Digital vs. Analog: Tell Us Something We Haven't Heard

[MCI2424]

No,

The reason many people are even interested in analog is because of disappointment with digital technology. We’ve heard that expressed many times. The fact that so many people have gone back to or stay with analog equipment in a digital world is in and of itself a statement.

There are reasons people choose big lumbering analog machines over the prevailing cheap and easy digital technology. The decision is as much a rejection of digital as it is a vote for analog. You would have us eliminate what is often the first conversation in the process of exploring analog alternatives.

An informed choice between two alternatives involves a rejection at some level of the one not selected.

There is no better place than an analog forum to discuss and even lament with like-minded members about the state of popular music. That conversation is as valid as any other. To go trolling on other forums would be doing what you are doing here… proselytizing.

So, contrary to what you keep insisting, the regular members here aren’t stirring up or starting anything. This is our little analog oasis in a bbs that is primarily DAW driven. As others have tried to tell you in various ways, and even different languages, this is a forum for analog issues, which clearly (to an orderly mind) concerns progress or lack of progress in digital technology -- THE VERY REASON TECHNICALLY ASTUTE PEOPLE ARE STLL USING ANALOG.

Today's digital is yesterday's analog. Back in the 60s-70s, a real analog multitrack rig costed 10-20,000$ and home recordists could not afford them at all. Then the porta-studios and narrow format recorders filled the market and home recordists found out they sounded totally different than the pro machines. Decades of noise reduction and every solution they could think of made them sound better, but not in the league of the pro machines.

Digital is in the exact same boat. The pro systems cost 20-30,000$ and sound fuggin awesome. I have used pro-tools and RADAR systems that can put ANY studer or Otari or MCI to shame as far as quality of sound (if the engineer is really good). The problem, today, is very similar to yesterday's analog situation. I lived through both and engineered through both. To put down digital recording as crap, based on the sound of a $100 soundcard is the same as formulating an opinion of analog recording based on a porta-studio sound. I have talked to kids that are recording into their computer and THEY tell me how analog sucks BECAUSE of their experience with cassette based systems. They don't even register that there are anything other than cassette at all!

It is all perspective and I have said over and over that a great digital rig is totally comparable, and in fact can beat a great analog rig. People here seem to argue but I have used, and still use both and I do know what I am talking about based on experience on many high-end systems. You can't compare $100 soundcard to a pro-tools or RADAR system any more that you can compare a porta-studio to a Studer.

The reason people are returing to analog recording is because the *cheap bad sounding digital systems* sound really bad and the *only affordable* alternative is an old narrow format analog tape machine. I can certainly argue that my MCI 2" 24 track beats the shit out of any home machine out there, but I am faced with the *gear snob* mentality and instantly maligned by the crew here. Then there is the old "If you can't make a hit record on a ___ you can't make one on a studer" defense.

Hit records are not made by Studer, TASCAM of any other machines, but by people who are talanted. Analog recording, as addressed here, is more about equipment and how it performs as well as how to maintain it.

What I AM starting to see are more members here actually getting more pro machines and really understanding, for the first time in their lives, what the big difference is. THAT is how you learn. Understanding the limitations of any equipment and knowing how to get around them is what makes a good engineer. Failing to even listen to people who use better equipment and denying there is nothing wrong with cheap stuff makes you a limited engineer at best. You cannot get better at recording unless you bust your ass with what you can afford now, and upgrade when you know exactly WHY you need something better. Mr Zee is the extreme case of denial and the problem he creates is telling new members how "this sucks, pros suck, all analog recorders are the same. etc" and spreading *opinions* all over the place with no basis in fact at all. I have been using pro machines for so long, it is practically all I know now. The narrow format machines do nothing for me now, but I CAN post facts based on using these machines for many years. I don't know what Mr. Zee has or uses now, but he seems to love his analog machines.Whatever, all I am saying is that using better equipment does not make you a gear snob if you HAVE used cheap stuff and moved up in life. A gear snob is someone who buys expensive stuff because it is the "in" thing to have, like Gucci etc.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim G, you're really the odd man out here. Sorry, but you’re the only one that doesn’t seem to get it. Maybe that should cause you to reevaluate your perspective.

For one there is no "Digital Only" forum.

In most other forums, and other boards for that matter, digital isn't questioned in its entirety. The only question is “which digital?”

To walk into such a conflagration of ignorance with what would amount to a water pistol of truth would benefit no one. And by ignorance, I mean in the classic sense, as people just not being aware.

