Analog or Digital

[Dr.Cool]

I have been looking at the fostex mr-8HD and thinking about getting however i am starting to think that perhaps it would be better to maybe just get a high quality used analog recorder off of ebay. If anybody has any experience with items of the like purchased off of ebay it would be helpful to hear of your experiences.

 

[Ed Dixon]

Given the choice of analog or digital, digital wins for me every time. Just many more options beyond basic sound quality.

Ed

 

[carelessorc]

It's about different ways of working. Some people like aligning tape heads and demagging them. Me, I prefer recording music. I used to think that 4 track on cassette had an immediacy to it that I liked, but my Fostex VF160 offers similar immediacy, more storage and digital editing if I want it. It also offers me the opp to export to PC if I want to.
But there is something romantic about tape (I'm serious!)

Orc

 

[billisa]

Unless you have a great reason to go analogue, I can't imagine why anyone would not go digital.

With an analogue tape machine you can look forward to: much higher continuing costs (for tape), alignment/cleaning issues, editing that's not nearly as easy, clean, non-destructive or effective as in digital, hiss, problems finding parts for machines no longer made, much greater difficulty sharing any music you make, much slower basic operating procedures (rewind/FF/etc), etc.

Right now, whether via a PC or a standalone unit, digital offers the most accessible way into quality recording we've ever had. Your limits will primarily be your skill, not your equipment.

 

[Rokket]

The biggest argument for going analog is the "warm analog sound". To tell the truth, most people can't tell a difference. The only difference I can see has been mentioned: tape hiss, difficult editing, etc.

But to be fair, there are some die-hard analog users on here who can come up with the ways and means to get around this. I've never found the inclination. I tried analog and I've tried digital, and I've done digital and mixed on pc.

Rent some gear and try it out.
That way, you will find your own preference and not just rely on what someone you don't even know is tellling you on the internet...

 

[daav]

With the arguement that A is better than D becasue of a better (warmer yes, but ultimately meaning better) the deciding factor would seem to be that if you go digital, and you value a better sound, your should get the best digital you can.

Not sure about the MR8HD, but I know the MR8 is 16 bit/44.1 mhz sample rate only, if you were looking for a digital recorder that has the best possible sound, you might want to shoot for a 24 bit at least 48mhz sample rate recorder.

Daav

 

[Ed Dixon]

Most will find that the MR8 digital quality is already as good and likely better than the input gear they have to feed it.

The weak link in the chain in most digital recording setups is not the recorder, but mics, room acoustics, performer, guitar amp, etc.

Ed

 

[billisa]

Most will find that the MR8 digital quality is already as good and likely better than the input gear they have to feed it.

The weak link in the chain in most digital recording setups is not the recorder, but mics, room acoustics, performer, guitar amp, etc.

Ed

Yes. That's the beauty and the bane of digital. Badly done recordings can sound incredibly, and faithfully awful!

A huge aspect of digital/analogue is that affordable quality with digital begins very early in the process. But consider what a new 8-track anologue reel-to-reel would cost (not to mention a 12 or 16 track machine). I forget how much Ampex 2-track tape machines cost. I just know I couldn't nearly afford one.

 

[billisa]

Not sure about the MR8HD, but I know the MR8 is 16 bit/44.1 mhz sample rate only, if you were looking for a digital recorder that has the best possible sound, you might want to shoot for a 24 bit at least 48mhz sample rate recorder.

Daav

In my opinion, few if any people are likely to produce a recording where someone will say, "Wow, that's great, but it'd sound better if it was done in 24bit." I have several 16/24 bit versions of the same professional recordings, commercially released. The difference is very subtle, and without really trying to notice something, isn't noticeable at all. I'm not knocking 24bit, but some of these specs are getting like the difference between .001% distortion and .0001% distortion. One may be miles better than the other on paper, with BOTH being far beyond the range of human discernment.

I believe, in a good way, when it comes to raw sound quality, we are well into the realm of diminishing returns. We can always add more tracks and speakers, but the basic level of quality with any given track is done with an ability to achieve a quality that previous generations would never have thought possible.

 

[tubesrawsom]

It's about different ways of working. Some people like aligning tape heads and demagging them. Me, I prefer recording music.


