Treeline
New member
I had this whole thing figured out in my studio. Now my goddamn computer won't boot and I have to start all over again with the wire recorder. And I thought I was finally done with it.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Or, to simplify it even more:
People suck.
Which pretty much answers every thread in every topic in every forum on the Internet pretty well.
G.
Farview
Well-known member
Computers didn't always have hard drives. The computer is the thing that computes, the hard drives, DVD drives, firewire ports, USB ports, etc... are just peripherals attached to the computer.
A digital mixer is just a computer with a built in proprietary DAW and control surface. The only thing it's missing is editing capabilities, otherwise it works pretty much the same way cubase attached to a control surface works.
ez_willis
.
I hear ya. So then you'd consider the approach below to be ITB? I realize there is no right and wrong answer, I'm just curious what a few of you think about that.
Farview
Well-known member
Yup. Mixing OTB, to me, means summing analog. YMMV
ez_willis
.
cool.
I think some of it has to do with how you learned to record and the equipment you've used along the way. The setup I have now is the only one I know, so I sort of assumed that the use of an external mixer would deem it OTB. OTOH I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
A
aarowsmith
New member
It means Analog and Digital resolution differences in capturing audio accurately.
What It actually means is the differences between Analog and Digital resolution in capturing audio accurately.
For Analog audio, everything is analog in the real World we all live in. You have to capture analog sound waves with a analog microphone. And or capture analog with analog audio cables from a analog sound module, effects device or amplifier directly through its analog outputs. So every sound that comes from air moving (sound waves) or electrical voltages has to be converted from this analog real World into a fake digital format going into a analog to digital converter device. Then hopefully by some chance, if the audio is not altered too much, it comes from the digital World back out to the analog World again by means of another digital to analog conversion process.
So with analog it is always infinite resolution and quality. But digital still can't capture analog in complete accurate infinite resolution, but it is getting close, so much so that most people can't tell the difference. Even with older 16 bit gear.
With Digital audio, the original analog sound wave voltage is not captured with infinite resolution. Digital captures analog audio waves only in really short sample rate intervals, the higher the bit rate the higher the resolution, but only up to a point. The original analog wave form is digitally sampled like a Xerox copy and something gets thrown out in the process of sampling it. Why ? Because the smooth original analog wave form (electrical audio wave energy) is turned into a new digital stair stepped wave form imposter. It then becomes a cheap copy of the original smooth audio wave form, another words it is not an exact copy of the original analog wave form and you can hear the difference if you listen carefully between the source and the sampled audio.
And also audio resolution suffers because of the current limits of digital memory and CPU processing cycles to represent the original audio wave form perfectly, digital is close but not up to par yet with good analog tape or vinyl.
Also analog mixers and analog effects gear (like analog compressors/limiters etc.)are capable of infinite resolution unlike digital, when it comes to mixing/editing the original analog wave form. As long as you don't process the audio digitally with a A/D/A process. With analog there is no digital sampling and digital math errors to have some of the audio resolution missing or altered. This is not to say that you can't totally mess up your audio quality with analog gear, you certainly can if you don't know what you are doing. That is why most audiophile sound engineers love analog mixing, it does not drastically alter the original audio in a unpredictable way, the way that digital can.
Analog tape and vinyl records too are able to capture most of all the analog resolution coming from the original analog audio wave, from say 10k to well over 30khz of the audio sound wave spectrum. With digital, much higher digital bit rates can capture this full audio spectrum some what, but it is hendered by the digital brick wall filtering and quantization errors in the A/D/A converter process. Also the more you edit your digital audio in software, the more you change the original audio wave form until it becomes so altered it detoriates the quality. This can happen in analog editing too, but more in a predictable manner.
Also Digital can only capture so much information in one short sample step at a time (which is what digital does, it samples analog audio in short intervals and then turns it back into analog when it is done with its digital filtering and quantizing error processing routines). And so the internal math errors when processing digital audio bits from analog inside a computer will definately alter and change the original sound wave form, which may or may not be what you may be wanting to hear.
For better or worse digital audio processing of analog sound waves is here to stay because of its relative good audio quality, longer archive ability, ease of transferring and storing, and changing the way the sound is heard with out adding more additional back ground hiss/distortion.
And too analog storage mediums can detoriate over time such as analog tape and vinyl. Especially when played several times over. Digital will not degrade as fast as long as the medium to which it is stored holds up to the elements, and only time will tell. Always make regular new backups of either your digital and analog masters, just in case.