I’m inviting interested members to share their thoughts, technical and experiential insights. You seem to be doing everything possible to prevent such an open discourse.

Technically speaking, I’m not afraid of where it might lead. There are no wrong answers as pertaining to the subject at hand. No one could possibly feel more isolated than I do, even on this forum. Perhaps no one is as comfortable in their own skin either, but you get the point.

A conversation about what we should be allowed to discuss in the analog forum sounds like a subject for another thread to me.

Tim,
Your reasoning seems to be that since digital recording gives crap sound, the many, many people using it, from bog amateurs to pro's and all in between, just cant hear the faults, cant hear the (alleged) distortion.

But if that were so, they would also not hear faults and distortion in ANY audio, no matter what it equipment it came through, including analog tape. If they used analog tape they would as likely stuff that up too, without even knowing it. Using one format or another doesnt give you those skills. You have to have had the ability already, though you might improve it with practice listening.

We're not talking analog or digital issues here at all, just the relative ability to discern problems in audio reproduction. And sure, some are better at it than others. Some are more naturally gifted at it and training and experience also helps too.

But if your premise is right, the first thing needed is to teach people how to more critically listen to audio and even sounds in the environment. Make comparisons. Again, not an equipment issue at all.

Then people would be better equipped to go back and make up their own minds about any alleged faults in a particular device, be it an amp, a speaker, a piece of wire, a mixer, a mic, or even what we've discussed ad infinitum: the recording device.

What often comes across on this forum is: "I use analog tape. That proves I have discerning listening skills" "I dont use digital. That proves I can hear things you cant hear" That can so easily come across as arrogance and presumption, even if it were actually true.

The ability to hear critically should be separated right away from the equipment issue. It's a faculty in its own right. But on this forum I feel it's become so enmeshed and identified with using a particular audio recorder that all that gets buried and lost in a fog of argument and passion.

Equipment, not matter what it is, doesnt give you critical listening skills. You cant buy it or trade it like so many potatoes.

My 2 cent's worth.

Regards, Tim

 

[the cool one]

OMG... ...is this pissing contest still going!? Just think, if you were really musicians you could have spent this time in a truly productive manner. Piss on, my children.

 

[ofajen]

Attention:

In order to better serve the recording community, the Office of Homerecording Security/Hall of Intelligence on Tapemaking (OHS/HIT) has now instituted a new threat level scale. Rather than relying on oxide colors, the basis of the threat will now be the Vigilance Unit or "VU", where the reading indicates the expected number of years of remaining tape stock production. In order to show a reduced risk when longer production is expected, normal forward-looking VU figures will be reported with a minus sign, such as -3 VU, indicating 3 years of remaining production. 0 VU will replace the current "red oxide" threat level. -3 VU replaces "brown oxide" threat level.

In case of an actual shutdown of all tape production, OHS/HIT will issue a "peak" alert of +3 VU, meaning that all tape produced within the last three years will be confiscated, without compensation, and will be retained in the Strategic Tape Reserve maintained by the Office of Homerecording Security/Underground Containment Knowledgebase (OHS/UCK) in order to maximize tape availability and prevent private hoarding.

Please carry on with your normal tape recording activities, but be advised that the current threat level remains at 0VU.

Thank you

Office of Homerecording Security
Bureau of Tape Affairs

 

[the cool one]

Attention:

In order to better serve the recording community, the Office of Homerecording Security/Hall of Intelligence on Tapemaking (OHS/HIT) has now instituted a new threat level scale. Rather than relying on oxide colors, the basis of the threat will now be the Vigilance Unit or "VU", where the reading indicates the expected number of years of remaining tape stock production. In order to show a reduced risk when longer production is expected, normal forward-looking VU figures will be reported with a minus sign, such as -3 VU, indicating 3 years of remaining production. 0 VU will replace the current "red oxide" threat level. -3 VU replaces "brown oxide" threat level.

In case of an actual shutdown of all tape production, OHS/HIT will issue a "peak" alert of +3 VU, meaning that all tape produced within the last three years will be confiscated, without compensation, and will be retained in the Strategic Tape Reserve maintained by the Office of Homerecording Security/Underground Containment Knowledgebase (OHS/UCK) in order to maximize tape availability and prevent private hoarding.

Please carry on with your normal tape recording activities, but be advised that the current threat level remains at 0VU.

Thank you

Office of Homerecording Security
Bureau of Tape Affairs

This sounds serious. Could it mean we are headed for an all digital world? Digital music, digital cats, digital food, digital sex...oh...my...god!!!

