analog or digital

  • Thread starter Thread starter smythology
  • Start date Start date
S

smythology

New member
I'm a first-timer....a beginner.

I'm in the process of writing about 70-100 original songs, bit by bit. My music influences are wide and varied but only 1% of it comes from the 90's to today's music (or should I say recordings?...I'll explain in a bit - keep reading!)

I have big ideas on how to build a studio and even bigger ones on recording my songs. As you can probably tell from above my influences are from the 80's and earlier (mostly earlier)....s'been like that since I can remember. So I've had a truly analog upbringing.

I prefer the analog sound but from what I've picked up from this site, magazines, and word-a-mouth, I look forward to the ease of digital recording. But I don't want to SOUND digital......or do I? (I'll say again - I'm a beginner)

If you ask me the difference between a majority of today's professional recordings and recordings from around '87 and back,
the most obvious and unfortunate difference to me is that today's are the most loud, boomy, tinny, un-natural, unreal-sounding mush ever made. This difference is clear when talking about long-time artists.

An example: I was listening to a CD of Paul McCartney I put together the other day. 'Silly Love Songs' (1976) sounds natural, warm (of course), and balanced. This was followed by 'My Brave Face' (1988?) - a little louder, not as warm but still balanced (to me) and enough of a natural quality....

...but then came 'From a Lover to a Friend' (2001!!)...uh-oh.
I'm sorry but the it sounded awful. Loud, Booming...well it sounded like the loudest factory in the world.

What caused this difference? I think the change started around 1989-1990. For instance, drums started to be recorded as if in a big stone hall with the mic way back while King Kong would pound away. They also HAVE to be the loudest in the mix, even though drums are loud anyway.

For a while I thought it was this digital thing that caused the change and I've read there are ways around the tinny digital sound by using Tube gear, A/D converters and maybe fiddling with the right knobs.

But this website, has been saying that COMPRESSION is wildly abused and misused, as if it's the unwritten rule in recording.

Is it mostly compression that gives today's recordings their loud, mushy quality or is it something else?

:-)
 
There are soooooo many factors that make recordings today sound different than say twenty years ago and compression is a part of it.


I don't really know what you mean by mushy and tin like and small sounding when describing digital ......Personally, I think that those adjectives describe many older analog recordings...go figure. Nevertheless, I do like alot of older music better, though that has little to do with the inherent superiority of analog recordings.


However, As far as I'm concerned there are way more pros to going digital than there is for analog. And if you are recording digitally and you're stuff isn't tantamount to older analog quality, then it is undoubtably due to a weak link in you're signal chain or that you simply don't know how to use the equipment. It doesn't have anything to do with the inherent inferiority of digital IMO.....The beauty of digital recording is that you can make a digital recording sound like anything you want it to; if you know what you're doing; and that includes analog.......Some people will probably crucify me for saying that, so be it.


So, I would say that it is more the production style that you don't like on the new CD's and that it doesn't have anything to do with it them being digital recordings.......

That's just my opinion.

This thread is sure to start a holy war of some sorts :D
 
smythology, how do you want to divide your time between making music and dealing with technology?

As you may know, reel to reel analog has excellent fidelity,
however, there's much more of a maintenence factor than digital.
(kind of like getting a BIG dog as the family pet!)

And with computers, it's easy to get lost in the sea of menus,
and plug-ins.

"Studio in a box" ala Roland VS series can be be difficult for someone (like me!) who prefers the intuitive layout of a
portastudio.

Do you have a specific type of recorder(s) in mind right now?

Chris
 
well the sound is very important and the whole nuance and atmosphere of each song is of the utmost...I guess w/technology I'll use as much experimenting as I have to.

If and when the money's available, I was thinking of getting like a Mackie or Tascam 24-tr hard disk.

Before I had my eyes on Rolands VS DAWs series but I'd like a good layout as well.

robin
 
Is it mostly compression that gives today's recordings their loud, mushy quality or is it something else?
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on that one! ;)

Back in the days of analog tape compressors were looked at as a neccesary evil. If you were recording a source with a wide dynamic range the only way to get it above the noise floor was to compress. The tape itself also adds compression but it varies with the type and machine. Check out this to see what analog tape adds to the sound of your recordings.