With good Reel to Reel machines and vinyl cutting machines(since analog is a continous analog wave form) they will capture the full spectrum of the orginal analog audio wave source more faithfully than current digital audio converters can.
Digital sampling is not a continous capture, it only samples intervals of analog audio, and so it is definately missing some of the information in the original analog wave form through its stair stepping the original wave form. You can have even more memory and bit rate dedicated to digital sampling, but even still it hits a brick wall because of current digital sampling technologies. That is why D/A and A/D converters still today do not sound as full and accurate as 2" analog reel to reel tape or even vinyl records. Some day soon perhaps, but digital is ever getting closer and closer to capturing the original analog sound wave.
I think digital today is getting close enough to capturing good analog audio quality. And most people do not even care or can tell the differences listening to their digital music in their car, and on IPOD headphones, etc.
But most sound engineers can hear the differences on high end speakers and amplifiers in a good studio listening room. Does this still matter when most people download compressed crappy sounding music on the internet anyways ? Probably not, but for true audiophiles it does matter and it may matter to you.
That is why I like to record digitally for convenience sake and then mix outside the box on analog gear for reasons of not trusting the software to do the digital audio editing and conversion math accurately inside the DAW/computer box. Although it is hard not to use a computer today to edit audio waves, with analog it is much more time consuming(takes way more patience) and some things that computer DAW's can do, you could never do in analog mixing/editing. So computers still rule for really fancy fast editing and vast editing tools. However analog editing and mixing can still be done on most music today with excellent sound quality.
The sound stage to me sounds so much smoother, wider stereo and much more pleasant on all frequencies, when mixing and mastering on analog audio gear(outside the box). Anytime you sample the analog audio back into the digital format, you lose something. And I think you lose something editing audio digitally(digital audio editing includes digital mixing and using software plug-ins in audio editing in the box). For recording analog into digital, it's just more convenient. And you do lose a little when going from digital back out to analog too. You should keep those A/D to D/A conversions to a minimum. I think you too will hear a difference the more you mix and master outside the box. This does not mean you get rid of digital. It has its place and advantages.
Which is why allot of people mix inside the DAW/computer. They keep everything in the digital World as long as possible. They feel that it is far easier and even has better audio quality than sending the digital audio back out to analog mixing gear. Well I have tried it both ways and I like the sound of analog gear much better even though it may take one more D/A to A/D conversion process.
You can still record everything on analog equipment alone, but it takes far more effort and usually with much better results. Only if you know what you are doing and do not have to do a ton of analog audio editing.
However most people have grown fond of digital sound and even though it is missing some of the analog resolution. Digital has taken over analog tape and vinyl in terms of editing convenience, easy fast storage and good enough sound quality for most ears. That is why Pro Tools is so popular because it gives you so much more speed in editing and in recalling the audio settings for the mastering process. Most people and studios will not pay for the time it takes for analog recording/editing/ and mastering sessions on reel to reel tape, and or vinyl. Time is money and digital audio with Pro Tools rule the professional World. It does not mean that it is the best sound quality though.
From what I have heard from experience, I still think analog mastering sounds better than digital. There is nothing missing and I can listen to music for far much longer time periods before ear fatigue sets in. I can't say the same for digital audio.
But on the other hand, to say digital audio is better than analog audio, is like saying the egg is much better than the Chicken who laid it ?
The original analog audio source is always better than the copy. There are a few exceptions to this rule but not very often is this the case. For me mixing in analog keeps the audio quality more real down to the final master mix ! And with keeping it all in the analog World you don't have to worry about dithering down or using higher bit rates and sampling rate problems. With analog it just sounds really good most of the time, as long as you keep the connections short and the mixing/editing simple.
Analog gear is what they have been using on most hit songs recorded over the past 50 years.
Maybe that is why people keep listening to those analog recorded songs even today ?
But I know Pro Tools(and other digital DAW's) can abuse the music if your not careful. I think the record industry is over compressing the audio dynamics and over processing the audio today to sound louder and crappier than ever. Like some new digital recordings make my ears bleed, but older digital recordings sound really good, so your experiences may differ.
When you don't know what you are missing, it hardly matters'.
What It actually means is the differences between Analog and Digital resolution in capturing audio accurately.
For Analog audio, everything is analog in the real World we all live in. You have to capture analog sound waves with a analog microphone. And or capture analog with analog audio cables from a analog sound module, effects device or amplifier directly through its analog outputs. So every sound that comes from air moving (sound waves) or electrical voltages has to be converted from this analog real World into a fake digital format going into a analog to digital converter device. Then hopefully by some chance, if the audio is not altered too much, it comes from the digital World back out to the analog World again by means of another digital to analog conversion process.
