Analog or Digital and why?

[mshilarious]

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

Well we are. It's important to be self-aware. That includes me, of course. But when we get so self-important that we think we are creating great and important art that cannot otherwise exist, 95% of the time we are being delusional.

There are a few good reasons to make a recording; the most compelling is that you are capturing a recording that cannot otherwise be repeated. You know that any playback on any medium will be inferior, but you have no choice. I call this the "Kind of Blue" argument. Wouldn't you rather hear Miles & Coltrane live in 1959? Me too, but that's impossible. But listen to that pre-NR recording. It sounds both beautiful and terrible at the same time; that is a very dynamic recording that suffers greatly from tape hiss. I prefer to listen to my own remaster with digital NR and a bit of compression to even out the disparate levels between different solos.

On the other hand, most orchestral recordings are nothing special, any good orchestra live will be better. Especially the 1812 with cannon--but very few playback systems can even properly reproduce an orchestral bass drum (those are BIG suckers).

I suppose it's nice to hear exactly how Toscanini conducted, but those recordings are so old that they sound quite bad. They are really mostly of academic interest.

Then you have the rock recording that is assembled in pieces, but does it have to be? Brian Wilson said if he could have had ProTools in 1967 he would have finished Smile then. But in 2004 his band played it start to finish live (which was outstanding by the way).

Finally, you have the hobbyist argument, which is straightforward. Do whatever tickles your fancy.

 

[mshilarious]

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.

Don't apologize, I will think less of you

 

[noisewreck]

That is false; there is no tape deck with 120dB dynamic range, nor flat response from 20Hz (or lower) to 40kHz (or higher). This is not difficult for digital.

Both reasons are pretty much irrelevant for 90% of the recorded music.

Firstly the music is so compressed and limited nowdays that the dynamic range means diddly squat. It is also debatable whether flat response is desirable.

 

[noisewreck]

Sure, not difficult at all if your into shrill, sterile, and ear piercing sounds

Wrong argument for analog. Firstly this is not the 80s anymore and digital does not sound sterile or shrill (although it can if you want). Secondly I can easily create shrill and irritating sound with analog alone. Have you checked any of the Metasonics stuff?

Like I said, stupid debate.

 

[Farview]

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.

I think you are confused on what some of the words you are using actually mean. The dynamic range of digital is much more than analog. It actually excedes the dynamic range of anything you could plug into it (mic preamps, etc...). I'm pretty sure you meant that music sounds more dynamic (as in punchier, fuller, etc...) on tape, which is a completely different thing.

People like analog because it changes the sound of what they are recording in a pleasant way. Digital, by comparison, doesn't change the sound at all.

The fullness and punch you get from tape is due to the tape compression (lack of dynamic range) and the not-so-flat frequency response.

The guys you mention are using tape as an esthetic choice, not because it is technically better.

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.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Your 'facts' are not even close.

 

[Farview]

The only problem with the studio in a box is that, once you outgrow it, you have to throw away your entire studio and get a new one.

With a computer setup, you can change your interface without changing your DAW. You can change your DAW without without changing your interface or plugins or anything. The setup grows with you. Having as many tracks as your computer can handle will let you experiment with layering vocals and guitar parts, etc...

The computer is much cooler than the studio in a box only because it doesn't have as many limitations and it's completely upgradable.

 

[grimtraveller]

The only problem with the studio in a box is that, once you outgrow it, you have to throw away your entire studio and get a new one.

You make it sound so dramatic. There's always Ebay !
Not to knock or dispute what you said, I'd just add that whichever route you take, that way will promote a particular way of doing things and that's what you'll flow with. Having gone from analog to digital, I find you adjust to the differences ~ studio in a box to computer or vice versa is little different in that sense.

 

[Farview]

You make it sound so dramatic. There's always Ebay !

I have a client that started with a Roland 8 track SIAB, then moved up to the 16 channel one, then the 24 channel one. Every time he had to get rid of the entire thing and get something new. Every time, he had to get new effects cards because the one from the 16 channel model wasn't compatible with the 24 channel one. If you don't get the effects cards you have to decide between verb on the vocal and compression on the kick. The mix buss is 24 bit and runs out of headroom instantly, I could go on...

 

[RevSwitchblade]

Uh huh......

Do we have to have another argument about Analog versus Digital? Really?

