Analog or Digital and why?

[ncmail]

As far as getting stuff into your computer, if you mean from your DP-02, it has USB 2.0 connectivity for just that purpose. If you mean without your DP-02, one of those interfaces I described in my last post will do it.

If you can swing it, if I were you I'd eventually sell the DP-02 and use the money towards a decent interface. The DP-02 is a fine starter machine and great for portability and size constraints, but if you're going to incorporate a computer -based DAW, you''l not only soon find much of what the DP-02 does as redundant, but find the 16-bit format restrictive (you'll want to be working in 24-bit once on the DAW) and the 16-bit-result A/D converters in the 02 as somewhat inferior to the 24-bit-result converters in the interface (assuming you get a halfway decent one.)

I wouldn't worry all that much about the brand of DAW software you get; they all work fine and more-or-less the same, with some cosmetic and workflow differences, but nothing that would mean much to a newb with no previous preferences. If you want to work with your DP-02, yeah, Reaper is fine. Even cheaper would be Audacity, which is free. If you get an interface, it'll usually come with brand-name DAW software (e.g. Cubase LE is just one example) that'll work just fine for you.

G.

I am gonna start playing around with this some...any suggestions on an interface? and is a labtop ok or would I have to go buy a desk top of some sort??

DUH!

Sorry, I thought this was a different thread when I typed that...and forgot it was already established you have a digital DP-02 box.

Actually, the OP's questions can really easilly be interpreted as precisely kicking off a conversation about analog verses digital. If you ask whether or not you should switch to digital even though you're fairly happy with your perceived analog set up, you are asking for the merits of one over the other. If you ask people why they prefer analog or digital, it's virtually impossible to not get into why one is better than the other in the opinion of those posting answers.

I am sorry I was not trying to kick anything off. I was confused, I thought that anything like a 'studio in a box' was an analog I did not realize it was actually digital. So what I really ment was do people perfer computers or a studio in a box and why...sorry again.

 

[grimtraveller]

I am sorry I was not trying to kick anything off. I was confused, I thought that anything like a 'studio in a box' was an analog I did not realize it was actually digital. So what I really ment was do people perfer computers or a studio in a box and why...sorry again.

Hey, no need to apologize, I stand corrected. I wasn't saying you were deliberately starting anything and sr71rules called it right, in your favour. That said, it's inevitable that those on either side of the debate {and to be fair, those in the middle} will put forward their reasons of preference, hence, the debate opens up again. I don't think it's a bad thing in any event.

 

[mshilarious]

Sure, not difficult at all if your into shrill, sterile, and ear piercing sounds. 1 question I'll ask, if digital is soooooooooo good why do people desperately seek plugins that mirror analog? Since you have so many posts under your belt I ask you oh most wise one.

I might be an ass, but at least I'm not an idiot

I am fully capable of building any gear I want, whether analog, mixed signal, or even coding a bit of DSP. True, I don't build tape decks, I'm not much of a machinist. But anyway, I'll be totally honest with you, even though you are being disingenuous.

You have changed your argument. Your initial argument was that tape had greater dynamic range. That is completely demonstrably false, and to add on to that, I even stated that digital can have a vastly wider and flatter frequency response than magnetic or vinyl media. Analog recording media isn't even flat to +/-1dB from 100Hz to 10kHz. These are technical facts that cannot seriously be disputed because it's such a trivial matter to demonstrate scientifically. In fact there is a pretty good web page that measures frequency response of different tape formulations at different tape speeds. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll dig it up for you.

That was really all I wanted to say, I don't care which sounds "better". That is totally subjective and to me it is increasingly irrelevant. Here comes the honest part: all recorded music sounds bad, period. Even music that only hits two stages of transduction (microphone, speaker) sounds dreadfully horrible in comparison with a live source. Maybe if your live source involves transducers you are stuck, I dunno. I really don't care about that anymore.

