Analog vs Digital vs DAW

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flames
  • Start date Start date
F

Flames

New member
For about a year ago I decided to buy me a dedicated audio PC. I did a good deal of research on diffrent forums but mainly the northen sound source forum, since I'm a user of GigaStudio. I came up with an ASUS mobo, matrox videocard, three maxtor harddisks, one for win and progs, one for audio and one for gigs. I installed win 98 SE and did all nessesary optimations, and since I was new to the concept of building a PC from scratch, I was mighty proud when it first started up and ran like a clock.
The whole idea with a studio based around a computer was to me the "Best Bang For The Buck", and since the number of tracks was depending on the PC's hardware, I figured out that I proboubly could handle over 40 tracks in 16-44, more than I'll ever use. That compared to the Yamaha 4 track cassette porta I've borwed form a friend in the past was to me a big releife. No more 4 track limitations.

Previusly I've used the family computer, the whole idea of recording to computer was acctuly my fathers(when we got the new PIII dell computer to our home), and it was also he who bought the WaMIrack 24 I'm now using.
I accualy recorded a demo of two songs on the dell computer with a quality I could never dream of. This was allmost three years ago, and I'm now getting better on the recording art, as well as a total gear-slut.

To go back even more in time to the days of junior high and the age of 15-16, I was recording my first demo with my band. This was at my school, and they where equipt mith a 24 channel Spirit desk and a Fostex B16, and some other stuff. It's kind of odd that a junior highschool is equipt with this, and you should see the rooms they had, real proffesional buildt with controll room and severall session rooms.
However, this was a free recording we where able to do and there was a guy helping us out as a audio enginere. We recorded about three demos there under a three year period and for the later two the singer in the band have learned to master the gear by himself.
Though my own interest in recording where not that big at the time, I've allways heard arguments about the analog sounded better than the digital, or should I say fatter.
Whatever, about a half year ago I spotted a add on a Tascam 38, a reel to reel deck with 8 tracks on a half inch reel. I bought it and have been trying out some drumrecording with it,,,,,,,,,,,


and finally to my point, I did not only discovered the nice oppertunity of warmth and tape saturation, I did also discover that it was a much more creative way of working. There was absolute somthing about acctualy press play and rec insted of ridin the mouse around the screen, and to skip the oppertunity to view the audio graffic on screen.
This get me wondering if I might experience somthing similare if I whould have used a digital recorder such as the Mackie SDR 24/96. The better thing about such digital recorder is that it's relative portable if I want to record in a diffrent enviornent.

It seems that from now on I'm getting more hardware than software as a more correct gear-slut would do, the only problem is the money.
But now at 21, I'm heading for SAE in march, and this will definetly give me the oppertunity to drewl over expensive gear while I'm learning them.

But what is your experience about this matter, do you get more creative vibes when useing "non PC/screen related" recording techniques.
 
Isn't that the most baited recording question of all time?

Okay, I'll take the bait.

-Shityeah there's a difference. Analog's clearly better, all the way.
 
Having done some work on a 16T 2" machine with a nice console in a good room I can honestly say I've never heard a digital setup that sounds that good.

Dollar for dollar I think analog sounds better (well, maybe not when you figure in the cost of a large, quality console), but that sound comes with the additional cost of expensive media that can't be re-used (if you want to keep that sound quality) constant maintenence, & less efficient editing.

I don't have the money, room or time for a high-end analog setup, so I work mostly with digital.

I do still have a turntable hooked to my tube stereo though. ;)
 
If you have a quarter million dollars or more to spend, then yes, analog is better (to my ear, but not to everyone’s). If you are not talking extremely high end gear, then digital will give you better results. Consumer or semi-pro digital will give you results which are acceptable for most purposes. Semi-pro analog does not. The noise floor on half inch 8-track is not acceptable, and it does not sound nice and warm, it sounds distorted. Digital is more portable, and is cheaper for acceptable quality. For under $250,000, give me digital.

On the other hand, if I had that quarter million, I would get myself into a Neve/Studer combination faster than you can say "lottery winner". Actually, probably not. I would probably start with building a great room, and getting a bunch of great mics. But after that, if I had the money, I would get a great analog setup.

So I guess, to sum up:

Low Budget - Get digital, whatever system you are most comfortable with.

High budget - Analog Baby!!!!




BTW, I think I had one too many glasses of wine tonight, but I would still feel the same way.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It seems like most of you missunderstod my point.

