Debating Analog or Digital

[Rod Norman]

Oops - I thought you were talking about the 38 1/2" tape machine. Why would you go from digital to a cassette eight track? Go look for a 38. The only thing the 388 was good for is doing 8 track on a budget when there wasn't any better. Don't do it. the 8 tracks on a small cassette is not worth the money. Not in today's world. Just because it's analog doesn't make it warm and retro.
Rod Norman

 

[diggy_dude]

Oops - I thought you were talking about the 38 1/2" tape machine. Why would you go from digital to a cassette eight track? Go look for a 38. The only thing the 388 was good for is doing 8 track on a budget when there wasn't any better. Don't do it. the 8 tracks on a small cassette is not worth the money. Not in today's world. Just because it's analog doesn't make it warm and retro.
Rod Norman

The 388 uses 1/4" tape. You're thinking of the 238.

 

[miroslav]

Why is there a "diggy_dude" in the Analog Only forum?

 

[diggy_dude]

Why is there a "diggy_dude" in the Analog Only forum?

Because diggy dudes dig analog. Digital ain't as diggy, even though it begins with "dig". Dig?

 

[wings012345]

Well, I bought the 388 today. Gonna keep the 2488 NEO as well. Bought it from the original owner who bought it at Sam Ash. Moderatley used and has been boxed up and put away for a long time. It's very clean like it just came out of the box! All the VU lights work. It's a 10

 

[diggy_dude]

Holee smoke, that's purty!

 

[Bobbsy]

I'm in the mood for stirring the pot today, so...

Anybody else think that analogue recording is sort of the audio equivalent of classic car restoration? You probably still enjoy "driving" your classic (i.e. making music) but you also have to be willing to do a lot of work under the hood--finding and swapping spare parts, scrounging suitable tape, etc. etc. The results are admirable but in the realm of true enthusiasts.

Digital, on the other hand, is more the person who wants to buy a good car and just drive it. Much of the "magic" is missing but modern cars are arguably more efficient and reliable.

 

[diggy_dude]

I'm in the mood for stirring the pot today, so...

Anybody else think that analogue recording is sort of the audio equivalent of classic car restoration? You probably still enjoy "driving" your classic (i.e. making music) but you also have to be willing to do a lot of work under the hood--finding and swapping spare parts, scrounging suitable tape, etc. etc. The results are admirable but in the realm of true enthusiasts.

Digital, on the other hand, is more the person who wants to buy a good car and just drive it. Much of the "magic" is missing but modern cars are arguably more efficient and reliable.

Apt analogy. I think most people can be obsessed with the minutae of one pursuit while not giving a hoot about another. I, for one, can't be bothered about what goes on in the engine compartment of my car, but I'll tool around with a tape recorder all day long.

 

[miroslav]

Yeah, that's a fact...tape decks require dedicated, endless love...and just having a decent amount of any analog gear is a real commitment, one you don't quite feel the same way about when it comes to computers and software, which is why software piracy is so easily accepted by many. "It's just software...what's the big deal"...and all that stuff about "virtual" property not being of much value.

I just like the whole experience of using analog hardware, tape decks, etc. Often, then tools we choose to use are more about "comfort zones" then arguing which is "better".
Some feel the comfort in front of a computer more so than they would sitting at a hardware console...and vice-versa.

 

[diggy_dude]

The guys who write that software are just as passionate about their work as we are about our gear. They get to see the actual code, which makes it very "real" to them. My beef with digital recording is that it's so damned difficult to get the feel of a console out of it. A reasonably priced control surface and interface with multiple simultaneous channels is put to shame by even the lowliest vintage Tascam console in the usability department.

 

[grimtraveller]

Very Well put Hammerstone.

Do you think so ? I don't. I think it was a closed minded post masquerading, when things got a little, um, closed minded, as 'tongue in cheek'.
But, it's an opinion in the 'analog only' forum so there is no right of reply.

Maybe it is subjective, but it still sounds better

Wow.
Flame wars are childish and monotonous after the first few. Intelligent, polite rebuttals are not.

To most average people,

So, are you acquainted with "most average people" ? Can you tell me more about "most average people" that travel on the bus or "most average people" in South Korea or "most average people" that are left handed and have more than 2 children of either gender ?

Well...when someone asks which to use and why...it's kinda' impossible to talk about the two formats without considering each of their pros/cons....

