Analog or Digital and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ncmail
  • Start date Start date

Analog or Digital?

  • Analog

    Votes: 6 20.7%

  • Digital

    Votes: 13 44.8%

  • No real difference

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Depends on type of music/situation

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Total voters
    29
Im loving both. Recently bought a Tape machine, wanting nice sound. That i got, much better than my mbox. when i bought the machine i needed a mixer, so i bought an old analog one. The Tape machine wasnt ready for use, so i used the mixer as a preamp going into mbox. A nice difference. Once the tape machine was working fine, i recorded on it. You really have to get it right. I was trying to mix a clients music and constantly missed parts where the singer was too loud, or where the lead player stuffed up etc. everytime i had to rewind to the beginning and start again as it was live onto DAT. I had to to get it right, or else start again. "Stuff this" i thought, i dumped it all into pro tools. EASY. got the mix done in no time. I absolutely love the sound of my tape machine and for me, recording myself i will not use the the computer at all because my songs are sorted, thus there will be no issues mixing. But for editing efficiency digital is the bomb. Altiverb - one of the best reverbs around is $500 for the software. To get something as good for analog you need quite a few thousand. My conclusion is to use both - because i like the musicality of using a mixer and a tape deck for tracking. I like mixing on the fly turning the knobs as opposed to looking at a screen and using the mouse. For more complex music, Tape is a bitch, but if you dig guitars, mandolins, nice vox and like to keep it simple, then Tape works great - just make sure you get it right!
 
RAMI said:
2 years and 2 months.
Click to expand...

It's important to keep the Analogue vs Digital argument going.

My latest digital appliance is an iron. Says so on the box. The old one died so I had to get a newbie and naturally when I saw the word "digital" on an appliance that generates heat, I had to get it....

Apparently it has a digitally controlled temperature so that when I'm ironing my shirts I can do so with the confidence that the temperature is correct. As long as I don't try it on the wool setting...

I wonder if I can use it as an insert to warm up some of my recordings? :laughings::thumbs up:
 
Then technically that's a hybrid analog-digital iron, but that actual electrons are never converted to 1s-0s...so without that, it's still just an analog iron, but with digital control.

Kinda' like some of the OTARI consoles. The worst part being, when the digital control died, the analog portion of the console wouldn't even pass audio.

I hope when your digital thermometer goes....you can still iron your pants....without burning them. ;)


Gotta love these old threads rising from the ashes.....alien resurrection! :D
 
miroslav said:
Then technically that's a hybrid analog-digital iron, but that actual electrons are never converted to 1s-0s...so without that, it's still just an analog iron, but with digital control.

Kinda' like some of the OTARI consoles. The worst part being, when the digital control died, the analog portion of the console wouldn't even pass audio.

I hope when your digital thermometer goes....you can still iron your pants....without burning them. ;)


Gotta love these old threads rising from the ashes.....alien resurrection! :D
Click to expand...

I was just amused at the need to label everything "digital" like that automatically makes things better... it's an iron ferphuxache...! And yeah - part most likely to fail? Digital display.... :thumbs up:
 
IMO the analog vs digital debate is more relevant than ever. Five years ago not even I could foresee how low recording standards could sink. It’s worse now than ever and the debate is pretty much over, with analog coming out on top. I don’t say this with any joy however because in my lifetime I’ve witnessed the agonizing death of the recording industry and a hi-fi bar so low not even a snake couldn’t crawl under it.

Not long ago one could still make decent music with a combination of analog and digital, but you can only do that now if you ignore marketing trends and use older better digital gear. The market has trended to cheap and toy-like and it will stay that way as long as amateurs dominate the recording scene. Recording is all about gear now, and of course that means being in constant transition buying the latest products, which are crap!

So its not only about digital vs analog anymore, but digital vs digital. That is, its about finding that point where digital peaked before it started going down hill, and IMO that point was roughly 10 years ago. Yep, “vintage digital” for lack of a better term. But it’s not only equipment build quality due to issues like outsourcing, but also recording methods; namely the proliferation of plugins that don’t really do what the hardware versions did. Music of every genre sounds more canned and sterile than ever before. If it weren’t so tragic the adoption of USB as a recording standard would have me laughing my ass off. It’s utterly insane!