 

[Beck]

What often comes across on this forum is: "I use analog tape. That proves I have discerning listening skills" "I dont use digital. That proves I can hear things you cant hear" That can so easily come across as arrogance and presumption, even if it were actually true.

Yeah, you're probably right. I think about that quite a bit, believe it or not. There doesn’t seem to be any easy way to address this subject in a forum with such a diverse membership.

I really don’t consider myself the best messenger either.

I’ve been kicking this subject around with my peers for around twenty years… music teachers, session musicians, current and former recording studio owners I’ve known for years.

I can relate to people that are excited about their new digital toys and whatnot; I’ve been there. I get excited about my analog toys in the same way.

To set the record straight, I don’t think digital is evil, but I do feel many people will/should graduate to something better… at least strive to improve their craft, wherever that may take them. A lot of people that frequent these forums started with a PC, a soundcard and some talent. I know quite a few of them. I think it would be great if they could open the analog door and come away with a thing or two.

Another source of conflict in these discussions is that we all have our own ideal music in mind as we debate how music should best be recorded. I’ve always said for some types of music it doesn’t matter so much.

As far as hearing it, I’m not too much into the laboratory method. It has value, but to me, watching the music industry go to Hell in a hand basket is enough. I was never much for analyzing reverb tails and that sort of thing. My dilemma is that it’s always in my face, whenever I turn on the radio or pop in a CD. I’m a composer, musician, and music lover, so yeah I am passionate about it. I feel a sense of loss because so much contemporary music and even familiar remastered classics are painful for me to listen to, sonically speaking.

What can I say?

 

[robin watson]

A producer - the bands he's produced are/have been names - I talked to the other week gave me some advice.

He said, "You're an audiophile type, right?" (I said, "Mmmm, yes.") He then said, "Naaah, mate, sell your Soundcraft 6000, that HD24, all that outboard and cabling and go ProTools, asap."

(A few drinks later)

I ask, "So what's the recording process for, say...."

He butts in, "Same applies across the board, mate - compress the living shit out of it - everything - so it sounds good on the radio - pretty easy, really."

I kind of expected these kinds of answers anyway, but felt compelled to ask nevertheless. I wasn't entirely suprised, let's put it that way.

My conclusion is, based on the above convo and an earlier post about ProTools 'in the right hands,' it's not so much the recording medium - be it digital or analog - but the recording process (and therefore resultant sound) that's changed in modern recording.

Stating the obvious, I guess, sorry.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I use analog when digital sucks for the job. Also I often don't use analog when digital sucks for the job, which means that in such cases I use digital, which sucks, but I use it anyway for various unrelated reasons, i.e. - being lazy, the result is not important etc. I use digital all the time when excellence of analog is not applicable for the task.
Well, that's what I do. Also, the fact that I've made a statement about what I do proves absolutely nothing. All it is - it's a statement about what I do. No more, no less.
********
As for "Loving Analog Machines". I do not love gear. I do like gear, however, any gear that is. Digital, analog - it's all good. I like gear with more things in it, though, and, well, analog gear happen to have more things in it ... so? I guess I like analog gear more then. GEAR RULE! Machines are Cool!

 

[FALKEN]

I'll take that soundcraft 6000 off your hands right away. PM me please.

 

[ausrock]

Maybe part of the cause of the frustration people who have experienced analogue feel about digital, is not so much digital itself but the way so many people have almost blindly bought into the marketing hype, people who will on one hand, wax lyrical about their Digi 002 and in the next breathe tell you how they're looking for a pre to give them analogue "warmth" or a plug-in for tape emulation.

 

[Tim Gillett]

people who will on one hand, wax lyrical about their Digi 002 and in the next breathe tell you how they're looking for a pre to give them analogue "warmth" or a plug-in for tape emulation.

That's not hypocrisy, just wanting the best of both. And why not!

Dont knock it.

Cheers Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

Ausrock, I may not have quite got your meaning first time. Are you saying there isnt and never will be a tape emulation plug in?
I just dont know the state of play of the latest plug ins to know if that's so. Maybe others out there do.

But if there was such an emulator and it did a good job, why not use it!
If there isnt, use tape.

Cheers Tim

 

[Beck]

That's not hypocrisy, just wanting the best of both. And why not!

Dont knock it.

Cheers Tim

You mean, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it."

The complete saying makes all the difference.

