DAW vs. "Vintage Analog" recording

[Mr Nice]

Inexpensive digital gear can mess up your sound through quantization error and other things over which you have no control.

Yes, if you use those freeware audio programs and plug your source instruments into your generic soundcard you probably will get errors in the recordings. But if you use software like Cubase SX, Logic, Pro-Tools with a more-pro sound card you shouldn't have any problems. This is of course your sytem has bet set-up for optimal performance.

I like both analog and digital stuff so I get the best of both worlds, and analog gear still seems to be still lingering around.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

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.

I can buy that.

Ultimately its the engineer and material that counts, not the format.

 

[Rokket]

I think the biggest advantage of analog over digital is that you can run your signal hot as hell witout clipping. That's why analog recordings are so much louder. But louder doesn't mean better (unless you are an exec in a music company).

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

I think the biggest advantage of analog over digital is that you can run your signal hot as hell witout clipping. That's why analog recordings are so much louder. But louder doesn't mean better (unless you are an exec in a music company).

Actually no... but analog clipping starts out with a soft knee characteristic gradually reaching total distortion around +13db... which usually doesn't sound so hot, whereas digital hits 100% distortion right when it clips at 0dbfs.

Using digital technology you can get an apparent loudness that far supersedes analog processing... i.e. L2 Ultramaximizer.

 

[darnold]

i personally dont think it matters a whole lot as far as quality goes. You use what youve got. People who are used to analog will probably have a hard time recording on digital because they are so much different. and vice versa. But i think the really big thing with analog is all the tricks you can do with the saturation. You can actually use the "flaws" of tape to make things sound more interesting or colorful.

Guess that doesnt mean much from me because ive never used tape before. Maybe i should pull out this Tascam MS16 and mess around with it. But basically that is just what ive perceived when i read articles and techniques from pros that use tape. It doesnt seem to be that it necessarily sound better but they know some cool trick they can do with the saturation that gives a unique sound. Either with the drums or distortion gtr. It seems that when people are amazed by a recorded drum or gtr sound the engineer usually explains its a technique done with tape.

Danny

 

[Ronan]

i personally dont think it matters a whole lot as far as quality goes. You use what youve got. People who are used to analog will probably have a hard time recording on digital because they are so much different. and vice versa.

I use both all the time. I did my first all digital album about 14 years ago and my last all digital album about 6 weeks ago. I still think the sound of analog is superior to digital. I can make both of them sound good, but boy is my job a lot easier with analog. Not trying to start the analog vs. digital debate. just chiming in with my personal experience.

 

[ecktronic]

Analogue tape only though! Digital tape is just the same as a hard drive.
I would love to try out analogue tape but not sure if i will ever get a chance to.
You can clip digital, but only for small amounts of samples at a time. That is what a loudness maximizer does. It lets the wave peak for small amounts at a time. So if you use the maximizer too much you will loose alot of clarity and it will sound a bit distorted.
Anybody know what else is used in a maximizer to obain results. Is it a complex arangement of limiting and compression??

 

[ecktronic]

Analogue tape only though! Digital tape is just the same as a hard drive.
I would love to try out analogue tape but not sure if i will ever get a chance to.
You can clip digital, but only for small amounts of samples at a time. That is what a loudness maximizer does. It lets the wave peak for small amounts at a time. So if you use the maximizer too much you will loose alot of clarity and it will sound a bit distorted.
Anybody know what else is used in a maximizer to obain results. Is it a complex arangement of limiting and compression??

 

[Mr Nice]

Analogue tape only though! Digital tape is just the same as a hard drive.

Not neccessarily, They may be the same as far as both being digital but thats it. Digital tape suffers the editing and processing benifits you would get from hard disc recording.

Not only that digital tape aside from clarity, has similar drawbacks that analog tape does like tape crinkle, longer to rewind and fast foward to certain sections of the tape, and the machine has to be serviced as you would an analog tape machine, i.e. allign and clean the heads etc.

