analog or digital?

  • Thread starter Thread starter monica
  • Start date Start date
M

monica

New member
hi everyone, im new here and completely new to recording...

my question is what is better: analog or digital recording?


thanks


monica
 
I think, well its more personal preference. But the norm with recording is in the digital domain so it seems these days. Plus its more affordable too (for quality).
 
The question sounds innocent enough… ;) It’s a controversial subject to say the least.

What kind of music are you recording and where do you want to go with it?

Whatever your answer I would definately encourage you to research it beyond Internet music forums.

~Tim
:)
 
Beck said:
The question sounds innocent enough… ;) It’s a controversial subject to say the least.

What kind of music are you recording and where do you want to go with it?

Whatever your answer I would definately encourage you to research it beyond Internet music forums.

~Tim
:)
Click to expand...
well i'm gonna record guitar music, genres such as blues, jazz, and just plain rock. and some beck-ish stuff (love him). music is my life so, i plan to go far. and ive been to the store and the tascam DP-01 fx/cd caughet my eye...
 
I've never really been a fan of portastudios ever since i got into mixing in the box.

Theres much more flexibility in my opinion in mixing in the box (the computer that is monica :) ) because its a much more comprehensible environment as it utilises graphics in conjunction with music...which humans love! Visual editing!

Portastudios i mean, are great if you just want to quickly lay down tracks, and can play perfectly in time, in pitch, etc... Because editing on those things is to say the least, far from user friendly IMHO. Plus you have to lob around the mic leads, stands, mics, amps, anyway if you plan on becoming mobile.

I think, monica you should explore the internet like tim said. Theres loads of stuff out there on this. Check out Tweaks site, its a great place to learn the basics (and some indepth knowledge) on home music production; such as gear reviews, what gear you need, analog and digital, etc... Its simply the beginners bible.

Tweaks Guide

I think to keep with the times look into computer recording, i think the quality available with using a computer for recording is amazing for the price you pay.
And theres more options available too.

But read up all of what you can on that site first, it will give you a huge insight into what you really need.

Stylistically, i think you can get away with recording any style in any format you want, as long as you know what you can achieve with whatever system you choose to use :rolleyes:
 
And remember "analog and digital" are 2 very broad categories that can mean anything from cassette tape to 2" reel-to-reel (for analog) and a Soundblaster card to an Icon (for digital)... there are so many other factors and various degrees within each category, there is no simple "one is better than the other" answer...
That being said... hand in glove gives good advice, seeing as you're probably not talking about Studers and HD systems ;) If you're ltrying to decide between a cassette based 4-track and a digital recorder (either stand alone in a self-contained DAW or software for your computer) I'd definitely go with digital for the flexibility and (I'd be willing to bet) better sound quality.
Good luck!
 
I used both. Basics to tape & mixing, fxs etc in the comp. The benefit of "undo" is hard to pass up.
Tape is great but I'm not clever enough to work it well with mixing ssssoooo I upload through a good mulit in/out card into a good software multitrack prog to stuff about.
The analogue forum has some great practitioners of the tape art, and a bundle of similarly capable mixed mode folk.
Don't write off any format until you've played & portastudios are exceptional tools when used appropriately. They aren't the best tools in the shed but if they are all you have you can do a LOT with them. Combined with a comp they can do even more.
 
Getting a good sounding analogue set up is going to cost alot more then then a comparable digital setup. Tape itself is quite expensive these days.

As far as what is better? Well they are completely different. Mixing with a reel to reel and a big console is alot of fun, but as far as editing unless you want to bring out the razors and alchol ur screwed.

If you plan to do music with alot of editing digital is the way to go.

Although if you do have buttloads of money you could combine the two...
 
Yes, I would say that "the best" is combine both

You can reach quality with both means, and that’s what matters.
The only problem achieving this is money related, as wx3 said it...

I tend to get a little bit of each one. One day I invest on analogue and the other day I invest on digital
Ideally, a good set up these days would be recording and mixing on analogue and editing using software
 
^then wouldnt i need a a/d converter?



im really overwhelmed right now....ok, if i were to use a computer for editing....can i still use a stand-alone recorder? cause i have to say i don't really like the idea of recording right onto the computer. i want to try to do it as close to the way they did back in the day (60s, 70s...)
 