Digital is a very unforgiving medium. If you've got good converters and a good clock your going to get out exactly what you put in. Therefore your source material is critical. There's no "tape saturation" to smooth-out the rough edges of your mics and pres. The downside to this is that a lot of engineers today would rather use digital's extended dynamic range to make their stuff louder through compression. It's the "my CD is louder than your CD" syndrome. Don't get me wrong, I'm into loud, heavy rock but it's getting ridiculous! Check out this site for a more in-depth look at the problem.
 
Also at www.digido.com, Bob Katz indicates that the highest digital
resolutions are taking on analog characteristics-big difference from 16 bit!

Chris
 
Resolution is a whole 'nother can-o-worms!

It's the reason my guitar rig is still 100% analog. ;)
 
I'm with nave. I don't think what your hearing is differences in analog and digital, but rather a popular production style of the 70s to the modern norm.

"Silly Love Songs" was recorded at a time when closed spaced recording was the soft rock standard. The same style can be heard in Eagles and Steely Dan albums. Led Zeppelin also recorded in the 70s but used a much more open sound. In fact, the drums were just as in-your-face then as they are on today's similar recordings. It's just that nowadays, the latter sound is getting more radio play because A&R always seeks the most modern sound (classic rock stations excluded).

If you want your songs to come across more "analog", then strive to record that way to begin with. Select warmer guitar tones and cut back on the snare drum. Use more closed hi-hat and push the bass drum way in the back. Plug the bass straight into the board or preamp and remove the hi end via the tone controls. Record vocals in a carpeted room. You can do all these things and record on digital medium and no one will really know the difference.

Cy
 
Well, IMO, [oh boy, here we go again!]...

Even though it's undeniable that technology's gotten better over the last 20 years, probably a thousand-fold, it doesn't mean that music itself has gotten proportionately better over the years,... in fact, probably the opposite.

IMO, Technology often becomes a crutch, instead of actually freeing the artist to achieve higher levels of art. A large proportion of popular contemporary music and production has become a 'point & click', 'drag & drop', 'cut & paste' and 'pitch-corrected' phenomenon, to where the whole musical equation has changed,... but for the better? I don't think so.

By coincidence, my changer's now playing "Silly Love Songs", and it sure does have a distinct 'warmth' and personal feeling to it, that you truly don't hear in contemporary music, that's for sure.

Well, technology and toys are fun, and I think we'll all agree on that. However, whether you go to digital or analog recording, depends on how you prefer to spend your time, either tinkering with the technology, or simply making music [the old-fashioned way].

I don't want to start a flame-war, [haha, yeah right], but I'm starting to resent the implication or attitude that digital recording somehow is so superior to analog, that there's no reason to go analog, or that analog is useless or laughable, and that anyone who's serious about recording's 'gotta' go digital. [I think it's just indicative of people's fanatical love affair with their computers!]

IMO, there's lots of reasons to go analog,... like the hands on reality and simplicity of it all, versus the virtualized and gadgety world of digital. Second, is that I get enough of the computer on this bbs and at work, and I surely don't want to stare at a screen 24x7, or any more than I already do. Music and recording, for me, is a chance to get away from the computer.

As for me, [no secret here], but they can quote bits and bytes to me, 96k sampling rate & the whole bit, and it does not impress me at all. For me, it's analog all the way, and at best, I'll only dabble in digital recording, probably out of curiosity more than anything else.

Yes, I've now picked up two digital recorders to add to my vast, no,... huge,... no,... MONSTROUS ANALOG BASE. [gaaaassssppp!]

Yes folks, it's true. I just picked up a Fostex FD4, a 16 bit/44.1k hybrid/Portastudio-style 4-tracker, which believe it or not, I don't like too much. It's not as good as I thought it would be, and yes, it also reinforces my basic opinion that Fostexes are cheapie recorders, with less optimal features than Tascams.

Also, I've just scored a Tascam 564 Minidisc Portastudio, that I await delivery on, and the bottom line is that I wish I had skipped on the Fostex and gotten the Tascam first.

I know, the 564 Minidisc Portastudio has ATRAC data compression, so Bruce, you can save your breath. However, the Tascam 564 has all the features and functionality I want in a digital, with a real, hands-on Portastudio design, and convenient removable media.