I do not beleive this is "the most baited recording question of all time".

I'm not refering to the "Analog vs Digital" question in terms of audio quality, I'm more refering to the feel and creativity when working with accual hardware recording equipment than software/computer-based system.

Today me and my friends where recording at another school, a media collage. This studio is a only protools-studio with the main purpous to do diffrent media projects, and not to record a rock n roll band. Everything was nicely set up with a expensive kind of hardware controller, dual screens, 5.1 ready, external recording discs and 16 I/O. This was based around a modest G3, in nicely build rooms.
This was the chance to experience the symbios of hardware and software recording. I must say that there was nothing really "uplifting" about this, if you know what I mean. Although a hardware controller gave in some terms the feel of physical recording, this is not the kind of equipment I'll bet my money on.

I can totally agree about that digital is the best way to spend your money when getting into recording,
But LIGHT,
I do not totally follow your argument, that buying only the top end equipment for a sillion bucks if you're going analog.
I noticed that your a senior member and figured that you probably have tons of experience in diffrent recording situasions. But what you probably missed out after thoose wineglasses, was the actual name of this forum, HOMERECORDING dot COM. This means, people recording at home with a miminal budget, just like me. A Tascam 38 would probobly not satisfy you, but to me, it delivers punchy and warm drumtracks, and watching thoose VU's dance is far more inspireing than stare you blind on a VGA screen.

In fact I would probably prefere recording acoustic guitar, vocals and other low volumes instrument digitally (into my PC), but if I had the money of a 16 or 24 track reel to reel recorder I'll choose analog over digital.

What many people seems to forget when building their own studio is the actuall atmosphere you do your recordings in. My experience is that recording to computerbased systems make you end up having tons of less than half made projects, this is also one of the reasons I bought my Tascam 38.

You probably know about the Brittish magasine SOUND ON SOUND, and here is a link to a "leaders page" concerning this matter.
www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/oct02/articles/leader1002.asp

So then again, whats your opinion?

:-)
 
I promise you I have not forgotten the name or purposes of this board. The issue is the quality of the end product, and at the budget which most home recording folk can afford, digital offers, by far, the best possible end product. Yes I find analog gear to be somewhat comforting, and inspiring, but only if it sounds as good as my digital stuff. Until you get to the high dollar stuff, analog does not sound as good as digital. The noise floor is ridiculously high, the dynamic range sucks, and the distortion is awful. I have experience with high dollar stuff, both digital and analog, as well as low dollar stuff, both digital and analog.

I have used a Tascam 38. The results are noisy, and in order to reduce that, you have to hit the tape so hard it distorts. The fact is, half inch tape does not have enough room to hold enough oxide for eight tracks. If you ever get the chance, listen to a one inch eight track or a two inch sixteen track. Then you will know what is so special about analog. When they started squeezing 24 tracks into two inch, they needed to come up with new noise reduction to make the sound acceptable, or double the speed to 30 ips.

The Tascam 38 was great for it's time. The standard for home recording has risen since then. The question is do you aspire to a professional level recording or not. If you do, digital will get you there for much less money than analog.

Understand, this is all just an opinion, and if you like what you are using, and the sound of the end result, great. I am just trying to give you my view. If you want to listen to me, fine. If not, fine.

If you want to know, I gave up big studios because I did not like dealing with people saying (and I quote) "That sounds perfect, it won't offend anyone." You would not believe the absolute disregard for music when money gets involved. It is not a world I wanted anything more to do with. I hated the music I was working on, and I hated the people I was working with. The novelty of the gear had long since worn off. I now use a Roland 2480, and the small (but growing) collection of mics that I own to work with bands I enjoy. I have fun whenever I am in a recording studio, and I make my money elsewhere. I am on as tight a budget as anyone. I use the 2480 because it has most of the capabilities I need for a low cost. I also got it because I felt comfortable with the layout of the controls, and I needed faders. So I guess that yes, I feel hardware is more comfortable than software. This does not mean I would consider low cost analog to be a good alternative to low cost digital.

As to vibe, I have always tried to create a comfortable environment to work in. My room right now has a whole bunch of Mexican blankets hanging from the walls, and the most comfortable couch in the world to sit on (among other things). The walls are all wood, with a brick chimney on one end of the room. I love the vibe of my space, and when I finally get a chance to build my own room (in ten or twenty years or so) I will probably try to reproduce the feel I have right now.

