Analog or Digital and why?

[Bristol Posse]

That just goes to show you that us HR-ers have no monopoly over arguing over unimportant details. Give me the best botique hand-made guitar on the planet, and I'll still give you a version of "Pictures of Matchstick Men" that'll make you cringe and send your dog whimpering under the bed.

OTOH, give Stevie Ray Vaughn a cheap Japenese Guild knockoff, and he could still make your jaw drop and send you to a standing ovation (not to be confused with an Ovation guitar )

G.

But neither version should be recorded onto any medium without the express written consent of Glen and mshilarious lest you be deemed a fool recording a fool

 

[TeyshaBlue]

I squeezed this thread and got 3 cups of retard plus a pile of bow rosin/resin.

 

[mshilarious]

plus a pile of bow rosin/resin.

Could I bogart some of that?

 

[TeyshaBlue]

Could I bogart some of that?

I'm going to start a thread "Rosin vs. Resin".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But neither version should be recorded onto any medium without the express written consent of Glen and mshilarious lest you be deemed a fool recording a fool

It would only be foolish to record my version...unless you're purposely making a tutorial recording on how not to play guitar.

But another acoustic recording of SRV would be fantastic to have. Have you heard his Unplugged acoustic version of "Pride and Joy"? The recording is a bit on the bright side - Dodge would probably hate it, and I might not fully blame him for doing so - but the performance is unmatched. Once it's done, you don't friggin' care that it was as bright as it was.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

This could be an interesting thread to watch, if it develops well:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high...ape-compression-affect-recorded-material.html

I have not seen extensive data on saturation by frequency, harmonic, and level, I merely know some inferences. For example, looking at the charts in that book I linked, it seems clear that low frequencies will saturate first--which is not a big surprise really. Is the distortion mostly even- or odd-order? I would guess odd, mostly third and a bit of fifth, but that's just a guess. Transformers will saturate in a similar manner.

I also think it's likely that tape doesn't truly "compress", as in there is no ADSR envelope, but rather the flattening of waveform tops & bottoms is experienced as compression even though it's actually all distortion. It's nearly impossible to hear even high levels of low-order distortion on transients, such that if the operating level is correctly set so low frequencies are saturated (a desirable effect, it "thickens" low-mids by adding harmonic content) and transients are soft-clipped.

We'll see if anybody there has the hard numbers to back up all of that . . .

 

[bunt]

That just goes to show you that us HR-ers have no monopoly over arguing over unimportant details. Give me the best botique hand-made guitar on the planet, and I'll still give you a version of "Pictures of Matchstick Men" that'll make you cringe and send your dog whimpering under the bed.

OTOH, give Stevie Ray Vaughn a cheap Japanese Guild knockoff, and he could still make your jaw drop and send you to a standing ovation (not to be confused with an Ovation )

Same thing with A vs. D.

G.

Exactly right, Like fuel injection or good throaty 4 barrel carb...

 

[miroslav]

And that most performances aren't worth recording. That doesn't mean they aren't good performances, just that the act of recording will devalue them. Take CD sales at concerts, for example. If the concert was good, the CD will have the same value as a t-shirt. If the concert sucked, then the t-shirt is worth more than the ticket or the CD . . .

And then you have all those bands that sound fantastic on their recordings and only so-so when you hear them live!

I get you point that hearing a live symphonic orchestra could sound better then a recording...but man, that's such a "tight" argument. I mean...you would have to have the perfect seat to hear that orchestra perfectly in only its acoustic glory.

Also...there's all kinds of new perspectives always emerging about what sounds good/bad. Distortion was initially considered something unwanted...now you can't avoid it 'cuz it’s often the exact thing that makes us like some tones/music.
Likewise...you got people who intentionally go for mild digital clipping because they like the effect on some kinds of music.

To simply view recorded music (or amplified music) as some second rate attempted compared to the acoustic versions... isn't a valid argument. It might be your preference, but not some absolute as how you seem to be making it if I'm reading your posts correctly.
That would be just as invalid as saying that sonically, acoustic guitar is better than electric.