So with analog it is always infinite resolution and quality. But digital still can't capture analog in complete accurate infinite resolution, but it is getting close, so much so that most people can't tell the difference. Even with older 16 bit gear.
With Digital audio, the original analog sound wave voltage is not captured with infinite resolution. Digital captures analog audio waves only in really short sample rate intervals, the higher the bit rate the higher the resolution, but only up to a point. The original analog wave form is digitally sampled like a Xerox copy and something gets thrown out in the process of sampling it. Why ? Because the smooth original analog wave form (electrical audio wave energy) is turned into a new digital stair stepped wave form imposter. It then becomes a cheap copy of the original smooth audio wave form, another words it is not an exact copy of the original analog wave form and you can hear the difference if you listen carefully between the source and the sampled audio.
And also audio resolution suffers because of the current limits of digital memory and CPU processing cycles to represent the original audio wave form perfectly, digital is close but not up to par yet with good analog tape or vinyl.
Also analog mixers and analog effects gear (like analog compressors/limiters etc.)are capable of infinite resolution unlike digital, when it comes to mixing/editing the original analog wave form. As long as you don't process the audio digitally with a A/D/A process. With analog there is no digital sampling and digital math errors to have some of the audio resolution missing or altered. This is not to say that you can't totally mess up your audio quality with analog gear, you certainly can if you don't know what you are doing. That is why most audiophile sound engineers love analog mixing, it does not drastically alter the original audio in a unpredictable way, the way that digital can.
Analog tape and vinyl records too are able to capture most of all the analog resolution coming from the original analog audio wave, from say 10k to well over 30khz of the audio sound wave spectrum. With digital, much higher digital bit rates can capture this full audio spectrum some what, but it is hendered by the digital brick wall filtering and quantization errors in the A/D/A converter process. Also the more you edit your digital audio in software, the more you change the original audio wave form until it becomes so altered it detoriates the quality. This can happen in analog editing too, but more in a predictable manner.
Also Digital can only capture so much information in one short sample step at a time (which is what digital does, it samples analog audio in short intervals and then turns it back into analog when it is done with its digital filtering and quantizing error processing routines). And so the internal math errors when processing digital audio bits from analog inside a computer will definately alter and change the original sound wave form, which may or may not be what you may be wanting to hear.
For better or worse digital audio processing of analog sound waves is here to stay because of its relative good audio quality, longer archive ability, ease of transferring and storing, and changing the way the sound is heard with out adding more additional back ground hiss/distortion.
And too analog storage mediums can detoriate over time such as analog tape and vinyl. Especially when played several times over. Digital will not degrade as fast as long as the medium to which it is stored holds up to the elements, and only time will tell. Always make regular new backups of either your digital and analog masters, just in case.
With good Reel to Reel machines and vinyl cutting machines(since analog is a continous analog wave form) they will capture the full spectrum of the orginal analog audio wave source more faithfully than current digital audio converters can.
Digital sampling is not a continous capture, it only samples intervals of analog audio, and so it is definately missing some of the information in the original analog wave form through its stair stepping the original wave form. You can have even more memory and bit rate dedicated to digital sampling, but even still it hits a brick wall because of current digital sampling technologies. That is why D/A and A/D converters still today do not sound as full and accurate as 2" analog reel to reel tape or even vinyl records. Some day soon perhaps, but digital is ever getting closer and closer to capturing the original analog sound wave.
I think digital today is getting close enough to capturing good analog audio quality. And most people do not even care or can tell the differences listening to their digital music in their car, and on IPOD headphones, etc.
But most sound engineers can hear the differences on high end speakers and amplifiers in a good studio listening room. Does this still matter when most people download compressed crappy sounding music on the internet anyways ? Probably not, but for true audiophiles it does matter and it may matter to you.
That is why I like to record digitally for convenience sake and then mix outside the box on analog gear for reasons of not trusting the software to do the digital audio editing and conversion math accurately inside the DAW/computer box. Although it is hard not to use a computer today to edit audio waves, with analog it is much more time consuming(takes way more patience) and some things that computer DAW's can do, you could never do in analog mixing/editing. So computers still rule for really fancy fast editing and vast editing tools. However analog editing and mixing can still be done on most music today with excellent sound quality.