Funny, last year or the year before, I and others got shat upon in the analog forum for pointing out that very thing.
I was told this is supposed to be the forum where only analog is discussed because, as was pointed out in no uncertain terms, there are no other analog only forums on the net and.......

So I have a chance to buy a really nice 388 in clean excellent shape. Been thinking about going back to the analog world for a while. I have always wanted one of these

I'm glad that you bought the 388 because it was obvious to me that that's really where your heart and mind were at.
Just out of interest, if there had actually been replies from lots of people that had started off in analog, gone to digital and then gone back to analog, but with not good results, would that really have influenced your decision ?

More hands on which is kinda cool.

As you yourself know from your 2488NEO, a DAW or a recording digitally isn't only about computers.
I made the move from a Tascam 488 to a digital standalone {an Akai DPS12i} some years back. I'm still using the 488 in the mixing process although I'm hoping to have all that completed within 18 months or so. But I mainly use the Akai. One of the major reasons I chose a standalone DAW in the first place wasn't because of the built in effects {I didn't even realize that it had them for about 3 years !} but because as a portastudio, the workflow would be near identical to what I had been doing on the 488 all those years. It's just as hands on, just as many knobs and faders. Still need to be an octopus with that ambitious panning as one reaches those climaxes.
The thing that really surprized me, given all I had read up to that point about harsh digital sounds, was that there was no discernable difference to my ears. Maybe it's because I'm a lousy recorder {}, but my recordings still have that nice thick quality about them. The only difference I could detect was in clipping. Without a doubt the DPS12i is horrible when you hear sustained {as opposed to brief} clipping. Gain staging has been a far more significant factor than the actual medium.
My thought has long been that what we see in digital recording is no different to what was done in analog recording in times past. I know that things like cutting tape to introduce new elements was de rigeur to 60s and 70s engineers. Editing different takes together from different multitracks was also. I simply didn't want to take those risks so having a machine with an 'undo' button is marvelous. It's only a minimal timesaver because editing digitally, for me, takes time, sometimes.
Being well acquainted with both analog and digital, I have no preference. Both are marvelous. Because they both record. I wouldn't go back to analog but that's nothing to do with the medium and rather, to do with me. There's someone here who, in their sig, says something to the effect of 'how can you expect to record decent music on something that was designed for word processing ?'. I'm an old adventure playworker. Part of our raison d'etre was to make playspaces for kids out of things like telegraph poles and railway beams that weren't designed originally for what we used them for.

I trust you will have oodles of fun and joy on your 388 and maybe have a challengingly rewarding time incorporating use of the 2488 into your way of doing things.
Above all, enjoy it and make great music !

 

[miroslav]

My beef with digital recording is that it's so damned difficult to get the feel of a console out of it. A reasonably priced control surface and interface with multiple simultaneous channels is put to shame by even the lowliest vintage Tascam console in the usability department.

Well yeah...that's where the comfort zone thing comes into play.

Funny, last year or the year before, I and others got shat upon in the analog forum for pointing out that very thing.
I was told this is supposed to be the forum where only analog is discussed because, as was pointed out in no uncertain terms, there are no other analog only forums on the net....

I don't know who "shat" on you for that.......I know it wasn't me.
I've been on the analog/digital fence for too long to lean real hard to only one side.
The only time I get obviously a little pro-analog is when I start hearing the arguments that digital is better because it's more accurate, which maybe be the case, but I feel there's SO much more to appreciating audio/sound than just pure accuracy.
Otherwise, I'm a big DAW user, as much as I like to spin the reels. Heck...I'm editing tracks in the DAW at this moment...I just need to step away every hour or two, as it really kills my eyes to stare with intensity at the screen, and my bones get stiff just sitting there and only rolling the stupid trackball with my thumb.

 

[Little Silas]

It just depends on what sound you are looking for.
I sometimes use digital, sometimes analog and other times both.
Just enjoy what you are doing.
Example blues mix:
Drums, bass, keyboard, horns - digital
Voice, harp and guitar - analog
I actually put the digital tracks on to the analog machine and mix.
I then put the entire mix into the digital recording device and add a little effects.
Final mix to a hard drive to make CDs.

 

[Bobbsy]

My beef with digital recording is that it's so damned difficult to get the feel of a console out of it.

Devil's advocate time...

What about actual digital consoles? There's tons out there now and the prices are getting down into home recording range--for example the Behringer x32.

Of course, there is some risk with purchasing one--you have to watch out for all the moresound drool which seems to be a problem in most of them!