 

[grimtraveller]

I can't regard recording as a fool's errand because I don't really care whether it's trying to capture/simulate acoustic purity (assuming there is such a thing, which I don't). I like unplugged, I like artifice. I'm a simple man of simple means. Recording has been part of human development in the same way film has (over stage plays). The moment it became possible to reproduce something for you to play at home, on the bus or in the car, all bets were off as far as arguments of purity were concerned. It just doesn't come into it.
The purest air might be, I don't know, in the Arctic or something. But people in the polluted cities still live to be 100.

 

[mshilarious]

And then you have all those bands that sound fantastic on their recordings and only so-so when you hear them live!

That would be most rock bands.

I get you point that hearing a live symphonic orchestra could sound better then a recording...but man, that's such a "tight" argument. I mean...you would have to have the perfect seat to hear that orchestra perfectly in only its acoustic glory.

Not really, almost any seat in a good hall will have superior sound to a recording. So it's less of a "could" than an "almost absolute certainty".

I mean, take the bass drum alone. Orchestras use BIG bass drums. Speakers don't do a good job of reproducing that, especially home systems. Maybe if you have the Fostex 36" woofer or something . . .

To simply view recorded music (or amplified music) as some second rate attempted compared to the acoustic versions... isn't a valid argument. It might be your preference, but not some absolute as how you seem to be making it if I'm reading your posts correctly.
That would be just as invalid as saying that sonically, acoustic guitar is better than electric.

Behind my preference is a more nuanced argument: there is no point getting emotional about a recording medium because they are all inferior to live sound. That is not to say no one should record, but if we are self-aware we know it's a compromise. So let's not get upset about someone else's choices.

You won't see me get upset about people who like analog. I understand quite well why people like certain frequency response curves and types of saturation, especially low-frequency saturation (I prefer to get that with a transformer and/or FET myself, no moving parts to break).

But when they say things that are incorrect about digital and I correct them, they tend to get upset. That's a bit strange. Digital doesn't have to be bad for analog to be good.

That is all.

 

[miroslav]

So let's not get upset about someone else's choices.

I'm not, I don't care which you prefer.......it was just the way your comments came across.
Your argument appeared as an absolute...that listening to acoustic/live always trumps listening to recordings because recording in itself is a poor option to live (or some such thing).

I think recording stands on its own and not simply a lesser alternative to the live.

 

[mshilarious]

I think recording stands on its own and not simply a lesser alternative to the live.

I think that's true for recordings that are meant to be such, but then somebody has to go and give a concert that doesn't measure up.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Behind my preference is a more nuanced argument: there is no point getting emotional about a recording medium because they are all inferior to live sound. That is not to say no one should record, but if we are self-aware we know it's a compromise.

I think most folks, including I, would agree with that (and have said the same thing in different ways). But that's a whole long way away from saying that recording is a fool's errand.

G.

 

[ncmail]

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

I like it, but like I had said, I want to be able to do more tracks in unison to have a little more control over the levels on individual mics on drums.

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.

From what I have learned just in this along with other threads I have been reading I am definatly staying with digital (now that I understand my tascam is not analog ) Im thinking of getting a cheaper interface and playing around with that and one of the free DAW's to see if I perfer it over a studio in a box and work from there.

 

[ncmail]

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.

I hear ya, I know I am still learning and that there is a lot of knowledge to be desired, but hey, nothing happens overnight...well at least not in my case.

Mmmmmmm....it really depends on the style of music being played. Acoustic performances don't work for everything.
That "unplugged" phase so many acts went through, trying to give a different take on their music...for the most part sucked-ass.
NOOOOO...I say PLEEEEZ PLUG BACK IN!!!

I completely agree.

 

[mcmetal]

I hear ya, I know I am still learning and that there is a lot of knowledge to be desired, but hey, nothing happens overnight...well at least not in my case.



I completely agree.

The way this thread turned out we all might as well just give up because it'll never be as good as the real thing.