 

[darnold]

Ronan - Thanks for sharing your experience. Im wondering if that means i should pull out that Tascam MS16 and give it a spin. Ive always been under the impression that you had to have a real high end 2" tape machine like a studer, sony, mci etc to make it trully superior to digital. But middle of the road tape like an MS16 would be just a personal preferrence.

I wonder if i have some old reels lying around that i could use for it and recycle for every big session. That would be fun to do too.

Danny

 

[usernamebob]

hmmm
using a combination is best in my experience.. now I don't own an analog setup personaly, nowhere near enough money or time to run it. but I have been in a few studios that run both, in my opinion it's a completely different sound for a different application for instance, if you were recording the vines... putting them in protools wouldn't be a good choice, but recording linkin Park on your analog setup might not go so well either.

Also Analog needs much better musicians to make it work realy, on digital it's very easy to re-do small sections, and while you can do this on analog it is quite painfull.

if you've got talented enough musicians that they'll get everything right the first time (almost extinct these days) I'd record all analog, then bounce it up to digital for editing. but it's all personal prference realy

 

[ryanlikestorock]

I speak as someone who has two lives... the digital project studio life and the world-class analog studio life. Both have their benefits.

As its been mentioned, digital is much cheaper. For $20,000, you can put together one hell of a DAW setup. In the analog world, $20,000 gets you one or two really nice pieces of gear.

However, there is a certain airness... or openness that just can't come from digital plugins. It's that final 1-2% of magic, but it just CAN'T be replicated. I hear this in mastering and I'm sure it makes a world of difference in recording as well.

My biggest beef with digital recording is that drums just don't sound right unless they've hit tape. Sure, they're cleaner... but, I like the dirt of tape. It just sounds right to me.

For $500 or so, why not own a Tascam 38? I don't have one, but it's on my short list for sure.

 

[manning1]

darnold. you have an M16 and your not using it ?
thats a very nice machine properly set up !!

 

[Ronan]

For $20,000, you can put together one hell of a DAW setup. In the analog world, $20,000 gets you one or two really nice pieces of gear.

Huh? $20,000 can get you a really nice studio if you buy used. Here is a rough budget based on very trypical prices in the US.

$5000 console (TAC Matchless, DDA, D&R Orion)
$3000 2 inch machine (Otari MTR-90)
$1500 1/2 inch machine (Otari)
$500 Speakers (Event 20/20bas)
$4500 Compressors (Manley Vari-Mu, 2 distressors)
$1500 Reverbs (lexicon PCM90 and a couple cheapos)
$1700 mic collection. (AT tube 4060, 2 Shure KSM32s, Sure Beta52, a few SM57s)
$2300 cabling and tech service on the used gear to fix it up replaces caps etc.

This budget could actually be a lot lower if you really looked around for really good deals.

 

[ryanlikestorock]

Sorry, I'm thinking about Canadian dollars which is a bit different. Also, I was thinking of new equipment. Anyway... yeah, $20k isn't a bad amount of money to start with if you wanted a decent studio of used gear. You're right.

 

[Mr Nice]

20K (USD) Damn! I would first build a super-super-super powerful computer, probably 3.0Ghz and 4GB RAM, Western Digital 10,000RPM 80GB SATA drive just for the OS. And then I would get an Ultra 320 SCSI disc strictly for audio. That alone would probably eat up $2500 (Including the pro sound card). Then i would buy a great mic and pre set-up, probably around another $1500 spent. Add a Mackie D8b (Because it would look hot). A good chunk of the money would go on call girls and alcohol and have a "grand opening" party!

 

[xstatic]

The "old analog guys" aren't going anywhere. In fact, many of the "younger hipper guys" still use analog tape. The best studios out there primarily run hybrid setups. Track to 2" tape, dump to DAW, mix through console. Studer even released 20 or 30 new 2" tape machines earlier this year. No matter how much better digital gets, analog tape will always have its place in a PRO environment. In fact, as less and less people use analog, those studios won't have to junk their machines, they can probably raise their rates and stay more booked due to the fact that they still have their machines. Do you really think that concert pianists would give up their $100,000 dollar pianos because Roland puts out a killer sample? Will a Stradivarius become worthless due to a good midi violin coming out? I highly doubt it.