 

[Johnny Nowhere]

I have two 388s, with one being a parts deck. That took care of the only headache that going analogue presents. I find that recording everything on tape makes the results much more satisfying because rather than relying on all of the digital 'fixes', I have to rely on my own resourcefulness.

I work from background to foreground in respect to instrumentation and vocals, and double track everything, so I use up tracks quickly. So after I get a good background mix on the 388, I convert the analogue tracks to stereo 24 bit/44.1 kHz .wav files onto CD format (that sound every bit as good as the tape) using a master burner. I remix until I get it just the way I want it. These become my archive mix CDs. I then bounce the .wav back onto two tracks of fresh tape, and build up six more tracks, ad infinitum. My finished product sounds as good as if I'd used a 24 track recorder.

A little programme compression is all you need if you get your tracks recorded properly. The 7.5 ips tape speed buffers the top-end a bit, but the bass response will melt butter. The built-in dbx I on the 388 keeps everything clean.

You'll not regret the 388 purchase if you don't mind doing the maintenance. You'll want the manual, which is available for download if the previous owner didn't furnish one, however.

 

[diggy_dude]

Devil's advocate time...

What about actual digital consoles? There's tons out there now and the prices are getting down into home recording range--for example the Behringer x32.

Of course, there is some risk with purchasing one--you have to watch out for all the moresound drool which seems to be a problem in most of them!

That might be an option if I was still in the market for a console. I quit shopping once I put together a rig I can live with. I have to say that Behringer unit looks pretty impressive. Maybe in a few years I'll get to itching for something different and give digital another go.

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't know who "shat" on you for that.......I know it wasn't me.

Naw, it wasn't you. I'd be pretty surprized if something like that came from you to me.

The only time I get obviously a little pro-analog is when I start hearing the arguments that digital is better because it's more accurate, which maybe be the case, but I feel there's SO much more to appreciating audio/sound than just pure accuracy.

I get that way with both sides. I'm tired of the "digital is superior because it's more accurate and less cumbersome" and the "analog is purer, warmer and more accurate" argy~bargy.
I look upon it as they are both recording mediums. End of story. Digital is simply my razor blade.

 

[RAMI]

I have two 388s, with one being a parts deck. That took care of the only headache that going analogue presents. I find that recording everything on tape makes the results much more satisfying because rather than relying on all of the digital 'fixes', I have to rely on my own resourcefulness.

I work from background to foreground in respect to instrumentation and vocals, and double track everything, so I use up tracks quickly. So after I get a good background mix on the 388, I convert the analogue tracks to stereo 24 bit/44.1 kHz .wav files onto CD format (that sound every bit as good as the tape) using a master burner. I remix until I get it just the way I want it. These become my archive mix CDs. I then bounce the .wav back onto two tracks of fresh tape, and build up six more tracks, ad infinitum. My finished product sounds as good as if I'd used a 24 track recorder.

A little programme compression is all you need if you get your tracks recorded properly. The 7.5 ips tape speed buffers the top-end a bit, but the bass response will melt butter. The built-in dbx I on the 388 keeps everything clean.

You'll not regret the 388 purchase if you don't mind doing the maintenance. You'll want the manual, which is available for download if the previous owner didn't furnish one, however.

You have beautiful hand-writing.

 

[diggy_dude]

You have beautiful hand-writing.

PMSL

 

[WarmJetGuitar]

The only problem I see with analog is all the youngsters that grew up with digital will have to be able to play the song all the way through instead of playing the song one riff at a time.It's a conversation I have with my youngest-he's gone from Digitech Death Metal pedals with a solid state amp through a 2-12 cabinet, to a tube head and 4-12 bottom, and now wants to mix his band's demo to tape.Looks like there is some hope for the kids.Now if I can just get him to print drums to tape...

Some youngsters actually knows how to play. To me analog is easier as you won't have to mess around for ages just to make the recording sound acceptable - if you knows how to play and knows how to record it'll usually sound very good with minimal EQing.

To me, doing a song is difficult there's five options:

1. Do another take
2. Reconsider if the mistake is actually a nice part of the expression (lot's of 60's rock had small mistakes that worked quite well)
3. Find some nice stimulants and continue tracking for hours and hours (not for everyone, should be used with care)
4. Ask a bandmate to play what you intended doing. Lots of youngsters is very versatile musicians.
We're not all messing with Macs.