Analog or Digital?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alfred E. New
  • Start date Start date
A

Alfred E. New

New member
I'm thinking of re-doing my console set up but I can't decide between analog or digital. I was thinking about getting either a Zoom HD 16CD or a Korg D-888 or maybe get both of them used. The other option that I'm thinking about is getting a Digital Multitrack Recorder like the Alesis ADAT and an analog mixer like the Mackie 24x8. If anyone has any comments or suggestions, please reply.
 
Both of those rigs are digital...

Anyway, I think you should search for a reel-to-reel multitrack tape recorder. I just switched from my digital computer-based rig to an eight-track tape recorder and I love it. There's nothing like working with a medium that I can actually see and touch. Not to mention the rich, warm sound it delivers.
 
MOFO Pro said:
and the crosstalk, and additional maintenance, and splicing, and bouncing...
Click to expand...


cheeky MOFO.:)

Aint nothing wrong with a hybrid set-up.
All recording/editing thru the puter, ...mixdown/master to your tape?....you know, what ever...
Anyways...as long as you like the sound, as as mofo suggested, are prepared for the expense/maint/edit-operation..(which can be a lot of fun!).

I'd Love to listen to your stuff!
 
avieth said:
Not to mention the rich, warm sound it delivers.
Click to expand...

Forget analog. It's dead, and it will be increasingly difficult to find tape. The ONLY manufacturer of analog tape went belly up a couple of years ago, and it took a long time to get things going again.

The "rich, warm sound" is less an artifact of the technology and much more the result of the old trained-and-mentored engineer -- who usually WAS an engineer, not a high school dropout -- studio system. Engineers talk about how much they love analog mostly because it's what they know, not because it's inherently superior. Analog had a history of 100 years behind it, after all; when digital is that mature there'll be no comparison.

For a person who has not been through the old training process, it's at least as easy to screw up analog sound as it is digital, and fixing it is a hell of lot more work. I do a lot of digital recording and nobody has ever said "damn, that's no good! It sounds digital." Instead, they say, "how do you get that to sound so good?"

Go digital and devote yourself to making it sound good, not to some imaginary ideal. Concentrate on good mics and preamps instead of some old worn-out aging darlin' of a tape deck. Given the prices they command among the starry-eyed, if you got a multi-track deck and some mics, the budget would probably allow for a couple of Chinese $99 specials.The fact is that all that rich, warm analog gear is astronomical in price to acquire and maintain (and maintain and maintain -- every session) to give you potentially a marginal improvement in sound (along with a large increase in noise).

I started out with an 8-track reel-to-reel (this was, naturally, a few years ago), an analog 8-bus mixer, and hardware processors. When I got into digital, there was a steep learning curve, but now I'd never go back. I LIKE concentrating on the music and not on being the electronic technician on 24-hour call. I LIKE cutting and pasting with a mouse click instead of an Editall block and a razor blade.

I use the D888 for live and rehearsal recording and it's good. For critical recording you'll want decent preamps (I have an ART and a Grace) and, again, good mics. I also use a computer with Adobe Audition and a couple of Tascam digital mixers for recording.
 
Analog isn’t dead... not by any stretch, but it is well hidden from much of the amateur computer-based recording community. There are two current reel-to-reel tape manufacturers, RMGI and ATR. Besides that there is so much new-old-stock tape out there we'll never run out... I know I won't.

Analog isn’t hard to get the hang of at all. A hybrid system will prove beneficial for many recordist simply because there are some things digital can’t do no matter how you mangle it. The tools are important. An analog multitrack to run with your digital system or an analog mastering deck can be invaluable.

It's not for everyone or every genre, but the typical reasons given to avoid it aren't valid.

:)
 
While you're at it, what new analog tape machines are available? How easy are they to get serviced?

Tim
 
It's a shame that a hell of a lot of mis-information is still being put out about analogue in general. Pretty much every single argument, against such a setup, as set forth above, is either exaggerated or, as Beck already mentioned, invalid.

I'm all for giving advice but please don't spread the mis-information.

------
 
Analog is everything, digital sucks.

Not everybody and their brother can do Analog.