I think all artists should stop painting trees and just go outside and stare at their old oak.Doesn't matter how good of a painter they may be it'll never be as realistic as the real oak with all those gypsy moth worms eating away at it....And the squirrels... let's not forget about them


Analog or digital doesn't matter.It's an act of preservation and expression.Get what you can afford and have at it.We record so we can capture something we enjoy.The same reason we have libraries full of books and the reason we take pictures of loved ones.

Purist viewpoints are still nothing but personal opinions.An orchestra may sound phenominal in a great hall but if you were to take that same orchestra and have them play in a football field the sound will be effected in many ways.So what's more pure a manmade hall or the great outdoors?

 

[Dr. Varney]

The recording studio near my house uses two venues. It is said in a write up that the newer venue uses a Pro Tools digital set up whilst the older venue retains it's analogue character, for older styles of music and clients who prefer it.

Seeing as the owner lives above the older venue, I'm guessing he likes to be surrounded by the stuff that made him his name back in the early days, whilst the digital studio is necessary to keep up with the times and ensure he can compete in today's climate.

I think if I had started with analogue, I'd probably have stuck with it and maybe added a digital element but I had no choice but to start with a computer as the core. Having already got one on my desk, it allowed me to get started with ponced software and see the possibilities for next to nowt. Now I've gotten a little more serious, I've started investing a little money and it seems the digital is here to stay... and it will grow.

I'm inclined to think that while I always preferred the idea of analogue (for reasons I can't quite describe), I would have missed out on a lot of choice the VST software gives me. To get such a comprehensive layout of tools, you'd need to spend a great deal of money with analogue.

Having said that, when I say 'analogue', most of the time I'm just referring to seperate units... and I think most of them are based on a digital processor these days. I'm sure that to get true analogue all the way through would have to be the result of a passion for older gear and possibly involve some sourcing from specialists.

So personally, I do think building the studio around a computer is possibly the most cost effective and practical approach these days. It's a sign of the times and I suppose the path of least resistance for the home recordist.

After all, let's face it - it's the domestic computer that's made it possible for so many people these days to set up minature 'studios' in their homes. Only a decade ago it seems to me, things were quite different.

Dr. V

 

[mshilarious]

PC based studios were viable more than 10 years ago, this board dawned in 1999. There was not the processing power we have today, so the track count was limited, and especially plugs were limited. But the VST spec dates to 1996 . . .

A typical session then wouldn't have run more than 24 audio tracks, a lot of people were still using hardware based synths and just using the PC as a MIDI host. If you needed a ton of effects, then you would have considered dedicated hardware DSP as well. Converters were 20-bit with about 103dB of dynamic range. And it was all expensive by 2010 standards.

Still much more flexible than a cassette four-track or ADAT.

 

[mshilarious]

I finally found that website that had all of the tape frequency response measurements . . . but I remembered incorrectly, they were measuring different decks rather than different formulations. Anyway:

http://www.endino.com/graphs/

 

[mshilarious]

And here's an interesting article about biasing:

http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes/mcknight_biasing.pdf

This is interesting from the point of view of ultrasonic recording. Sometimes you see tape fans point out that the brickwall filter required for 44.1kHz digital sampling must consequently toss out frequencies above 20kHz, vs. a gradual rolloff for magnetic media. And there is some research that indicates ultrasonic frequencies in some circumstances can be detected, if not heard directly.

So if we presume that we must record up to say 40kHz, then we'd need to record at least twice that frequency, say 88.1kHz or 96kHz. A digital converter operating at either of those frequencies can perform very close to flat response across that spectrum.

Similarly, for tape we have to be mindful of the bias frequency--just like digital, it must be more than twice the required bandwidth *and* the source must be bandwidth-limited to half the bias frequency. If not, we will create intermodulation distortion between the bias frequency and ultrasonic frequencies, even if we don't care about content over 20kHz. This might not be quite as bad as digital aliasing, but it's not desirable.

It's a small matter, but if you are interested in using magnetic tape for ultrasonic recording you should investigate the ultrasonic frequency response of the system vs. the bias frequency used, and filter the source signal as required if the deck hasn't already done that for you (one would hope).