The end product isn't that huge of a deal. I mean, the musicians I really admire are the ones who just play a lot of good music all the time. Like folks at my church who play guitar, or sax or sing and don't even bother thinking about recording. I'm maybe a bit more oriented toward creating new music and more willing to spend some time recording new music, and maybe be the one to help them do a recording now and then, but I have no desire to spend most of that time endlessly tweaking little details after the fact. Play, record, mix, done!

Pretty much by necessity, magnetic tape forces you get somewhat ready before you record, be able to play things through and get things pretty much right, because you have limits in track number, limits in outboard processors, and limits in editing capability. From the point of view of musicianship, commitment, decision-making and productivity, those are generally positives.

Of course, it is possible to record that same way using digital gear. I have a standalone that basically feels and works about like a Tascam 388, but with a digital sound, which has plusses and minuses. Falken mentioned the Alesis hard disk recorder and Tascam makes one and there there are the Otari and now iZ RADARs. They basically work like a 2" 24-track, in that you generally track analog signals in and then pull the audio back out and mix through a console, so the work flow is just like using tape. That I can deal with for some things (and especially preliminary recordings or remote recordings, if need be), but I'd still prefer to work mostly with tape!

Thanks again for a great post!

Cheers,

Otto