Remind me to burn my Firepod.:mad:


















Maybe I'll wait awhile before I burn it, though.:cool:
 
MOFO Pro said:
and the crosstalk, and additional maintenance, and splicing, and bouncing...
Click to expand...
and the noise... and the rewinding, and fast forwarding, and rewinding... and cleaning... and tensioning... and rewinding... did I mention rewinding??
 
All kidding aside... I think there's room for both formats in the same studio... Tape saturation can be a great thing, and summing to tape can really bring some warmth to serile tracks, but to exclude digital entire from your recording process, kind of puts you at a disadvantage... you lose access to about 3/4 of the audio tools currently available.
 
Doh...Duplicate Post (but just as enlightening)

All kidding aside... I think there's room for both formats in the same studio... Tape saturation can be a great thing, and summing to tape can really bring some warmth to serile tracks, but to exclude digital entire from your recording process, kind of puts you at a disadvantage... you lose access to about 3/4 of the audio tools currently available.
 
Last edited:
MOFO Pro said:
and the noise... and the rewinding, and fast forwarding, and rewinding... and cleaning... and tensioning... and rewinding... did I mention rewinding??
Click to expand...

It's the difference between a wooden sailboat and one made of fiberglass. yeah, the wood is soooo romantic, and evokes mystery, and, and...rots, and breaks, and deteriorates....

I have enough experience with analog to have gotten past the romance and mystery. What works, works. Digital works.
 
Yeah, it is sort of a silly argument. Digital has a few huge super big advantages to me: Plugins (want 10 gates, you can have 10 gates for little or no cost.) and ease of editing. No razor blades, no bouncing... Digital is just easy. Sound quality... well, I have yet to hear the difference as just as no one can tell what mic was used on a good recording, I doubt anyone can really tell the difference between analog an digital in its final mixed form barring any obvious tell tale weirdness such as super low bit rate recording or recording to cassette tape etc.
 
lpdeluxe said:
It's the difference between a wooden sailboat and one made of fiberglass. yeah, the wood is soooo romantic, and evokes mystery, and, and...rots, and breaks, and deteriorates....

I have enough experience with analog to have gotten past the romance and mystery. What works, works. Digital works.
Click to expand...


I don’t know what you mean by “enough experience with analog” but I’ve had 30 years of experience with analog and have been a computer/networking consultant for the last 12. There’s nothing romantic or mysterious about analog gear to me… it’s simply a technology I can use that has no digital equivalent.

My analog decks have outlasted countless hard drives, processors, motherboards, RAM, CD-ROM, CD-writers, power supplies, operating systems, software programs, etc. My reel-to-reel was made in 1989. I’ve been through more PCs in the same time period than I can remember. And we go through DAWs in bits and pieces, replacing components, software and peripherals until an entire replacement is necessary. The only permanent loss of material I’ve experienced was with digital formats, going back to ADAT and up to the present with hard drive based systems.

A very common error people make is not calculating PC maintenance and upgrades into the recording budget. Many things such as time spent on crashes, reinstalls, dealing with data loss, drivers and OS obsolescence go unnoticed because they fall into the category of general PC maintenance. If you don’t do your own repair and upgrades you’re in for service costs as well. You should also have a dedicated DAW in your studio, not a household PC. The total cost of ownership for a DAW based studio is many times that of a good analog studio. Those of us that have maintained both for years know the true expenditure in time and costs for each.

I don’t mind rewind and fast-forward as much as I do bugs & fixes, defrag, virus scan, backup and restore.

No one is saying not to use digital… there is no way around it. Nevertheless, the maintenance argument against analog is a myth. It’s exactly what I was referring to as being invalid. A generation has grown up with a mouse in its hand. Many people don’t make it around the analog learning curve, but for those who do there are many advantages over the rest using totally digital systems.

:)
 
lpdeluxe said:
Forget analog. It's dead, and it will be increasingly difficult to find tape. The ONLY manufacturer of analog tape went belly up a couple of years ago, and it took a long time to get things going again.

The "rich, warm sound" is less an artifact of the technology and much more the result of the old trained-and-mentored engineer -- who usually WAS an engineer, not a high school dropout -- studio system. Engineers talk about how much they love analog mostly because it's what they know, not because it's inherently superior. Analog had a history of 100 years behind it, after all; when digital is that mature there'll be no comparison.