So I don't get too excited about analog vs. digital vs. DSP vs. whatever. It's not hard to code a VST to mimic an analog circuit. It's not hard to build an analog circuit that saturates in whatever manner you require. It's also not hard to do either in a transparent manner. Classical recordists aren't very interested in analog modeling DSP, for example. Indeed, they aren't interested in much DSP at all (they do like editing though). It's mostly the butt rock crowd that digs that sort of thing.

I can do all of that, but in truth my only desire is to finish my very real pipe organ so I can listen to real music live without any further effort on my part. I am mostly done with recording because I consider it a fool's errand.

But anyway, I will correct technical errors I see posted here, and your post contained a technical error. Deal with it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I am gonna start playing around with this some...any suggestions on an interface? and is a labtop ok or would I have to go buy a desk top of some sort??

Your laptop should hold you just fine for a good while, as long as it has an available USB2 or Firewire port to accept the interface. Which one the interface needs depends upon the interface, it can vary.

As far as the interface itself, the first question would be how many channels do you want to be able to handle at once? The two typical sizes to start out with are either 2-channel or 8-channel. There may be one or two 4-channel units out there, but those are more the exception than the rule.

Decent 2-channel interfaces tend to fall in the $130-$200 range, with some top shelf stuff going more expensive that that. There are some good ones and some crap ones. I'd personally recommend Tascam, Presonus and Apogee to look at there. 8-channel interfaces generally run in the $400-$700 range with some top shelf stuff getting higher than that. Everybody and their brother makes those now, many of them quite fine, but it's hard to go wrong with Presonus or MOTU at the 8-channel level. But there are others as well.

G.

 

[dodgeaspen]

I might be an ass, but at least I'm not an idiot

I am fully capable of building any gear I want, whether analog, mixed signal, or even coding a bit of DSP. True, I don't build tape decks, I'm not much of a machinist. But anyway, I'll be totally honest with you, even though you are being disingenuous.

You have changed your argument. Your initial argument was that tape had greater dynamic range. That is completely demonstrably false, and to add on to that, I even stated that digital can have a vastly wider and flatter frequency response than magnetic or vinyl media. Analog recording media isn't even flat to +/-1dB from 100Hz to 10kHz. These are technical facts that cannot seriously be disputed because it's such a trivial matter to demonstrate scientifically. In fact there is a pretty good web page that measures frequency response of different tape formulations at different tape speeds. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll dig it up for you.

That was really all I wanted to say, I don't care which sounds "better". That is totally subjective and to me it is increasingly irrelevant. Here comes the honest part: all recorded music sounds bad, period. Even music that only hits two stages of transduction (microphone, speaker) sounds dreadfully horrible in comparison with a live source. Maybe if your live source involves transducers you are stuck, I dunno. I really don't care about that anymore.

So I don't get too excited about analog vs. digital vs. DSP vs. whatever. It's not hard to code a VST to mimic an analog circuit. It's not hard to build an analog circuit that saturates in whatever manner you require. It's also not hard to do either in a transparent manner. Classical recordists aren't very interested in analog modeling DSP, for example. Indeed, they aren't interested in much DSP at all (they do like editing though). It's mostly the butt rock crowd that digs that sort of thing.

I can do all of that, but in truth my only desire is to finish my very real pipe organ so I can listen to real music live without any further effort on my part. I am mostly done with recording because I consider it a fool's errand.

But anyway, I will correct technical errors I see posted here, and your post contained a technical error. Deal with it.

Don't sell yourself short, you make a stellar idiot. I guess since you have more posts then I do you have all the answers. I find it interesting that people in the recording business states that when they want a fuller tone and more punch they track to tape. Why is that? If you talk to Ronan Chris Murphy, Eddie Kramer, ETC ETC they agree that analog has a smoother and more palatable frequency range then digital. My bottom line is this, you get your facts straight and you deal with it. No technical error's here. You have your superior opinion, I have the facts.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

If you talk to Ronan Chris Murphy, Eddie Kramer, ETC ETC they agree that analog has a smoother and more palatable frequency range then digital.