In my experience tape emulation through digital processing doesn’t deliver. Again, if it were that easy no one would be screwing around with tape.

You mentioned in a previous post that this isn’t just about digital vs. analog, and I agree with that. There are other factors besides the ones you mentioned as well. One of the most difficult is trying to reach a computer-centric culture with the message that not everything has a digital counterpart. That concept is very difficult for this generation.

“Where can I find a plug-in for…?” Those words may be the most oft repeated on these types of forums. What happens when the answer is “There isn’t one?”

 

[Slowrider]

Analog, Digital??

I grew up with RtoR recorders and I am rather prejudiced about that. Even had one of the first Cassette recorders with a cassette that was 6-8" wide. Wish I would have kept it, now. There's really no need to argue about the differences between analog and digital. Thing that pisses me off, is the fact; why didn't anyone come up with the concept of using computers to recreate the analog Sound, digitally? I have some RtoReels that were made in the 50"s for Delta Airlines, Most still have the depth of the original recordings. Now, why can't that same sound be reproduced Digitally? Someone Has to have a way to upload this music to Digital Computers!?? By the way, these are mostly live studio recordings on 1/4" tape...mostly instrumentals, they are unnamed, by the studio musicians available at the time.

 

[cjacek]

why didn't anyone come up with the concept of using computers to recreate the analog Sound, digitally?

Taking into account how different analog & digital capture sound, is that even remotely possible ? I will bet that it is not.

 

[Slowrider]

You're probably right; But look how fast technology is changing; there has to be a way. Then, think how Happy everyone would be. That would put an end to this debate, forever. OK, at least until the 18 month time period.

 

[cjacek]

look how fast technology is changing; there has to be a way. Then, think how Happy everyone would be. That would put an end to this debate, forever.

Unless this technology provides 80 lbs of REAL, serviceable components, inside the "computer", which includes several motors, heads and a transport which shuttles magnetic tape from reel to reel, I'd not be interested.... Oh wait ... I already have that!!

But seriously and I've said this years before, that even if digital technology manages to perfectly capture every nuance in our environment, duplicating the sound of any and every tape machine ever made, I'd pass.

To me, at least, it's not only about the sound but the interactivity between man and the analog machine that reaches far beyond what digital can and will be able to provide, now or in the future.

As with any such digital technology, that you speak of, problems which continue to plague such systems to this day, will continue into the future, among them and most important one of all, that any digital gadget becomes obsolete the day you buy it. Even more critical that, unlike analog, it will be a throw away purchase when it becomes unsupported, breaks down or is superceeded by something else. No thanks.

 

[Slowrider]

[[ the interactivity between man and the analog machine that reaches far beyond what digital can and will be able to provide,]] Wow, Don't think anyone could have worded it any Better! Thanks! Old days; all man had was him and his instrument; Now, you gotta' have technology in order to make you Sound better. So, that technology just makes it easier to make that recording Sound better; " Better " just means that you try to get people's approval in the masses. Now why do people do that? The goal of being a musician is not what is was when I was a Puppy. We just wanted to make smiles and money. OK, A little Pussy was always involved!!!!

 

[cjacek]

Ahh, yes, the pursuit of better sound.... But wait a minute, didn't we already have that in the form of Analog Tape and Vinyl ? Ah, yes, it was either too expensive, had too little features, may not have been too convenient, too heavy, you had to wait for it to rewind, keep it maintained properly and of course, vinyl had ticks, pops and wore out eventually, hissy and bad tape and on and on and on ... Ok, so we thought we'd solve all of the above with digital .... [with more than a little persuation from our friends, the busine$$ sector ]. All we have done really, in my opinion, is traded the above for a different set of problems and issues, ones, which, again in my opinion, made many of us go back and appreciate analog even more, warts and all. I am in that group.

 

[Tim Gillett]

You mean, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it."

The complete saying makes all the difference.

In my experience tape emulation through digital processing doesn’t deliver. Again, if it were that easy no one would be screwing around with tape.

You mentioned in a previous post that this isn’t just about digital vs. analog, and I agree with that. There are other factors besides the ones you mentioned as well. One of the most difficult is trying to reach a computer-centric culture with the message that not everything has a digital counterpart. That concept is very difficult for this generation.

“Where can I find a plug-in for…?” Those words may be the most oft repeated on these types of forums. What happens when the answer is “There isn’t one?”

What happens? I think you and I know the answer to that!


Regards, Tim (seasons greetings to you -whether analog or digitally, or both)