Last edited:
Then you are going to want to look into analog... however, they did not use cassettes back in the day. What you are asking for is a world of pain.... 8 or 16 track 1/4", 1/2" or 2" tape maintenece is horrid. From an idealistic stand point, perhaps analog is what you want. From a "don't go broke, get great quality, and actually get something done" stand point, go digital. If you get the hang of digital and want to make the commitment to analog that analog requires, then move up later. I have a feeling you will be sorely disappointed with what a standalone cassette or hard drive unit will be able to do for you and the real studio quality analog stuff is crazy expensive and hard to deal with. You may not like the idea of a computer, but you'll likely hate the reality of tape if you are just starting out.

Read up a bit on tape editing. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will. (Razor blades, cutting tape for edits, demagetizing heads, alignment, the fact that a reel of tape costs $30-50 each and you get only a few tracks and can only use the tape a few times....)

The best thing you can do to get that old school sound is to read up on their techniques. Learn how they literally put blankets over drums to dampen them. Learn how they used plate or spring reverbs. Learn how they didn't smash the living crap out of everything with an L2. Also learn that the equipment they used you can hardly purchase anymore and if you do be prepared to plunk down a big chuck of change for a 1176 or Fairchild or whatever.
 
Last edited:
If you have a very big budget, analog. If you don't, digital.
 
thanks for the insight bubbagump (and everyone else), but what i meant is can i record on a digital (like that tascam i mentioned) then hook it up to my comp to edit? cause i dont want to do EVERYTHING on a computer
 
You can... but again, I think it is a waste of time and money. What is your real concern? Portability? Sound quality? Usability? I don't understand your strong resistance to using a computer as a computer based DAW is so incredibly more powerful and flexible than a stand alone unit. To me doing what you are asking is like digging a hole with a spoon when a backhoe is available, so I am guessing there is some other motivation to avoid a computer. Everything being done in a computer is the standard now days for good reason. My 2 cents... YMMV etc.
 
i don't really know why i don't want to use a computer for this...there's something fake, something 'cold' about it...plus i'd rather go for the learning experience over convinience....that's it...using a comp seems to convinient (to me), it seems almost too 'no brainer', i want to learn something.....anyways...maybe i'll explore it...my main problem is gear...i have NO idea what gear i need for recording with/without a comp (besides mics)...so...could you/someone tell me what essential gear one needs for both methods (with and without a comp)? i've looked at sites but somtimes they're too confusing. thanks
 
I would urge you to reconsider, as in my opinion, not having a reason is not a good reason... but it is your decision ultimately and something you have to live with. However, if you think a computer is too easy... let's go chat about dither, noise shaping, bit depth, sample rate, floating point math, convertors, word clocks, and the other zillion things that make it way more complicated. ;)

Essential gear (this is super barebones):

digital w/comp

Audio interface
Microphone
DAW software
Preamp if not included on the audio interface
Necessary cabling

digital w/o comp

HD recorder
Microphone
Preamp if one is not built into the HD recorder
Necessary cabling


Beyond this, the sky is the limit when it comes to effects, types of preamps and mics, quality of convertors, interfaces, ad nauseum.

Also, check out some of the sites such a Tweak Headz and AudioMinds which sort of specialize in helping the newbie with articles and links to good stuff.
 
ok, thanks a lot. i am now starting to think about computers. my first q is does the number of tracks depend on the interface or program (like audacity)? and would you recommend a seperate computer for recording? i have a large budget...
 
Those studio-in-a-box things like the Tascam or the Roland VS-series are nothing more than computers with a mixer built into it. The downside to those things is that they can't grow with you.
1. You can't replace the preamps without throwing the whole thing away and getting something else. (you can't bypass them either)
2. you can't get more tracks without throwing the whole thing away and getting something else
3. If you decide you don't like recording, you can't turn it into a gaming machine.

That Tascam thing will always only be what it is, computers are upgradable and a lot more flexible.
 
monica said:
ok, thanks a lot. i am now starting to think about computers. my first q is does the number of tracks depend on the interface or program (like audacity)? and would you recommend a seperate computer for recording? i have a large budget...
Click to expand...

There are two considereations when it cmes to tracks.... how many tracks can I record at ONE TIME, and how many tracks can my project contain at one time.

The number of tracks at one time is limited to the number of inputs your audio interface provides and your software. If your software limits you to recording 2 tracks at a time, an 8 input interface is no good.

The number you can put in a project depends on the computer and software. Some DAW software limits you to the number of tracks you can record, others have "unlimited" tracks. The other consideration is how robust your computer is. An old slow computer cannot do as many tracks as a new fast one.

A list of common low cost DAWs:

n-track
Multitrack Studio
Traktion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top