What they have access to is not just any analog recording gear, it's the absolute top of the line. Even then it has a sound that you get whether or not you want it, like an effect that doesn't get turned off. Fortunately for them, in skilled hands (theirs) it's generally a flattering effect. In the affordable range digital, for all its faults, is more neutral and consistent sounding than analog. You don't have to go too high in price to get digital that sounds pretty darn good in reasonably competent hands, and you get incredible functionality along with it that is simply impossible with analog at any price. Plus, with the right hardware at the front end, you can add much of that analog "mojo" as needed. For the level of gear most of us will have access to, digital has the advantage.

 

[mshilarious]

I have the facts.

No, actually you don't. You have subjective factors like testimonials, "tone", and "smoother and palatable". I do not wish to argue any of that.

This is my argument, it's very simple:

- magnetic tape does not exhibit a flat frequency response within +/-1dB across the 20Hz to 20kHz range. Digital recording does (at sample rates 48kHz or higher, at 44.1kHz some systems might exhibit perhaps -1.6dB at 20kHz or so).

- the dynamic range of a good digital system is literally 1,000 times greater than that of the best magnetic tape recorder without noise reduction, and still 100 times better than with noise reduction.

Can you dispute either of those facts? That is all that really interests me. Of course you cannot, because your initial statement was in error.

Here is a reference that might help:

http://books.google.com/books?id=00m1SlorUcIC&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that those charts (see p. 173 with NR) describe spectral noise and not integrated noise, and the 0dB point is 3% THD, which I would consider deeply saturated.

Compare that with a reasonable modern converter, which would show spectral noise pretty much dead even at -150dBFS or less across the entire spectrum, and will be under 0.01% THD up until very close to 0dBFS, say -0.3dBFS or so. If you like, I will take a picture of my converter's noise floor and post it for you.

If you can refute the charts in that book, please do so. Otherwise, you have failed to support this statement:

It is proven to have a wider range of dynamics ETC ETC.

I have proven the opposite.

Now, onto frequency response:

http://www.tangible-technology.com/media/media_2.html

Bass response is not too good eh? Funny, my converters are flat down to 5Hz or so . . .

And finally, a gratutious laugh at your poor grammar in retaliation for all of those spankings :

No technical error's here.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

- magnetic tape does not exhibit a flat frequency response within +/-1dB across the 20Hz to 20kHz range. Digital recording does (at sample rates 48kHz or higher, at 44.1kHz some systems might exhibit perhaps -1.6dB at 20kHz or so).

- the dynamic range of a good digital system is literally 1,000 times greater than that of the best magnetic tape recorder without noise reduction, and still 100 times better than with noise reduction.

All I know is this: Even the best analog and the best digital fuck up the sound in some way. The way digital fucks up the sound is worse than all of analog's sonic shortcomings combined.

To be clear: Digital sounds great. Analog still sounds better. You can look at charts all day. It won't matter when you hear a 1/2 inch tape mixed from a 2 inch tape. It is not a case of "pleasant distortion" either. It is a case of not having digital's flavor of distortion.

 

[FunkDaddy]

1. Is it worth going to a digital set up when I already have an anolog set up I am fairly happy with?

2. Is there any real advantage of digital over analog?

3. Why is digital the "perfered" method?

4. What all would I really need to purchace to do a digital set up? I have an HP labtop with Vista on it.

Please I am intrested in your set up and why you perfer either analog or digital. Pictures never hurt either ;-)

Not sure if anybody answered your questions in between the arguing so I'll give it a shot with my very limited knowledge of analog recording...

1. Since you've got a setup you like, I'd say stick with it.

2. There are many advantages to digital over analog...no limit to the amount of takes, ease of editing, expandability, quick rough mixes for sharing/critiquing, very easy long distance collaboration.

3. Why digital is the "preferred" method, in the case of home recording, it would be price and ease of use primarily. More compact/streamlined setups too.