And to night I have not had anything but Cherry Coke to drink.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Flames said:
. A Tascam 38 would probobly not satisfy you, but to me, it delivers punchy and warm drumtracks, and watching thoose VU's dance is far more inspireing than stare you blind on a VGA screen.

What many people seems to forget when building their own studio is the actuall atmosphere you do your recordings in. My experience is that recording to computerbased systems make you end up having tons of less than half made projects, this is also one of the reasons I bought my Tascam 38.
Click to expand...

I never quite understood that point. Most musicians i know, myself included, are not staring at a computer monitor OR a VU meter when they are in the throes of creativity. Most of the time we actually have our eyes shut. And ideally, we're not sitting right on top of either noisy tape machines or noisy hard drives while we record, so i fail to see how this issue critically affects the creative atmosphere.

Waiting for the tape to rewind, messing up perfectly good sections with improperly executed destructive punch-ins, and worrying about media costs are not my ideas of enhancing a creative atmosphere.

And why one would be less likely to finish a project in one system over another is a mystery to me.

Don't misunderstand - a high end analog system can be an invaluable asset to any studio. I just don't see where just the fact of having analog somehow spurs the musicians to the heights of creativity. There are advantages and disadvantages to either system. No need to try to assign one of them magic qualities.
 
littledog,

> Waiting for the tape to rewind, messing up perfectly good sections with improperly executed destructive punch-ins, and worrying about media costs are not my ideas of enhancing a creative atmosphere. <

You nailed it. The best thing I ever did was to get rid of my racks of outboard gear and outboard synths, and move to doing everything in a computer. I now work faster than ever before, can undo any mistake instantly, create accurate automation envelopes quickly, use multiple analog-style and sampler soft synths, multiple plug-ins, and so forth. And once a mix is as good as it's gonna get, a simple File .. Export creates a Wave file that sounds exactly like what I've been hearing.

--Ethan
 
How's it goin' Ethan! I recently read an article you wrote in one of the recording mags, but now I can't remember which one it was or what the subject matter was...

No insult intended to you - it's just i read so many mags each month and my brain is like jello these days. I do remember liking the article both for it's content and writing style, however.

I still intend to come visit someday and check out your room management products.
 
I allways get the feel of that I'm editing graffic in photoshop when I'm mixing and editing my stuff on my PC, making music was not supposed to be like that. From now on I'm going for a more hardware-based setup.

Well, I do not "watch thoose VU's dance" while I'm recording, I just like the feel and sound of this ancient equipment.
The ultimat view would more be like a panorama window from a montaintop.

And,

Why do you allways appriciate a good looking (and good sounding) plugin with virtiuell VU's and knobs, why is thoose plugins not designed like a regular program with scrollbars insted of knobs and so on?
Why not have the real thing?

I'm not worried about tape hiss, I'm more into a kind of raw sound, a little more "LO-FI" style, where the 38 is "like a glove".
If I where Mark Knoffler I probably whouldn't settle for anything else than 2" 16 track and Neve desk and so on.
But how many of you are doing top selling albums with your homerecording equipment?

Here is a link to some friends of mine, who have been recording their latest demo with the Fostex B16 preaviusly mentioned.



The bands address

http://welcome.to/drdunbars

For a demo production, it's quite neat and I would be proud being a part of it.
But in fact I know records at this date being recorded with a Fostex G24.

It has in a way become to easy to record (PC/software systems). You just record a lot of ideas wich never leads to any serious recording sessions.
With the 38 I'll have to make certain preperitions wich will make me going (since I'm naturally lacy).
I've too build a case to the 38 wich makes it relative "portable", I'm at the moment prepering drum recording sessions in the livingroom wich has a really nice atmosphere, if I could, I'll do all my recordings there.

I hope I didn't offend or upset anyone preaviusly, if so, I'm Sorry.

I'll probably think of something more to write but I have to get some sleep, so,,,,,,,,,,,,ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

"to be continued"
 
I have a 38, I've had it for almost 20 years, and I like it a lot,...

in fact I got a second mint 38 earlier this year. It's a great machine for home recording. People all have their favorites, that's mine, the 38,... and the one and only 388.
 
I found it can be uninspiring when recording myself playing, having to go from "art mode" to "computer mode", but that is more of an issue of wearing 2 hats.

It seems like the recurring theme is that of visual distraction. Since there are more visual stimuli in PC DAW recording than analog, maybe it is easier for the average person to get distracted from the audio content of music by the graphical representation of the music and the "gear" affecting it.