For a person who has not been through the old training process, it's at least as easy to screw up analog sound as it is digital, and fixing it is a hell of lot more work. I do a lot of digital recording and nobody has ever said "damn, that's no good! It sounds digital." Instead, they say, "how do you get that to sound so good?"

Go digital and devote yourself to making it sound good, not to some imaginary ideal. Concentrate on good mics and preamps instead of some old worn-out aging darlin' of a tape deck. Given the prices they command among the starry-eyed, if you got a multi-track deck and some mics, the budget would probably allow for a couple of Chinese $99 specials.The fact is that all that rich, warm analog gear is astronomical in price to acquire and maintain (and maintain and maintain -- every session) to give you potentially a marginal improvement in sound (along with a large increase in noise).

I started out with an 8-track reel-to-reel (this was, naturally, a few years ago), an analog 8-bus mixer, and hardware processors. When I got into digital, there was a steep learning curve, but now I'd never go back. I LIKE concentrating on the music and not on being the electronic technician on 24-hour call. I LIKE cutting and pasting with a mouse click instead of an Editall block and a razor blade.

I use the D888 for live and rehearsal recording and it's good. For critical recording you'll want decent preamps (I have an ART and a Grace) and, again, good mics. I also use a computer with Adobe Audition and a couple of Tascam digital mixers for recording.
Click to expand...

I agree that the digital domain is much easier to edit. However, I don't think analog is dead by any stretch. Case in point, you've suggested getting good preamps. Can you name 1 digital preamp; not a preamp with digital outs. All really good preamps are analog, same with compressors. Even pro studios using high-end Pro-tools rigs still use analog outboard gear.

I do think you’re absolutely spot on about leaning the craft of recording. There is no one medium that has a built-in “sound good” function. In fact, I contend digital is less forgiving and easier to screw up.

The bottom line is both mediums, like everything else, have their respective pros and cons. For a home project studio, digital technology has provided excellent benefits that might have otherwise remained cost prohibitive.
 
Beck said:
No one is saying not to use digital… there is no way around it. Nevertheless, the maintenance argument against analog is a myth. It’s exactly what I was referring to as being invalid. A generation has grown up with a mouse in its hand. Many people don’t make it around the analog learning curve, but for those who do there are many advantages over the rest using totally digital systems.:)
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I'll point out, however, that digital is available to thousands of people who will never have access to great analog equipment...and mediocre analog equipment is not better than digital.

The OTHER part of my stance is that analog is, like it or not, dying. I mentioned in my first post the old mentor/apprentice method of training engineers: the music industry no longer has recording budgets, the studios as we once knew them are dead or dying, AND the distribution formats don't favor analog. As a result, everybody's an engineer and nobody's an engineer. Last Spring I had occasion to record with my band at the local studio. Nice gear (all of it digital, by the way) but the engineer was clueless about anything but keeping the signal below 0Dbfs on the meters. =sigh=

If you have the gear and experience to get great results with analog, go for it! Everybody else should face reality.
 
lpdeluxe said:
I understand what you are saying. I'll point out, however, that digital is available to thousands of people who will never have access to great analog equipment...and mediocre analog equipment is not better than digital.

The OTHER part of my stance is that analog is, like it or not, dying. I mentioned in my first post the old mentor/apprentice method of training engineers: the music industry no longer has recording budgets, the studios as we once knew them are dead or dying, AND the distribution formats don't favor analog. As a result, everybody's an engineer and nobody's an engineer. Last Spring I had occasion to record with my band at the local studio. Nice gear (all of it digital, by the way) but the engineer was clueless about anything but keeping the signal below 0Dbfs on the meters. =sigh=

If you have the gear and experience to get great results with analog, go for it! Everybody else should face reality.
Click to expand...

Well stated. This single statment that sums it up for me; "As a result everybody's an engineer and nobody's an engineer." :eek: I'm just not sure that as a result, music sounds better. :D
 
No human being today is capable of playing what is expected in pop40. Record analog all you want, you WILL require digital editing.

If you arent after that then I say HELL YEAH, tape is fun and its FAST, it requires a commitment that precludes much noodling later on....band in--->album out---done
 
Hey Alfred, I've got the setup you are considering...Mackie 24.8 to an Alesis HD24, all outboard processing with a trip to the TASCAM 32 1/4" reel for mixdown. It works great, and I don't have to click a mouse to get my knobs to turn.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top