4. Since you've got mics you like, all you would really need is an interface.

I can't say I prefer digital because I've never used analog except once when I did a project for music class. I can say digital works just great for me though

 

[mshilarious]

All I know is this: Even the best analog and the best digital fuck up the sound in some way. The way digital fucks up the sound is worse than all of analog's sonic shortcomings combined.

You ever see "Joe vs. the Volcano"? The opening scene?

All microphones fuck up sound worse than either ADC or magnetic tape. Some people argue that is euphonic, but really only if the source didn't sound too good to start with, like a thin-voiced singer or something. It's funny, a bad singer can eat a 58 and still sound like crap; a good singer can stand three feet away from a 58 and every seat in the house can hear it perfectly. Maybe if you get the crap singer in the studio with the world's best U47 they will sound 15% less crap, hooray.

Try this experiment: buy the most expensive, highest quality microphone in the world, and patch it into the greatest PA of all time installed in an acoustically excellent hall. Put a cellist on stage and turn the PA on and off. The PA compared with the musician is like the difference between the painting of an old master and a kindergartener with crayons.

Everything that comes after the microphone in recording is a feeble attempt to compensate for that fact. So choose your poison, I don't care. Just don't expect to get away with technical errors.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Any argument of analog VERSUS digital is worthless; it's like arguing Chinese cuisine vs. Itallian cuisine. They're both good in their own ways. It's also like arguing breathing versus eating; one rarely exists without the other, except in the most basic of home setups (which tend to be mostly digital because of cost and size advantages only).

Arguing that everything sounds so "digital" these days versus the good ol' days of analog is a half false argument. Much of the time it's not the technology that's at fault, it's the change in preferences for production value on the part of the producers and artists. Most digital-age stuff doesn't sound "digital" because it's digital, it sounds that way because that's how it's been engineered. When converter clipping, flattened crest factors, "exciters" and so forth are actually *desired* and purposely engineered into the recordings, expecting something to sound like an early 70's production is just unrealistic regardless of the technology's default colorations or not.

Analog tape emulation plugs are plenty, yes, but those are mostly marketed to home newbs who don't know any better and are easy to separate from their money. You almost never catch a pro or prosumer engineer using them, because they just don't need them, even if they don't have the real thing.

The truth is that the argument that top-shelf analog sounds "better" is an unmeasurable, subjective-only judgement. I agree that it sounds "better" to me, too, but I have to admit that it's not a defensible position. The main reason that it sounds better to many, especially the older crowd, is because that's what we grew up on and that's what we've been unwittingly conditioned to believe as how things are "supposed to" sound. Totally ignoring the fact that it sounds nothing like reality, we insist the type of coloration that analog offers sounds more natural than any coloration that digital may offer. That's baloney, and only feels that way because analog came first. Survey those that were born after 1980, and the preference for analog is much less, and among those that do prefer it, it's as often as not because that's what they've been told to prefer by the "conventional wisdom" of the Internet.

If we lived in a world where for some reason digital technology evolved before analog, we'd be saying exactly the opposite thing; we'd think that fully-evolved digital sounded more "realistic" and analog was too fakeishly colored.

And finally, I gotta ask the analog-o-philes what they use as their analog distribution medium in 2010? Cassette or vinyl? How's that working out for ya?

So everybody just lay down and let the poor OP, who 's still learning what "analog" and "digital" even means, decide whether he wants something other than the entry-level digital portastudio which so far has served him just fine and given him hours of enjoyment in discovering a new hobby. What I can guarantee you is he's not moving from Tascam digital to Neve and Studer analog; he's not even moving from new Tascam digital to old Tascam analog - at least not yet.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Hey Glen, haven't you heard, vinyl is BACK, man Last year there were 2.5M vinyl sales! Never mind that MJ personally sold like 30 times that total in 1982 . . .



Hey, you know what the #2 selling vinyl album of 2009 was Yep, Thriller Abbey Road was #1.

 

[grimtraveller]

I am mostly done with recording because I consider it a fool's errand.

On a recording website, almost the ultimate irony.
We're all fools !











Just kidding, Ms. Your posts are a fund of valued info.