The original poster on this thread was not trying to kick off a troll war and was frankly confused. His question was actually about using a 'Studio in a Box' unit or/versus a computer to record audio with.

The poster was asking some basic questions and, had you read that post, it would be clear that he wasn't looking to kick off a conversation about analog tape versus digital.

Can we please move past all this garbage and get back to questions ncmail is asking?

I totally agree.

 

[mixsit]

The tape vs digi thing.. Try this out. The recorder is the canvas. To some extent it colors, contributes as the paint'.
Many of us are content to have the most neutral canvas we can –digi.
Plenty of other alt paint options for me, on the way in, once in, thanks.
Shrill, thin.. Not.

 

[moresound]

I'd give you some more rep,..but it says I have to spread some more around before givin' it to ya again!

I hit dodge for ya vessel ~ was funny.

 

[mcmetal]

From what i gather the OP is already outgrowing his 2 track recorder by the limited 2 track simultaneous ability.That's the real reason of his post i would think.This happens to all of us at some point for different reasons.

I started recording years ago with an old 4 track Tascam cassete recorder.Then i bought my digital 8 track.Then i bought an interface and stepped into the DAW world.

I've only ever had 2 track simultaneous in all of my recording devices but that was all i ever really needed.4 simultaneous would have been better for drums but to be honest my skills were so bad that it wouldn't have made that much of an improvement.

If you feel the need for more inputs then upgrade to an 8 simultaneous system.You'll learn more as you go and your recordings will get better whichever method you choose.

My recordings sound better with my DAW setup than they ever did with the analog cassette but my skills have improved over the years.The right person with the right mics etc.,could probably make a recording on that old tascam that would blow away anything that i do now.Not because it was better but because of knowledge and know how.

 

[moresound]

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

After reading this thread a few times I've come to the same conclusion.
I think I just may give up recording all together.
I've always felt that I was pulling the wool over the eyes of the artists. Saying "sounds great" ..... but knowing that it was feeble in comparison to the original playing of the LIVE piece.

I bow my head in shame.

 

[grimtraveller]

Home gardening.com ?

 

[moresound]

Home gardening.com ?

Maybe Grim. I don't know any more now.

I feel just like that robot in the movie "hitch hikers guide to the universe".

Why bother? We'll all end up in hell anyways for recording and lying about it.

 

[leove sierra]

I'd go with digital

I'd go with digital since I think they're cheaper compared to analog recording.

 

[moresound]

I'd go with digital since I think they're cheaper compared to analog recording.

Sure, that's easy for you to say. Thomas Edison was a fool and we all believed him.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've always felt that I was pulling the wool over the eyes of the artists. Saying "sounds great" ..... but knowing that it was feeble in comparison to the original playing of the LIVE piece.

What you and MSH need are to start associating with a better class of musician and to start producing and not just engineering.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

What you and MSH need are to start associating with a better class of musician and to start producing and not just engineering.

G.

Actually I'm associated with a very high class of musician through the Outer Banks Forum for the Lively Arts. And that's what gets me, these are musicians who generally would not consider using my products as they have plenty of money for the higher-end gear (for example, Time for Three used DPA), and they certainly wouldn't hire me for studio production, which is fine as I find that to be a mostly thankless chore. So there is no question that I know how good music can be.

That's not the problem, the problem actually stems from my experience where I know the sound for the acts who use less amplification is much better. In fact there is a nearly perfect inverse relationship between the degree to which the act relies on the PA and how much I will enjoy the show. It's almost more painful that I am typically sidestage during soundcheck so I have a pretty good idea of how much better the acoustic sound is (at least where the stage isn't totally dominated by the monitors). That also means I know it's not down to the quality of the musician--they are all really good--just the degree to which they rely on the PA.

So since I know that level of electronic assistance is basically a hindrance, then I must further conclude that recording is even worse. Which it is. Here we are debating which recording system sucks less, either because it is more transparent or because it isn't. Who cares? The problem is the sound before it hits the ADC or tape, not the recording medium so much. Go see an acoustic show instead if you are truly devoted to sound quality, that's a cheaper hobby.

 

[moresound]

Me? I'm, I'm just speechless. I think I need professional help ... A sound annalist.
I'm in the same boat as Jon. I work in theater, love acoustic gigs, I'm a classically trained bassist that has traveled the world in orchestras and I know that the real deal is far superior than any recording or amplified act.
I've lied to myself and to others for all these years.

I say again. I bow my head in shame.