DAW vs. "Vintage Analog" recording

[KevinDrummer]

Hi.

Anyone have any idea what the ratio of DAW vs. analog in modern production (pop)?

I am especially interested in productions that "sound" analog i.e. jazz, Norah Jones, retro rock etc.

What I'm getting at is an argument over what is "better" to get those warm fat sounds. My side of the argument is that digital effects have come to the point where you can recreate whatever you want if you have the right equipment and talent.

Oh, and a really big list of artist to support the ratio would be appreciated.

 

[Ronan]

Most modern pop productions are hybrids.

My expereince is that a DAW can not acurately recreate the sound of vintage gear.

 

[Rokket]

Most modern pop productions are hybrids.

My expereince is that a DAW can not acurately recreate the sound of vintage gear.

I agree. I record all DAW because it's CHEAPER, but analog is better, warmer sounding. The best digital gear is still not as good (but it is getting closer).
Plus most of the hybred stuff isn't that great anymore because the engineer is being forced by the record companies to record everything extremely hot. If you record DAW and keep it under -12.0 db, you can still get a nice sound. It's still not analog, but it will sound better.... Did I ramble?

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Digital:

PROS
-You don't have to buy tape; limitless storage/archiving potential
-Flexible, easily automatible
-Ultimately cheaper
-Plugins offer great value
-FAST to work on
-The undisputed future of recording
-Potentially large (48+) track counts attainable
-Extremely powerful systems take up very little real estate compared to analog

CONS
-Less 'classic' sound
-Requires specialized knowledge about digital systems to achieve good sound
-Highly dependent on expensive analog to digital converters for sound quality
-Number of options for equipment, plugins, software can be confusing
-Resale value on new equipment bottoms out in 2-3 years after release date
-Software can be buggy as hell (especially when new OS's come out)

Analog:

PROS
-Already has that classic sound
-You can find great deals on recorders if you know what to look for
-Generally easy to achieve big, fat sounds
-Tape compression
-Five years from now when digital still doesn't have that "analog sound" you can laugh knowing for sure that you have it clocked cold
-A proven audio format
-Audiophiles and analog snobs will love your studio

CONS
-Requires regular maintenance
-Tape is expensive and getting more difficult to find
-Some idiots will consider your gear "archaic", possibly costing you clients
-Automating a totally analog system is a pretty pricey affair
-Good luck affording EQ and compression on each channel
-Bouncing analog tracks around degrades quality
-Can be a hissy and noisy format without care
-Slow to mix on compared to digital

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

In general, if you attract top-notch clients with deep pockets that want to book large blocks of time to 'get it right' I would recommend an analog system because of the better sound quality.

If you are like me and booking a lot of small fries with small budgets that want results in a hurry digital is the way to go. For one you can bang out sessions fast, automate the mix, do edits on the quick, mix it and get them out the door; secondly, you can work on a session and save the mix where it's at until they come back the next time (and can afford it).

In a lot of ways you might have to go against your personal preference based on your clients. I would *LOVE* to have an all-analog recording setup because I love that sound, and I grew up on that format. But... I would go out of business because the perception in my area is that if you don't have a digital system you are 'behind the times' and unworthy of recording with. Plus hack musicians LOVE digital... it fixes all their screw ups for them.

If you anticipate acts booking big time blocks that want uncompromising audio quality--go analog. If not, go digital.

 

[rocker]

my nuendo system sounds great with apogee convertser

 

[Han]

my nuendo system sounds great with apogee convertser

My two inch tape machine sounds great without any convertor.

 

[fenix]

My two inch tape machine sounds great without any convertor.

it still has a converter--converts to magnetic pulses.

 

[lpdeluxe]

I have a rare analog 1970 Radio Shack portable cassette deck with a built-in mic and AGC. I'll bet it's worth a FORTUNE!!

 

[ecktronic]

Anyone tried the T-rack software? Its a tube compresser, multiband limiter, and EQ device. It treats the digital like analogue. It is alot more leanient towards over charging that input to the limiter, or over compressing with a silly high ratio, or EQ boosting to heaven and back. Can produce a box for a wave though if used too much!! Its pretty good and would be great if it was a VST.
SAY NO TO NO DYNAMICS

 

[xstatic]

I tried T-racks a couple of times. Every time I felt like things sounded better before T-Racks. In fact, I felt or heard absolutley NO analogish sound. Just my 2 cents.

 

[LemonTree]

T-Racks pretty much sucks...apart from the *Hit by a bus* preset.

You'll get better results from PSP Vintage Warmer or iZotope Ozone

Just my 2 pence worth

 

[lpdeluxe]

I think 99% of the "analog sound" is the digital recorder's unfamiliarity with what they are doing.

 

[slobbermonster]

I like both, both is good, lots of tubes. If i could put a tube in my nuendo box I would.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

I think 99% of the "analog sound" is the digital recorder's unfamiliarity with what they are doing.

That explains why many professionals use analog, because they surely can't know what they are doing.

 

[Mr Nice]

I agree. I record all DAW because it's CHEAPER, but analog is better, warmer sounding. The best digital gear is still not as good (but it is getting closer).

There is software out there that can replicate the sound of analog. I agree that tape does give a slightly warmer/smoother vibe, but you can almost achieve those results with good plug-ins also.

My point is that if you take an album, you probably wont be able to tell whether it was made on a DAW as opposed to analog tape. I like the sound of analog, but digital tends to be easier to edit, cut, copy, paste and process much quicker and easier.

 

[gullfo]

Many top pros still use a combination of analog and digital. They may track to analog, dump to digital for edits, then output to analog for mastering, or master in digital. Top analog equipment is still the best for overall range and truest sound but for most of us a DAW is going to get us closest to the quality we think is pro at the least cost. Still, keeping your levels down and using decent ($250) audio cards and paying attention to the details will yield some impressive results. Once we all get to 1024Khz/64bit, analog will probably be in its final days...

 

[lpdeluxe]

Cloneboy, you miss my point. Once the digital gear has been in use as long as analog has, no doubt there'll be a lot more expertise with it. Experienced engineers are going to use what they got their experience on. Someday the analog guys will all be gone and we'll talk about how 16 bit is the real thing and there will be Tascam CD700s on EBay for thousands of dollars. Analog's no more a magic bullet than anything else, but it's a thoroughly mature technology with a huge pool of existing, expert users. You can't say the same about digital yet.

 

[Mr Nice]

I am not a top pro but I still have an intergrated analog/digital set-up. I run everything through an analog mixer before it goes into the computer. I do however mix/master internally.

 

[lpdeluxe]

The advantage of doing that is that you preserve the continuous waveform up to the last minute, so to speak. Inexpensive digital gear can mess up your sound through quantization error and other things over which you have no control.