IMO, The last thing I want to do is to record and mix on my computer. I don't care how great it's supposed to be, it's not for me. Except for this first recent experimental step into digital, I'm ALL ANALOG, have been for many years, and I prefer it that way.

In closing, I'll just say, that of my favorite music in my vast 800+ cd collection, virtually NONE of them were originally recorded on digital. Well, not true,... maybe THREE were recorded all-digital. I can name them by name, and count them on one hand.

There are many people who'll espouse the virtues of digital, and only a few like me, who'll tell you basic analog recording is best, especially for first-time beginners. Speaking personally, I have absolutely no use for the greatest features of digital,... with all it's powerful editing and such. The last major recording project I did I didn't even use the punch-in pedal!

Beyond that, it's a personal choice, of what you want to achieve with recording, how you basically want to work, and how much money you want to spend. No one can make that choice for you.

Good luck!

[I'll get off my soap box now!]
 
Reel I feel where you're coming from but I still don't think that even you could come up with any concrete reasons to why analog is inherently superior......I mean....you don't want to spend time at a computer screen.....you like twidling knobs with your hands....etc...etc....I mean come on dude!!!! :D :D :D


Now, I'm not saying that digital is better.....However, you made a good point when you said that technology has become a crutch. Although I don't really see it that way....I view it more as the fact that the tools that are at our disposal have integrated themselves into the creative process and have consequently affected the finished product. .....The fact is that just as analog intrinsically lends itself to a warm round at the edges sound, digital recording intrisically lends itself to an editing and production style that you and smythology and many others don't like.........

That said, that doesn't mean that just because you go digital you have to give in to that production style based on "draging and dropping" and "cut and paste." The bottom line is that you could find a million ways on a computer to produce and album that sounded like it was recorded in the hey day of analog if you were so inclined.....Also you could come up with a "cold" "tinny" "mushy" analog recording if you were so inclined....

The bottom line is this: the "drag and drop" "compress the hell out of it" production style has become the industry standard and that is what your hearing....you are not hearing digital sucking....you are hearing a production style that you don't like......and that is the point that I tried to make in my first post...



Anyway, I saw this I knew this was going to start a war lol.....

it's always a fun debate....


btw, Dave, you'll probably never believe this....but I'm actually listening to the ANALOG DAVE MANIA collection right now.....I love this norweigen wood man........It still rocks even though it's analog :D :D :D
 
Amen brother!

Hell, when it's all said and done if someone wants the BEST sound,
just get a 4 track 1/2", 8 track 1", or 16 track 2".
We didn't even have 30 inch per second reel to reel used for pop recordings
untill around 1972 or 1973. Based on my humble understanding, however,
many engineers regard 15 ips as generally best for rock & roll due to it's
fatter tone. Next best IMHO is to get a good digital rig and run it into 2 track
1/2" or 1/4" tape and send the tape instead of CD-R or DAT to be mastered.

The need to have a bazillion tracks, autotune, blah blah, is a symptom of
lack of preparation and/or musical skill that exists in today's pop "product".
Look at how many classic rock and R & B songs were cut in one take.
Just picked up the Beatles (live) BBC sessions on CD BTW, "only" on mono,
and only heard the first song far and it was great!

Chris

P.S. Congrats on your 564 Dave.
 
Right nave, & thanx.

Like I said, it's a personal choice. There's something that's qualitatively different between fiddling on a computer screen and fiddling with lots of knobs.

You're right, that it's probably more of a 'production style' that pervades music, more than any particular 'sound', per se.

Admittedly, I do get a little 'irked' when analog's looked down on, and treated like the 'red-headed-bastard-stepchild' of recording, which IMO, it's not.

And not to repeat myself, which I so often do, but I think the craze over digital's just indicative of people's fanatical love affair with their computers, plain & simple.

I know I'm in the minority and I go against current trends, with my preference for analog recording. Nothin' personal, ya know, I do value other people's opinions,... & thanx again!