Maybe that is another theme, that virtuality makes us feel more detached. We are even more removed from the reality of the sound and the gear.

"Why do you allways appriciate a good looking (and good sounding) plugin with virtiuell VU's and knobs, why is thoose plugins not designed like a regular program with scrollbars insted of knobs and so on? "

Very interesting question! If one would change the GUI of plugins to horizontal sliders (mda style), I bet less people would use them.

As to the mouse problem (I hate using a mouse on audio), maybe using a different device would work better?

What is the meaning?
Record on a nonPC DAW and use outboard gear?
Then edit on PC?
 
Interesting thoughts ecs113.

While you record you have to create the ultimat enviorment. As far as mixing and editing, the PC deliver the most "BFB" since I got either money or space for the hardware (yet), my best option is my DAW.
 
I don't want to get on a rant, but just to confirm a few things...

based solely on my own personal opinion. Anyone is free to disagree.

-I find it undesirable to use the mouse, or to manipulate menus when recording.
-I find the CRT does induce eye strain, even headaches, after so many extended hours.
-I find the instability of computers and the 'blue screens' annoying.
-I found that technical issues often distract from creative issues.
-I found that my computer makes a lot of ambient noise in the recording area, a single room.
-I found that the CRT monitor can throw interference into the audio signal chain.
-Those all-in-one-DAWs have those small LCD screens, that are hard to read from any distance over 4' away.

I know any of the above issues can be resolved individually, and I wouldn't dispute that. Our gear choice is all based on personal preference, but for the above reasons, I won't be going to 'puter recording any time soon.

On the other hand, there's analog. You have a setup that's simple & easy to use, with actual knobs and faders layed out on a tangible working surface. Analog recorders don't have the ultra-flat response or the ultra-high S/N ratio as digital does, [as well as some other analog anomalies], but people who are into analog generally know this, are willing to make that tradeoff, and are happy with the sound and the recording experience nonetheless.

Another point is that these are the "digital" days of the 21st century, and you're seeing a huge tidal wave of people transitioning from analog to digital in droves, on almost every technical front, not just audio recording. What that means, is there's a glut of used analog equipment out there on auction, a virtual buyer's market. For analog users and enthusiasts, digital is the best thing that ever happened, and it's caused a tremendous price reduction in the analog gear market. Analog consoles and recorders, from the smallest Portastudio to the largest vintage Scully, are being dumped on the used gear market, and we analog people have the digital revolution to thank for that. Low-end and mid-line home recording gear is ultra-cheap and affordable, and the high end stuff, being large consoles and 2" recorders, are now within reach of the high end hobbyist, or the small-budget project studio.

There's a whole gadgety nature of digital-based recording, whether it's 'puter or one-piece-DAW, that you just don't have with analog recording. I prefer the non-gadgety approach of analog recording.

Analog media's not that expensive any more. I kind of depends on the budget you're looking for on tape, and that does factor into analog recorder choices. However, I've found tremendous discounts and blowouts on lots of analog media, from 1/4" to 2". The analog tape deals are out there, if you look hard enough. I've scored 1/4" and 1/2" new mastering tape of almost every type, [456/499 & equiv's], for a little as $1/reel. I shit-you-not, I said ONE DOLLAR PER REEL.

Anyway, digital enthusiasts cite the high cost of analog equipment and media, and I'd politely disagree. I've gotten tremendous value out of my analog buying dollar, & have been-there/done-that. I know analog's not for everybody, and I can accept that, in fact IMO all the better for me, and other analog tapeheads.

BTW, it's not like hard drives and all the latest 'puter oriented stuff is actually cheap, now is it? Sound Forge, $400. M-Audio Delta1010, $550. Hard drives, $90-$300. Fast computer, P4, ~$500+. Virtual control system, [Roland, Tascam, Mackie], ~$450-~$1000. Drum machine, Boss DR-770, $350. POD, $200. Digi001, ~$750. Boss BR-532, $400. Flash-media, ~$50-$200. Roland VS-2480, $2500. The list goes on.

Point being, don't try to convince me analog's exhorbitantly expensive and digital's so conveniently cheap in comparison. I don't buy that argument.

Then there's track number. I think that unless you're a pro and you're recording a 24 piece orchestra, track counts of 48-128 like a lot of people talk about is just insane!