In general, studio's that run all digital do so because they either can't afford (money and space) a nice tape machine and a large enough console to make it worthwhile. There is no doubt that digital gets better and better every day. There is no doubt that digital allows us to achieve a better quality within a constrained budget than analog may allow in that same budget. There is also no doubt that digital is much more powerful when it comes to editing. In the end though, the true engineers and musicians are after quality. Analog tape is an excellent tool to provide that missing piece of magic that seems to be missing from digital equipment. Why do you think that so many of the big digital consoles still have a ton of analog circuitry?

For me, a good 2" machine is unmatchable. In my opinion it takes some serious converters to achieve similar quality. Not that the $100 a channel converters aren't capable of allowing an engineer to make a killer album, but all the RME's and Motu's an Maudio's still don't really hold a candle to the nice Prism, Mytek, Lavry, Apogee and Weiss converters. So in the end, a digital studio isn't really less expensive if you actually compare apples to apples. For those on constrained or limited budgets, I whole heartedly reccomend digital. Its the best way to get a powerful and flexible setup at a decent price. But, for those that can afford it and are serious about their stuff (not implying that those that use digital aren't serious), analog tape is nearly a necessity.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

I think the rising quality of digital, the sheer convenience, the power, and ultimately the cheaper costs due to not having to buy analog tape, that analog will get wiped out in the professional sense. Especially when the new up and coming engineers have never even SEEN a RTR analog much less how to work on one...

Heck, nowadays most clients will NOT want to be recorded if you have a RTR because you are 'outdated' by all digital setups. Seriously--this is the 'average musician' perception! (Not the 'pro musician' perception.)

Then it will come back in vogue about 10 years later and prices for the 'old machines' will be insane.

That will in turn force digital to up the ante and extinct analog again.

Just look at how the virtual analog versus analog synthesizer war has gone for the last 10 years. It will pretty much go the same way.

 

[xstatic]

There is some truth to that. The "average" musician is all about digital these days. However, they don't know any better either. Half the time they don't ask if you have digital, they ask if you have Pro Tools. Not even knowing that there is anything else out there. Most up and coming engineers haven't ever used an SSL or a Neve either. Or manley gear, or Massenberg, or a vintage Neumann, or telefunken, or used anything better than a pair of mackie monitors. My point is that when they are ready to make that step to the "pro" level, they will be introduced to all of those things. Including analog tape. 10 years ago ADAT was supposed to be the end of analog tape as well. Most of my clients nowadays want to know what kind of digital setup I am using. What software and what bit rate I am using. Hot on the heels of that question is whether or not I can do analog. Almost every even partially seasoned band I have worked with would have preferred to use analog. In fact, I constantly have to explain that digital is not as "cold" or "sterile" as they might think. I convince them that decent converters, proper technique, and a nice fat analog front end (I prefer to start with a big console) can really make digital a very viable alternative. I never pretend that it will be better, but explain to them that for a little loss in sound quality we gain a faster more efficient system that is still capable of an excellent outcome, at a lower cost. All the B3 plugins in the world won't make a B3 player get rid of their instrument. They may add a virtual B3 to their rig, and occasionally use it instead, but I don't see them getting rid of it. I know a lot of up and coming young producers and engineers. Any of them with any sort of experience knows how to use both digital and analog. When they become succesful and start getting the high dollar projects in their own studios, I am sure they will make arrangements for some analog recorders as well. In fact, as the analog recorders get older (heads relapped too much to be resold) I not only can see digital NOT making analog extinct, but I can see some manufacturers once again remanufacturing some of their prized beauties. A big problem with analog reel to reels is their bulk and cost though. They are a high dollar item, and as a result have a smaller target market. Otari and Studer etc... basically sold themselves out of their market so could no longer manufacture their machines. Basically, everyone that could afford one had already bought one.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing on analog. But with the quick turnover sessions that I tend to do, you have to have that SPEED or you're dead meat.

I'm a big believer in an massive analog front end (this belief was challenged recently and it overcame).