The sound stage to me sounds so much smoother, wider stereo and much more pleasant on all frequencies, when mixing and mastering on analog audio gear(outside the box). Anytime you sample the analog audio back into the digital format, you lose something. And I think you lose something editing audio digitally(digital audio editing includes digital mixing and using software plug-ins in audio editing in the box). For recording analog into digital, it's just more convenient. And you do lose a little when going from digital back out to analog too. You should keep those A/D to D/A conversions to a minimum. I think you too will hear a difference the more you mix and master outside the box. This does not mean you get rid of digital. It has its place and advantages.
Which is why allot of people mix inside the DAW/computer. They keep everything in the digital World as long as possible. They feel that it is far easier and even has better audio quality than sending the digital audio back out to analog mixing gear. Well I have tried it both ways and I like the sound of analog gear much better even though it may take one more D/A to A/D conversion process.
You can still record everything on analog equipment alone, but it takes far more effort and usually with much better results. Only if you know what you are doing and do not have to do a ton of analog audio editing.
However most people have grown fond of digital sound and even though it is missing some of the analog resolution. Digital has taken over analog tape and vinyl in terms of editing convenience, easy fast storage and good enough sound quality for most ears. That is why Pro Tools is so popular because it gives you so much more speed in editing and in recalling the audio settings for the mastering process. Most people and studios will not pay for the time it takes for analog recording/editing/ and mastering sessions on reel to reel tape, and or vinyl. Time is money and digital audio with Pro Tools rule the professional World. It does not mean that it is the best sound quality though.
From what I have heard from experience, I still think analog mastering sounds better than digital. There is nothing missing and I can listen to music for far much longer time periods before ear fatigue sets in. I can't say the same for digital audio.
But on the other hand, to say digital audio is better than analog audio, is like saying the egg is much better than the Chicken who laid it ?
The original analog audio source is always better than the copy. There are a few exceptions to this rule but not very often is this the case. For me mixing in analog keeps the audio quality more real down to the final master mix ! And with keeping it all in the analog World you don't have to worry about dithering down or using higher bit rates and sampling rate problems. With analog it just sounds really good most of the time, as long as you keep the connections short and the mixing/editing simple.
Analog gear is what they have been using on most hit songs recorded over the past 50 years.
Maybe that is why people keep listening to those analog recorded songs even today ?
But I know Pro Tools(and other digital DAW's) can abuse the music if your not careful. I think the record industry is over compressing the audio dynamics and over processing the audio today to sound louder and crappier than ever. Like some new digital recordings make my ears bleed, but older digital recordings sound really good, so your experiences may differ.
When you don't know what you are missing, it hardly matters'.
Last edited:
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Thread resurrection note
+/- you seemed to forget resolution also means % or relative lack of the distortions involved doesn't it.
There is also the option to sample as high as you like if you want the additional bandwidth.
Gaps' Did Nyquist get it wrong then?
Really?
+/- you seemed to forget resolution also means % or relative lack of the distortions involved doesn't it.
There is also the option to sample as high as you like if you want the additional bandwidth.
Gaps' Did Nyquist get it wrong then?
A
aarowsmith
New member
Well remember it is just a Nyquist theory, but the fact is this, that nothing is better than the original analog wave form audio source. Digital sampling comes close enough for most ears.....just stating the facts here that we live in a analog World, even though humans mathematically process information digitally for convenience sake and business sake.
I for one love digital for the reason of convenience, and the sound quality to me seems to be good enough' for allot of people.
I am not saying that analog recorders, analog mixers, and analog effects gear are perfect either, they just come closer to capturing the original sound, that's all.
I for one love digital for the reason of convenience, and the sound quality to me seems to be good enough' for allot of people.
I am not saying that analog recorders, analog mixers, and analog effects gear are perfect either, they just come closer to capturing the original sound, that's all.
Last edited:
Farview
Well-known member
If it were true that analog captures the signal more accurately, why do different analog machines all sound different?
J
Jonesey9
New member
ITB/OTB Digital/Analog.
It.Doesn't.Make.Any.Difference
If you can't make GREAT sounding music using any combination of the above then you're wasting your time because it's not the tools - it's YOU
It.Doesn't.Make.Any.Difference
If you can't make GREAT sounding music using any combination of the above then you're wasting your time because it's not the tools - it's YOU
A
aarowsmith
New member
The same is true with Digital gear as well, it really depends on the quality of the electronics.
That said, I still believe in most analog gear capturing the original analog signal better than digital can because with good analog gear the sampling quality is infinite.