What is the lesson? Marketing people are good. They’re trained to fool most of the people most of the time… and they do.

I guess I should say more relevant than ever, but more futile than ever because the recording community has been had and they have no idea they have.
 
Beck said:
IMO the analog vs digital debate is more relevant than ever. Five years ago not even I could foresee how low recording standards could sink. It’s worse now than ever and the debate is pretty much over, with analog coming out on top. I don’t say this with any joy however because in my lifetime I’ve witnessed the agonizing death of the recording industry and a hi-fi bar so low not even a snake couldn’t crawl under it.

Not long ago one could still make decent music with a combination of analog and digital, but you can only do that now if you ignore marketing trends and use older better digital gear. The market has trended to cheap and toy-like and it will stay that way as long as amateurs dominate the recording scene. Recording is all about gear now, and of course that means being in constant transition buying the latest products, which are crap!

So its not only about digital vs analog anymore, but digital vs digital. That is, its about finding that point where digital peaked before it started going down hill, and IMO that point was roughly 10 years ago. Yep, “vintage digital” for lack of a better term. But it’s not only equipment build quality due to issues like outsourcing, but also recording methods; namely the proliferation of plugins that don’t really do what the hardware versions did. Music of every genre sounds more canned and sterile than ever before. If it weren’t so tragic the adoption of USB as a recording standard would have me laughing my ass off. It’s utterly insane!

What is the lesson? Marketing people are good. They’re trained to fool most of the people most of the time… and they do.

I guess I should say more relevant than ever, but more futile than ever because the recording community has been had and they have no idea they have.
Click to expand...

Well aren't you the cheery soul today....?

Pardon me if I don't throw all my current and previous work into the bin and destroy my brand new computer and expensive interface and all my mics and other gear based on your assessment of.... what was it again?

I have absolutely no doubt that the recordings I'm making now are far, far, far, far (is that enough?) better than those I was making 10 years ago. That's all that matters to me, and I suggest, the majority of people here..

:thumbs up:

Cheer up... :)
 
Oh it’s not as bad as all that. Life is grand! Yet I can’t help but grieve for the music industry. Trying to tell you guys you’ve been snookered is like trying to show someone they’ve been drawn into a religious cult. The ego resists the idea that one can be deceived.

I’ve been recording since 1978. My engineering skills were first-rate and I was well established by early 80’s, but it wasn’t because of gear.

I’m sure your recording skills are better simply due to experience, but sonically speaking we’ve lost a great deal. The key word here is “Acclimation.” People have become acclimated to poor sound because they’re surrounded by it… everyone is doing it the same way. The vast majority have never made a choice between analog and digital because they’ve never had a choice. When people like me say we’ve chosen our tools we’ve truly had the opportunity to experience the different technologies and make real informed choices. That’s a rare thing these days. People literally don’t know what they’re missing because their experience is limited.

The focus today is on consumerism rather than skill and art. That’s what these forums and others like them are all about… selling new product. Manufacturers are answering questions no one is asking and providing solutions to non-existent problems. It’s not at all uncommon for a company’s so-called legacy products to outperform their newer inferior products. One of the essential skills of a great recording engineer is knowing the difference regardless of when something was made.
 
Ok uncle Rico yesterday is not coming back.

I totally understand what your saying but I think its great that the playing field has been leveled, For little money anyone can make a pretty good recording, and with that same gear and some experience those recordings can approach the big boys. You may think sonically todays music sounds like ass and I would agree sometimes, but when I play an old classic for my kids they think it sounds "old" and my daughter used the word "dull". Times have changed and all things being equal I think its OK.
 
I don't think digital has gotten worse over the last ten years, I just think that there are more really cheap interfaces out there now. If you just buy the quality ones, that soles the problem completely.

As for the record companies, if they would have continued doing what they did 30-40 years ago and developed artists, they would not have gone down so easily.
 
most articles Ive read have changed over the years, and that digital is fine now and maybe , in hindsight, the early days of CD and transfer abilities maybe not so great.

