Debating Analog or Digital

[gecko zzed]

Those like me who started out as musicians and gradually moved into recording will always be artists and engineers first. That's why we are here doing this stuff and choosing the best tools for the job as we see it.

That describes me very well.

And from my perspective, the tools that work best for me, the best ones for the job, are all situated in the digital realm. One of the reasons is that though I am not very good mechanically, I am pretty good electronically, and I am much more comfortable with a computer than I am with a tape deck. Another reason (which I mentioned in an earlier post), is that I find the digital workflow a lot simpler and a lot more efficient than I ever found with tape.

It may well be the case that ultimately the true cost of digital is more than analog. I'm not totally convinced, but I'm happy to be persuaded. But ultimately I don't really care. For me, the benefits of digital outweigh any extra costs that it may generate.

But I am ok if people find analog works better for them. I don't really care what others use. I only care about what I use.

 

[Bobbsy]

My experiences/opinions are much like Gecko Zzed. Much as I like the tactile experience of analogue, my workflow is faster and more efficient in digital--and, despite what Beck says, I spend a negligible amount of time on PC maintenance and upgrades.

That said, I certainly understand the attraction of analogue gear. I only sold my last analogue recorder (a Brennell 8 track 1 inch) when I was packing for my move to Australia...and I still miss the beast. It was fun to have around! However, if I'm realistic, for more than a decade I've been doing my serious work ITB and using the analogue for fun.

I wonder if I could use old mainframe computer technology to develop a DAW that uses the old reel to reel tape drives like they had in the 60s and 70s?

Anyway, that's the beauty of our passtime. If there's a hundred thousand HR members, there's also a hundred thousand different ways of doing things.

(Just for fun, the pic I took for eBay when I was selling my 8 track. Sniff. Looking at it makes me miss it more!)

 

[Beck]

... despite what Beck says, I spend a negligible amount of time on PC maintenance and upgrades.

This is what I mean when I say most people will fail to factor in the total costs for using DAW-based systems over time.

Do you still use the same DAW you used in 1989? Not likely. The question is more like how many computers and OS's has the average DAW user been through since 1989. I'm using 1989 as a reference here because I bought my last 8-track reel-to-reel in 1989 and I still have it... still running like new like it did then, and with minimal maintenance over these years.

The fact is, statistically everyone who's been recording for many years spends unfathomable amounts of time on maintenance, upgrades and system issues with any computer-based model. Take a look around. There are more music forums on the web than you can count. Hardly any cater to analog, but all are filled with cries for help with one problem or another that's costing the user time and money. Digital is the dominant format. The forums are filled with conversations about digital recording and the unavoidable Windows PC and Mac issues that also have to be counted as DAW issues. These are the issues hiding in plain sight that people fail to factor in when looking at Total Cost in running a digital studio. When a Windows OS update breaks your recording software or vice versa until a fix or workaround is found, I'd rather be changing a worn capstan drive belt. And that belt will last through many OS's and program releases.

That said, I certainly understand the attraction of analogue gear. I only sold my last analogue recorder (a Brennell 8 track 1 inch) when I was packing for my move to Australia...and I still miss the beast. It was fun to have around! However, if I'm realistic, for more than a decade I've been doing my serious work ITB and using the analogue for fun.

I wonder if I could use old mainframe computer technology to develop a DAW that uses the old reel to reel tape drives like they had in the 60s and 70s?

Anyway, that's the beauty of our passtime. If there's a hundred thousand HR members, there's also a hundred thousand different ways of doing things.

(Just for fun, the pic I took for eBay when I was selling my 8 track. Sniff. Looking at it makes me miss it more!)

View attachment 78551

Yep, true enough. Nice pic by the way.

 

[Bobbsy]

This is what I mean when I say most people will fail to factor in the total costs for using DAW-based systems over time.

Do you still use the same DAW you used in 1989? Not likely. The question is more like how many computers and OS's has the average DAW user been through since 1989. I'm using 1989 as a reference here because I bought my last 8-track reel-to-reel in 1989 and I still have it... still running like new like it did then, and with minimal maintenance over these years.

1989? I don't think DAWs existed then, certainly not ones you could use at home! My first home venture was Cool Edit 96 which, surprise surprise, came out in 1996. At work, we'd gone digital about a year before that but it was bespoke hardware (a DAR Soundstation if you want to Google it) rather than a software package on a computer.

As for replacement computers, I'm going to dodge the answer because it's not clear cut. Against all advice (even advice I hand out) I use the same computer for general use as I do with sound. I have just enough PC knowledge that I can set up two boots, one with all the rubbish and once nice and clean for DAW work.

What I can say is that I've never replaced a computer because I needed to from a DAW point of view--it was because I needed to anyway for the general use side of things. Having said that, I probably aim for a higher spec machine to run my DAW (and my copy of Adobe Premiere, my overkill solution for editing home videos).

So, to sum up, I don't know how I'd calculate the cost of my DAW as opposed to the cost of "general computing". However, it's not a high number, at least not compared to buying tapes and belts and pinch rollers (and the necessary coffee to drink when changing them).