I think if the average home recordist couldn't flesh out a composition in 16-24 tracks, [even up to 32 is reasonable], then something's wrong. IMO unlimited track count accounts for a lot of the "fix it in the mix" mentality that's out there. [Actual pro recording excepted from this point, as actual big-productions demand lots of tracks, like Disney, Paramount, MCA or actual commercial prodution studios].

Okay, now we're down to sound quality, of analog vs digital. Analog has more limited headroom, lower S/N ratio, and less flat frequency response than digital, and yet the web is virtually filled with posts by people who seek to get a more analog sounding result on their digital recording platform. Go figure. Anyway, either despite or because of analog's limitations, it seems to be the sound that everyone's after,... of course with exceptions.

Then, most analog tapeheads and home recordists I know are basically happy with the sound quality and performance of their tape-based recording systems. Limitations being evident, a lot of the quality of your end-result recording has a lot to do with the signal chain and the skill of the person working the controls, the engineering experience, so to speak.

Bottom line, IMO whether it's a toaster, electric clock or recording gear, when it has "digital" on it, people just go "gah-gah". Digital has that great "wow" factor, and that can't be denied. Ooh, my TV tuner is digital, WOW. WOW, a digital microwave, cool! A digital wristwatch, great! Then it was,... DIGITAL TAPE, WOW! Now, it's... Digital Tape, fooey!... Digital recording to HARD DRIVE, WOW! Even,... Digital recording to tiny little flash memory cards,... SUPER-WOW!

Sorry people, I didn't mean to rant, but I just layed it all out on the table. The above reasoning is why I'm firmly placed in the analog camp. [A tape recorder that uses actual tape? WOW!]

I'm off my rant. Thanx if you read this far.

Happy Holidays to all, analog and digital alike.
 
Analog: Easiest to use, high running costs. Almost any reel-2-reel multitrack will sound fine.
Computer Recording: A pain in the ass to use, but extremely flexible. Low starting costs, but will sound crappy. Good sound will cost muchos dineros.
DAW: The middle ground. Not as flexible as a computer, but better editing than analog. Cheaper than analog, but most people thinks analog sound better (although it's a matter of religion).
 
By the way at this time I've reformated my prog drive in my DAW since a cluster gone bad (I coulden't start the damn thing), this is the second time in one year. I'll have to redo all optimisiations in win 98 se, and reinstall everything. Luckly non of my work is lost since it's on a another drive.
 
Re: I don't want to get on a rant, but just to confirm a few things...

A Reel Person said:
based solely on my own personal opinion. Anyone is free to disagree.

-I find it undesirable to use the mouse, or to manipulate menus when recording.
-I find the CRT does induce eye strain, even headaches, after so many extended hours.
-I find the instability of computers and the 'blue screens' annoying.
-I found that technical issues often distract from creative issues.
-I found that my computer makes a lot of ambient noise in the recording area, a single room.
-I found that the CRT monitor can throw interference into the audio signal chain.
Click to expand...

It seems these are common problems to consumer grade PC's, which PC DAW people go with due to low cost or the fact that they already own a computer (my case). Like you said, to solve these problems, the PC would cost much more. One can build a stable, powerful, sonically and electromagnetically quiet PC, but it would cost much more.

I would be interested to try tracking in analog, and the rest in digital. I would love to be able to power on and go and have it work almost everytime versus having to deal with the more frequent and inevitable PC problems. This is a path I would like to take when I have the means.

Thanks for the insight, Reel.
(It's amazing the level of conversation that can take place when people rise above "Analog is crap / digital is crap")
 
Reel: Are there any online analog reel2reel resources you could offer, especially any sales sites? I have been watching eBay, and I am afraid that r2r, or any other additional tracking method, will be beyond my means for quite some time.

Flames: "This get me wondering if I might experience somthing similare if I whould have used a digital recorder such as the Mackie SDR 24/96"
I would research the gear. I considered purchasing an ADAT to bypass the PC game, and upon researching the popular units, I found that they are prone to "Errors". I don't think R2R get "Errors" and if my PC does, at least I have a GUI and some PC knowledge to troubleshoot. I have not researched the HD systems because they are just stripped down computers. Still a hard drive, still can crash, cluster probs etc...
 
LD,

> but now I can't remember which one it was or what the subject matter was... <

Yes, I'm all over the place. :) And I have more articles coming soon in Keyboard, EQ, Mix, and Pro Sound News.

> I still intend to come visit someday and check out your room management products. <

I'm here. You're also welcome to come over just to visit and say Hi.

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