Sound on Sound had a mastering bit about the crew who did the Beatles transfers again, in 2009, versus the first CD transfers in 1986-87, and if loaded into Protools, side by side comparison, the digital ability of 2009 was noticeably better than the digital sound of 1986 era.
and this is the pro's talking.

for me in my humble HR world, digital has increased my gear and quality greatly over cassette tape/multitracks and all the hissing and drop outs and dust/dirt effects on the car decks....

I recall buying a rack mount analog effects unit for $400 for 1qty mono ability! one mono channel rack gear $400! huge in 1980ish..

now with VST's each track can have a limiter, etc..etc.. and unlimited tracks and no hassles of tape head alignments and hissing and physical magnetic tape issues.

I have a Tascam1641 rack.. in the house, but my own current fav is a Line 6 UX2 for HR fun, that is low pc cpu demand and has virtual rack mount gear for Vocals such as preamp and comps, and also Bass rack gear, and then Guitars of an abundance of flavors used at $70.
Quality of 24, 192 or 48...or 16/44.1 into a Reaper DAW for $60 smokes and destroys the cassette 144 ability of a HR recording deck.

Its great if you're a broke hobbyist..
 
Farview said:
I don't think digital has gotten worse over the last ten years, I just think that there are more really cheap interfaces out there now. If you just buy the quality ones, that soles the problem completely.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a fair point about quality, but therein also lies the problem. Manufacturers won't pitch quality if they can get away with selling toys. IMO the people that end up with high quality gear, either analog or digital, are a small minority today. Interfaces are ridiculously cheap, but so are end-user listening systems compared to the heyday of hi-fi. So we have people on both ends... the recordists and the listeners using substandard equipment and thus many people have never heard music as it should be, could be heard. If artists just want to sound like everyone else today they don' have to try very hard or invest very much. If they want to stand out and blow people away with their sound it's going to take a lot more than what is deemed acceptable in today's music industry.
 
At the risk of sounding elitist, the problem with cheap equipment is that anyone can afford it. Some people should be recording, but there is no financial barrier anymore so people with no business doing it are.
As far as end user stereos, i don't think ipods are any worse than the 8-track in a 1978 oldsmobile or a cassette walkman.
People tend to remember the good stuff from an era and forget the crap. Its the same when people romanticize popular music 30 years ago. The only stuff you still hear from the 70s is the stuff that stood the test of time. But for ever zeppelin, there was a Leif Garrett and a Paperlace to even it out.
 
Farview said:
But for every zeppelin, there was a Leif Garrett and a Paperlace to even it out.
Click to expand...
You didn't like Paperlace and their singing drummer ? The black eyed boys ? Fie for shame ! :D
 
Farview said:
Terry Jacks
Click to expand...
When I was 11, late one friday night I heard "Seasons in the sun" on my new transistor alarm radio that I'd gotten for my birthday. It was the first song I ever heard where I said "that's going to go to no.1". And it did. And then, as far as the English charts went, he sank without a trace.
 
grimtraveller said:
When I was 11, late one friday night I heard "Seasons in the sun" on my new transistor alarm radio that I'd gotten for my birthday. It was the first song I ever heard where I said "that's going to go to no.1". And it did. And then, as far as the English charts went, he sank without a trace.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's still true (or of it ever was), but I remember hearing or reading that "Seasons in the Sun" was either the top selling single of all time, or the most radio played song.......or something. I'm pretty sure it held some kind of record.

EDIT:

From Wiki:

"The Jacks version is one of the fewer than thirty all-time singles to have sold 10 million (or more) copies worldwide."

Maybe when I was a kid, it was the only 10 million copy selling single?
 
It was just one of those songs that inexplicably captured the hearts of so many people of different ages and backgrounds. I still remember the lyrics !
 
grimtraveller said:
It was just one of those songs that inexplicably captured the hearts of so many people of different ages and backgrounds. I still remember the lyrics !
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely one of those tunes.

There are 2 other tunes that I loved as a little kid and still move me now. One is "Patches" by Clarence Carter and the other one is "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro.

I know. I am not a man. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top