 

[CrowsofFritz]

at least not compared to buying tapes and belts and pinch rollers (and the necessary coffee to drink when changing them).

I've been following this little branch for a bit now and I'm glad it was finally mentioned.


If I buy a used SLR camera for $100 as opposed to a DSLR for $350, I'll still have to factor in the amount I'll have to pay for the roles of film and to have the film developed. And what would I be doing to upgrade the DSLR? I suppose I could upgrade the editing software, but that's a personal decision and not a necessity. I could publish digital photos as raw as film.

 

[Bobbsy]

...although the impression I have (please can an analogue user confirm or deny) is that tape is in such short supply these days that most home recordists are forced to have a small stock which they recycle almost endlessly.

 

[miroslav]

It all depends how much recording you're planning to do.
If it's for a commercial studio, then yeah, you need a lot of tape, but then you can afford to buy a lot as needed (it's still available from a couple of manufacturers).
If it's for home/project studio use, a few reels can last a long time unless you're an extremely prolific songwriter and recording daily.

I think that for anyone getting into tape recording these days and planning to stick with it for awhile...you need to immediately stock up on a bunch of tape, rather than just buying a reel or two as needed.
I've got enough tape for all three of my tape deck to last me for quite a long time of I'm just recording my own stuff, and even if I did a few outside projects occasionally....plus, I always keep my eyes open for any decent tape deals.

 

[gecko zzed]

I think that for anyone getting into tape recording these days and planning to stick with it for awhile...you need to immediately stock up on a bunch of tape, rather than just buying a reel or two as needed.
I've got enough tape for all three of my tape deck to last me for quite a long time of I'm just recording my own stuff, and even if I did a few outside projects occasionally....plus, I always keep my eyes open for any decent tape deals.

I'm just glad I don't have to go through that tape management ritual.

 

[grimtraveller]

and analog is the winner for cost-effectiveness in the long run.

Worrying about cost effectiveness "in the long run", to me is as meaningful as calculating how much it "costs to raise a child or children for 18 years" or pondering the fact that the average human being spends 10 years of their life asleep.
Who cares ? Live now !

 

[Bobbsy]

Indeed.

...and, being honest, if I was worrying about cost effectiveness, I'd really have to sell my mixer and my collection of microphones. They're where the REAL money has gone in my case.

Luckily, I don't care about "cost effective". I just enjoy what I do and buy new mics when I can hide the purchase from SWMBO!

 

[mdainsd]

...although the impression I have (please can an analogue user confirm or deny) is that tape is in such short supply these days that most home recordists are forced to have a small stock which they recycle almost endlessly.

Tape is far less a concern than specialized parts for the machines. I have accumulated many, many reels of NOS 2" tape, maybe enough for whats left of my lifetime.

Reliability of tape machines: Hmmm, if you buy a machine that ran for years in a professional studio it could be reasonable to assume that said machine will be higher in maintenance and could give more troubles during sessions. I now have three 2" machines in my little home setup. So backups for the backups, LOL. Never had to do that yet (knock on wood). When I hunted down my machines, low to no hours was my first criteria. Also I looked at how hard or easy it would be to obtain new spares, i.e. channel cards, motors, head stacks and believe it or not pushbuttons.

Same approach I followed for my analog mixer. several spares of channel strips, masters and power supply.

We are all different. Myself, I would rather be elbows deep in a big tape machine than trying to figure out driver compatibilities, system resource allocation or any number of computer issues that, in truth, I dont have a clue about.

YMMV

 

[miroslav]

I'm just glad I don't have to go through that tape management ritual.

Well...it's not really an ongoing, tedious process.
I bought a lot of tape at once....and then if I see a good deal, especially on some bulk, I buy some more.

Yes, it's the expensive aspect of tape recording, but it's just what comes with the turf.

I have accumulated many, many reels of NOS 2" tape, maybe enough for whats left of my lifetime.

......

I now have three 2" machines in my little home setup.

They stay hungry...don't they.


What machines do you have?

 

[mdainsd]

I have a Tascam ATR-24 that I bought NOS a couple of years ago. A studio in LA bought it new and then started to move to a new location, so it went into storage until the new facility was ready. It never came out of storage, as they decided at the time to make the conversion to digital. zero hours.

I also have a matched pair of Sony APR-24s. Both of their hour meters were sub 500 hours, so they were new enough for me.

Ive run all three synced up, so in theory I could track or mix 69 tracks at once. It was a fun exercise but I have never needed that capability, and I doubt I ever will.

While the Sonys are arguably at the zenith of analog tape machine performance, I prefer and love to work with the Tascam. That thing has the sweetest transport I have been around, so quiet and gentle with tape. On the to do list is equipping it with Dolby SR, but I havent finished researching that....

http://youtu.be/Ih2SrYtNaF8

 

[miroslav]

There were some TASCAM ATR-24 decks on ebay not too long ago...nice....but they almost always end up being on the west coast.
Heck I waited forever to score my Otari MX-80, since most of them kept showing up on the west coast too...until finally mine came up down in NJ, only about 1.5 hours ride and pretty easy pickup with my truck.

So...is that your ATR-24 in the video or is that just something you found on YT?