But there is something romantic about tape (I'm serious!)

Orc

Don't worry I'm not bashing you.

Music is about the work being put into it. Mic positioning, in room position, preamp settings etc. This includes taking care of equipment. What would you do if you can't use your sm 57 because the wire inside fell of its connection? You would'nt say "I won't solder it back on because I just record music" you would fix. Same with tape, aligning and demagging tape heads in essence is recording.

Tape is very seductive.

Peace

 

[billisa]

Same with tape, aligning and demagging tape heads in essence is recording.

Tape is very seductive.

Peace

I remember my last analogue tape machine. It was a TEAC 1230 that came misaligned from the factory. The alignment tape used was 1.0 mils thick, so if I used a less pliable (but more durable) 1.5 mil, the left channel was several db below the right. The record/play heads were just a bit out... It's funny, but at the radio stations I worked at, with all the reel-to-reel machines, I don't recall anyone ever aligning ANY of them!

 

[Beck]

Analog is not at all difficult. Sound quality is my first consideration. Consequently I dismissed digital as a primary tracking medium long ago.

Editing is not an issue the way most home/project recordists actually use tape. I never razor edit multitrack tape. Noise is not an issue. Noise reduction solved that problem long ago. Analog and digital are different. Each has pros and cons. Neither is a panacea.

All man-made devices need maintenance and will fail. Tape machines need alignment and the hard drive in your DAW will crash.

Unless you’re doing rap, I recommend everyone have analog tape somewhere in the process, even if it’s a half-track mastering deck. That is, until affordable digital technology can deliver. To quote George Graves in Professional Sound Magazine:

"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."

The eBay question is a separate issue. You can find very good machines there as well as complete junk. Shop wisely.

-Tim

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

In my opinion, few if any people are likely to produce a recording where someone will say, "Wow, that's great, but it'd sound better if it was done in 24bit." I have several 16/24 bit versions of the same professional recordings, commercially released. The difference is very subtle, and without really trying to notice something, isn't noticeable at all.

Hmmmm... are you talking about 16/24 bit versions of the same mix?

Dithered versions of a high quality mix won't show much difference to the untrained ear. But the difference between 16 and 24 bit SOURCE material (i.e. the tracks being mixed) is quite a bit easier to hear. At least in my experience. But then I agree with you, VERY few people are going to say 'Dude, why didn't you record that 24bit?!"

If one is concidering a cassette 4-track: forget it and go digital. Cassette 4-tracks are fun and easy to use, but the quality is pretty low compared to many digital machines that are targeted for the same market.

I have less expereince with reel to reel machines. As a rule of thumb, though, I'd say make sure you get one with a wider path than a cassette! I nearly fell for a low priced machine locally until I realized that a 1/4" 8-track machine had the same track width as a cassette 4-track. A 1/2" 8 track has the same track width as the classic 2" 24's.

If you like the idea of tape, go for it! I have never regretted learning on the real thing (mixers, outboard gear, etc) as that experience has translated perfectly to working in the digital realm. The reverse is not always true.

take care,
Chris

 

[tubesrawsom]

I have less expereince with reel to reel machines. As a rule of thumb, though, I'd say make sure you get one with a wider path than a cassette! I nearly fell for a low priced machine locally until I realized that a 1/4" 8-track machine had the same track width as a cassette 4-track. A 1/2" 8 track has the same track width as the classic 2" 24's.


Chris

'Tis true width is the same, but r 2 r machines run at 7 1/2, 15, 30 ips as opposed to cassettes which run at around 1 ips. Giving r2r machines a bigger "net" to "catch" the signal in.

Do you prefer 8 bit or 24 bit?

 

[tubesrawsom]

I remember my last analogue tape machine. It was a TEAC 1230 that came misaligned from the factory. The alignment tape used was 1.0 mils thick, so if I used a less pliable (but more durable) 1.5 mil, the left channel was several db below the right.

well mabe if you configure it for 1mm then thats what you use
you were prolly using a mrl tape tht runs 250 nwb/m which is made for 1mm tapes. Mrl tapes tht run 355 nwb/m would let you run 1.5mm.