However with digital the analog sampling is finite, another words limited by the digital conversion process, and then limited again by the digital conversion process back to analog again. There are too many steps in the process of digital analog conversion. So therefore it will have some errors and missing data. It loses some of the original analog audio resolution that good analog gear maintanes better in the first place.
The same applies to digital film verses analog film. The new HD digital projectors in IMAX theaters still can't measure up to the old analog 70mm film. To me Action scenes look more static than fluid as analog film does. And black levels are not as real looking as analog film. I'm not the only one who can see this.
Digital is just a cheap representation of the real analog World we live in.
Digital is getting very close to good analog gear, but it's just not there yet. Do a A/B comparison test for yourself. For my ears analog wins everytime when mixing/mastering. To me the analog mix has more stereo width and quality, bigger sound stage, and more dynamics than a in the box digital mix/master.
And no matter what VST software plug-ins you have of the original analog gear the VST's tries to duplicate, the original analog gear still sounds much better.
But digital is cheaper and way more convenient than good analog gear. You don't have to mess with a rats nest of wiring, all the solderiing and or worry about bad connections. Digital is good enough for most people and most Industries.
Will digital replace analog completely ???
Last edited:
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
That is the most important point you made. Everything else you said can be debated, and most probably will. It is the perennial battle of preference; a battle in which there is no winner.
But even A/B tests aren't satisfactory if you know which is A and which is B. A better method is a double-blind test.
A
aarowsmith
New member
To each his(her) own......what really matters is the music playing writing process.
Exactly to each his own, likes and dislikes, more importantly just focus on making the music great and then worry about the mastering process, or not.
It is entirely up to you'..........play and sing on then'. 
Exactly to each his own, likes and dislikes, more importantly just focus on making the music great and then worry about the mastering process, or not.
It is entirely up to you'..........play and sing on then'.
A
aarowsmith
New member
:
I have been in double blind test and I can tell the difference. True there is no real winner here. What I really think it is, is a matter of economic choice, high speed transfers and almost unlimited abilities that digital has over analog. It can also be proven that digital is both easier and better to work with in any recording format. So in this way it is a matter of personel choice forcing people to work in the better faster digital work environment, and less time to do the audio work equals more money in their pocket usually. That is why digital forces most people to use it over analog.
When the World turns completely digital, and it will soon, most people will not even care to remember what it was like when they heard or saw analog gear. When people no longer have the analog gear to compare it with, like the old and new digital gear(and or they just pass away from old age, most of the analog engineers are really old farts now) then analog gear will most likely be forgotten about. Then there will be no A/B double blind test to do either. And do people now even care about sound quality ?
And so the younger generation will not even know what they are missing, unless of course they still use old and new analog gear ?
It is sad, because when that day comes when young and old can no longer maintane their analog gear,(they pretty much stopped making analog gear, and or have given up on supporting it or fixing it, and it may stop being available altogether some day on the used market.) then the art of analog audio and its gear will be lost forever.
So maybe I should start now on the Whisky', then I will not be able to tell the difference either.
I have been in double blind test and I can tell the difference. True there is no real winner here. What I really think it is, is a matter of economic choice, high speed transfers and almost unlimited abilities that digital has over analog. It can also be proven that digital is both easier and better to work with in any recording format. So in this way it is a matter of personel choice forcing people to work in the better faster digital work environment, and less time to do the audio work equals more money in their pocket usually. That is why digital forces most people to use it over analog.
When the World turns completely digital, and it will soon, most people will not even care to remember what it was like when they heard or saw analog gear. When people no longer have the analog gear to compare it with, like the old and new digital gear(and or they just pass away from old age, most of the analog engineers are really old farts now) then analog gear will most likely be forgotten about. Then there will be no A/B double blind test to do either. And do people now even care about sound quality ?
And so the younger generation will not even know what they are missing, unless of course they still use old and new analog gear ?
It is sad, because when that day comes when young and old can no longer maintane their analog gear,(they pretty much stopped making analog gear, and or have given up on supporting it or fixing it, and it may stop being available altogether some day on the used market.) then the art of analog audio and its gear will be lost forever.
So maybe I should start now on the Whisky', then I will not be able to tell the difference either.
Last edited:
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
That's what happens.
I have a great affection for the era of steam railways. There is something magical about the engineering and brute force of steam locos. However, the cost of their maintenance and operation overwhelms their aesthetic benefits. We now seem then mostly in museums and specialty railway operations. Electric locos are cleaner, more efficient and easier to maintain, even though there is little romance about them.
Farview
Well-known member
I'm not sure I know anyone that can't tell the difference between analog and digital, but that doesn't mean it's more accurate.