 

[grimtraveller]

Just out of interest, which is better, video or DVD ?



































I jest of course.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hey Glen, haven't you heard, vinyl is BACK, man Last year there were 2.5M vinyl sales!

Kind of like pissing in the ocean, eh?

Hey, you know what the #2 selling vinyl album of 2009 was Yep, Thriller Abbey Road was #1.

What, no Dark Side of the Moon? Christ, you'd think every person on the planet would have gotten tired of listening to that stuff twenty years ago after hearing it all for the three-trillionth time.

G.

 

[dodgeaspen]

No, actually you don't. You have subjective factors like testimonials, "tone", and "smoother and palatable". I do not wish to argue any of that.

This is my argument, it's very simple:

- magnetic tape does not exhibit a flat frequency response within +/-1dB across the 20Hz to 20kHz range. Digital recording does (at sample rates 48kHz or higher, at 44.1kHz some systems might exhibit perhaps -1.6dB at 20kHz or so).

- the dynamic range of a good digital system is literally 1,000 times greater than that of the best magnetic tape recorder without noise reduction, and still 100 times better than with noise reduction.

Can you dispute either of those facts? That is all that really interests me. Of course you cannot, because your initial statement was in error.

Here is a reference that might help:

http://books.google.com/books?id=00m1SlorUcIC&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that those charts (see p. 173 with NR) describe spectral noise and not integrated noise, and the 0dB point is 3% THD, which I would consider deeply saturated.

Compare that with a reasonable modern converter, which would show spectral noise pretty much dead even at -150dBFS or less across the entire spectrum, and will be under 0.01% THD up until very close to 0dBFS, say -0.3dBFS or so. If you like, I will take a picture of my converter's noise floor and post it for you.

If you can refute the charts in that book, please do so. Otherwise, you have failed to support this statement:



I have proven the opposite.

Now, onto frequency response:

http://www.tangible-technology.com/media/media_2.html

Bass response is not too good eh? Funny, my converters are flat down to 5Hz or so . . .

And finally, a gratutious laugh at your poor grammar in retaliation for all of those spankings :

I'll look at the sites you suggested. Like anything else You find information to support your beliefs and I can find as much to support mine. BTW I apologize for calling you an idiot in my last post, I was wrong in doing so.

 

[RAMI]

You find information to support your beliefs and I can find as much to support mine.

OK, Dodge, we'll be waiting right here. Don't leave us hanging.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I gotta say, Dodge, you don't even need to look at MSH's proferred charts; you know well enough that analog cannot match the dynamic range of digital. You'll be lucky on a good day with the stars aligned to get much above 70dB on your average analog system of the type you picture in your avatar, which is significantly less than the maximum 90dB palate offered by 16 bit digital, and downright wimpy in comparison to the maximum 138dBs of 24-bit. Even the best Studers with the best tape formulations and perfectly maintained heads could never dream of coming close to the range of 24-bit digital.

Not that it matters much either way, because the chances of the signal going into whatever recording medium your choose having that much dynamic range to begin with is relatively small anyway.

Perhaps you meant something else when you referred to dynamic range, because by the standard definitions of that, it's a non-starter of an argument.

Oh, and BTW, you already knew you were opening a can of worms, and said so as a preface to your statement. So please excuse this worm for doing exactly what you predicted .

G.

 

[dodgeaspen]

I like tape worms. Yes I really was referring to sonic quality rather then frequency range but either way my ol' pall mshilarious will have something to say about it.

 

[RAMI]

I like tape worms. Yes I really was referring to sonic quality rather then frequency range but either way my ol' pall mshilarious will have something to say about it.

And, chances are, with all his knowledge, he'll probably be right. Not saying you'd probably be wrong, but MS knows his shit. He's not just a "talker". He can back it up with experience, and he also makes microphones (Naiant) that a lot of people here on HR have purchased and swear by.

This is not a slight on you, Dodge. But I respect MS's opinion on most things concerning sound, and wouldn't dispute most of what he says without some serious research first.