I was lucky in the same way as you with my Otari MX5050 BIII. Got it from a guy who got it from a defunct radio station.
I picked it for $500, and when it arrived I realized that it was basically brand new (came in the original box with all the trimmings).

The deck had a small issue, that was most likely there out of the box when they got it, so the radio station put in their store room as a spare or for later repair, and it just sat there. I know this had to be the case, because the problem was no output on on channel, and it was never repaired...so it just sat there.
At first I thought I bought a broken deck, but upon close inspection of the cards, I found a factory solder point that was NEVER soldered!!! The leg of one cap was just hanging through the hole, so the contact was intermittent, and interpreted as a bad machine.
Took me about 10 minutes to fire up my iron and the deck was fully operational...so I got a new $6k 2-track deck for $500.

Didn't you post some pics here of the two Sony decks awhile back now that I think of it...?
Oh, let me know if you ever want to lighten some of your load of all that NOS 2" tape...

 

[mdainsd]

No thats not mine. Just an artistic representation of one.

Living an hour and a half from LA/Hollywood/Burbank makes this stuff far more plentiful than elsewhere.

I love finding the pieces like your Otari. Its great to return something to working and its even more fun when it is something minor!!!

I still enjoy teching, thats part of my strong attraction to analog.

It wont be long until my studio has over a million dollars worth of equipment in it, based on the MSRPs when they were new. And that doesnt even take into account inflation. Lets say pennys or in some case fractions of pennies on the dollar. I love it. I love working on it. And I love the way it sounds to me.

Speaking of Otaris. I bought a MTR-10 for mix down. It works well enough but had a couple of issues that bugged me. The counter/rtz didnt work and there was an issue with the time code card. I found a "parts" MTR-12 to rob for dirt cheap (non operating). I started to render it for parts but was shocked how clean it was throughout, then found a refurb tag on the bottom of the head stack that was fairly recent. So I decided to at least trouble shoot the thing before scrapping it. One full wave bridge, and one filter cap later (total of $3.30) and it is 100%. The 12 is a far better machine than the 10, so the 10 is on the market and the nifty 12 is ready for use!

 

[lonewhitefly]

The same thing that happens when when you factor in the time it takes to keep your PC DAW-based system current and compatible... plus the time spent on hardware and software bugs and fixes, crashes, reinstalls, bad ram, another failing hard drive that must be backed up before it fails and then replaced, another power supply goes south, another monitor goes bad, etc, etc, etc. I worked in recording studios in the 80's and 90's and now in work in IT... that's why I can compare the true costs of ownership, and analog is the winner for cost-effectiveness in the long run.

I wonder why more don't see it this way? I mean, a tape recorder made in the '50s-'80s is generally still running and/or serviceable, while it seems most people have to buy a new computer/laptop/iPad/smartphone every 2-5 years. Not to mention the software that goes with it all, backing everything up and endlessly future-proofing it. Personally, I've never bothered with it much.

 

[grimtraveller]

I wonder why more don't see it this way?

One thing I notice in these type of 'debates' is that in order to validate one's own position, quite often you'll get members of each side picking up on what they view as the worst extremes of the opposition case in order to make it look like theirs is obviously the better deal.
The truth is, you have your reasons for recording analogically ~ and that's all that matters. What Beck described as the downsides of digital are not downsides of digital recording at all, anymore than having hands smelling of diesel after filling up is a downside of driving a diesel car.

I still enjoy teching, thats part of my strong attraction to analog.

One thing I enjoy is reading analog recorder's descriptions of their equipment. Much of this, I guess, is my age; I'm close enough to the days when hardware was all there was and besides, the process of editing with tape is much more readable/reader friendly than it's digital counterpart because it's a risk laden adventure.

 

[Beck]

This is yet another debate where our personal anecdotes are of little value. We has to address the specific question statistically, are DAW’s more cost effecting (never mind quality for now… we can always get to that later). So the question is only this: Take a 5 or even 3-year period and monitor the total cost of a handful of studios, some analog, some digital and some hybrid.

How much down time due to some failure or another. I already know the answer because as I said I ran a recording studio for years and now do the highly paid IT consultant thing when the on-staff IT guys get stumped and have to call me. There’s a lot involved here… a lot I could say, but I’ll leave this night’s post with a few thoughts.

Digital recording is as mechanical as analog… full of spinning moving parts. That is, motors in hard drives and fans fail. Power supplies fail, CD and DVD writer’s fail. Some little by little until the annoyance graduates to a full blown death of the device and you must replace it. Add the constant state of transition in the software world and it’s a wonder people get anything done at all.

Transition is not a good state for a profitable recording studio; Stability is! Otherwise All you’re doing is relearning and never master of you tools. What’s worse, this whole crazy marketing train that you can’t get off is driving the music industry, rather than music and musicians driving the music industry.

Well… something to talk about anyway…

 

[CrowsofFritz]

I can't believe this is still going on with the OP's question regarding the 388.


Why don't we just open the "Does Analog Moves More Air?" thread back up and leave all our posts in there?

 

[LToro]

Can anyone tell a difference between analog and digital?