;)
 
Last edited:
Exactly......It's ridiculous to look down on analog .....I'm not into analog bashing.........Analog and digital are just two different beasts that lend themselves to two different things......Both of which are valid as far as I'm concerned....I'm glad that a variety of styles of production have accumulated through the years....music is much more interesting because of technology because of the variety it has produced over the years....even if that means that I have to go back and listen to something that was made thirty years ago to get that variety....I admit that some of the stuff today is highly over done and ultimately done with too much of the god like precision of digital and that a certain human element has been taken out of music; especially interms of the irradication of dynamics due to excessive compression and I don't see that changing...........But nevertheless, that is just a product of using the tools at one's disposal to their maximum potential and it can be a good thing when not taken overboard....In any case, there is still alot of great music digital music with dynamics out there today as far as I'm concerned....you just have to look for it........All these new tools out there are just being treated like people treated reverb 40 years ago.....People are over-doing it.....But today people still use the verb....they just use it judiciously...perhaps when we take a step back a few years down the road we will look at today's music with 20=20 hindsight and began to use modern tools more judicially......then again, perhaps not...who knows???


One thing is true and that is..........um......I do love my computer like a fanatic wing nut screw ball :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
Right on & thanx chess!

When I get the 564 & have a while to play with it, I'll let you know how I like it. Someday I may have to tap you for 564-specific tips & tricks. ;)
 
oh and one more thing

The reason why newbies are always guided towards buying digital (or at least the reason why they should be guided to digital; if any reason at all) is primarily because the digital revolution has made a higher standard of recording more financially accessible to people.


take it easy Reel....It's late and I must be getting to sleep now..
 
Sure, I'll agree with that.

Me too, I have to pry myself away from this board and the computer, and hit the hay. You take it easy too. T/y later.;)
 
There is no advantage to using analog at the low-end of the gear spectrum.... a Fostex or Tascam analog Portastudio or even R2R is easily outperformed by even a modest DAW/MDM..........

Now if you're talking a 24-track Studer - THEN you can start making a valid argument for analog in terms of sound quality.........!

Bruce
 
Wow...i typed all that and I didn't get malled by the blue bear :)

I think I agree with you Bruce...(but then again you'd have to be a crazy 15 year old wing nut to argue with the blue bear :D).......Anyway, I agree, that's why I said that newbies should go digital .....because it gives them the best quality for the newbie budget......However, I think that the gap between high end analog and "modest" digital is closing rapidly and has been for sometime now....it's only a matter of time....some would argue that the time has already arrived........


So my question for you is, what if you had the cutting edge digital studio........is it tantamount to the best analog yet???? Judging by your reply I would venture to guess that you are going to say no....but really, how much superior can the analog really be at the high end of the spectrum when compared to the cutting edge digital?......I mean the high high end digital has got to be something to reckon with....or is there virtually little difference between an all digital pro studio and someone with a soundcard that has excellent A/D convertors, good mics, pro-tools, and waves plugins(etc..etc.etc..etc.) in their home studio????????? Or would that actually be an all digital pro studio if wasn't for the fact that it wasn't made for making $$$ ??????.........I imagine that there probably aren't too many, if hardly any, all digital pro studios out there at this stage of the game.....that probably says something in and of itself.......hmmmmmm........Sorry, excuse....I've been thinking out loud again :D


um......feel free to correct me on any of that if I'm wrong :D Blue Bear Sound do you realize that you are probably the biggest source of moderation on the board in that you prevent people like me from talking without thinking and saying stupid things.... just by your presence....:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
Aside from the analogue and digital comparisions there are even greater factors such as the song itself, the engineer, the use of a producer with good foresight and the talent of the muscians.

It takes a lot to make songs that will be remembered 20 years from now.

Its not just the medium your recording on - it takes real talent (or a great PR firm) to get where you want to be.

In my opinion high end analogue is still the best for sound but digital is the easiest for working.

If you have 70-100 songs to record I would suggest digital because its here to stay and it is getting better.

A decent HDR from Mackie, Tascam etc. would propbably be your best bet at this time though Nuendo is certainly coming along.

Hope this helps,

David Artis
Blue Heron Stusio
 
Bruce, my understanding is that Stephens, Scully, and Ampex sound
awesome too. How do you rate Otari?
Someday... I'd like to get either a Studer J37 or Scully 280-when I have a
bigger house or less pets (2 cats/1 dog)!

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top