Also, even on the analog side of things, there is still an encode-decode process getting the signal to and from tape. The tape obviously has limits as far as frequency range and dynamic range. The distortion is higher, the 'sound of the tape' that everyone loves (including me, most of the time) is not an accurate representation of the signal. All these things can be easily measured.
Not that digital is perfect, but if we are talking about accuracy of reproduction, analog can't win that fight. If you are talking about how nice it is to listen to, that's a different story. (and quite subjective)
Also, even on the analog side of things, there is still an encode-decode process getting the signal to and from tape. The tape obviously has limits as far as frequency range and dynamic range. The distortion is higher, the 'sound of the tape' that everyone loves (including me, most of the time) is not an accurate representation of the signal. All these things can be easily measured.
Not that digital is perfect, but if we are talking about accuracy of reproduction, analog can't win that fight. If you are talking about how nice it is to listen to, that's a different story. (and quite subjective)
Bristol Posse
Okey Dokey
Ooh a three year old thread risen from the dead. I'll play
To me the biggest difference when I turn on my analog processors is I can no longer see the audio and I have to really start using my ears (Imagine that for audio). It seems like with DAWs there are an awful lot of threads of "The wave form doesn't look big enough", "how should a spectrograph of my audio look", "what should the peak meter read", "does this look right", "what numbers should I be seeing in the gain reduction field", etc etc etc
While I have to use a computer to record and mix to, I try and do as much as possible mapped to controllers or through analog processing with the screen turned off.
A blank screen takes away all the distraction of "Does this look right" and just like using tape, where a piece of unrecorded tape looks just like a piece of recorded tape, all that matters is "do I like the sound?"
Both digital and analog are both actually an analog of the original sound, in neither case does the actual sound travel through the processors, they just use different mediums and signal types to represent the sound
To me the biggest difference when I turn on my analog processors is I can no longer see the audio and I have to really start using my ears (Imagine that for audio). It seems like with DAWs there are an awful lot of threads of "The wave form doesn't look big enough", "how should a spectrograph of my audio look", "what should the peak meter read", "does this look right", "what numbers should I be seeing in the gain reduction field", etc etc etc
While I have to use a computer to record and mix to, I try and do as much as possible mapped to controllers or through analog processing with the screen turned off.
A blank screen takes away all the distraction of "Does this look right" and just like using tape, where a piece of unrecorded tape looks just like a piece of recorded tape, all that matters is "do I like the sound?"
Both digital and analog are both actually an analog of the original sound, in neither case does the actual sound travel through the processors, they just use different mediums and signal types to represent the sound
Last edited:
A
aarowsmith
New member
Well the thing I argue about, not trying to be forcing my opinions on anyone, is that the analog tape medium can be, and in my opinion is far more accurate than digital because of its analog sampling resolution. 2" analog tape will be as close as you can get to storing the original analog audio. It's not just my opinion but many others hear this difference too.
But most people will not be able to use 2" analog tape today let alone be able to afford the tape and the machine to record on. But even still using 1/4 " analog tape and even cassette tape can still sound fantastic, even though it has a little more tape hiss.
Yes analog tape has its flaws and a bit of distortion, but I believe (and it can be measured) it still captures more of the original analog audio signal and has far less loss from sampling errors than digital does. You may feel differently about this and that is completely fine. But as for me I can hear it.
However when it comes to passing the original analog signal into say a good analog mixer, the difference between the analog mixer and the digital one becomes monumental. There is no comparison in my opinion, because there are so many internal math errors going on when processing the digital audio signal that it does change the audio qiuality. Especially when adding internal digital effects, and even when just panning the signal and or changing fader levels on a digital mixer, you can hear that something is not right with the mix.
Today we have 64 bit and higher internal software processing going on inside the computer to lessen the digital math processing errors, but even then I can still hear the differences between a good analog mix(outside the box) and a digital mix.(inside the box.) The analog mix sounds better to me everytime.
What this is worth to you is probably not much, because you may never use analog tape or use analog mixers and processers to hear any of the differences. Especially when analog recording gear will some day get less (affordable, portable and available) relevant for the sake of digital being immensely more popular due to it being able to capture music almost as well, and much more easily edit and transfer audio much more quickly. Digital appears to win everytime in this regard. And so say good bye to old analog gear......
However you will never ever get rid of analog completely, unless the real World turns into a fully digital World, like the movie "The Matrix" ?
Analog will always have its place, and so digital too, I will leave it at that.
But most people will not be able to use 2" analog tape today let alone be able to afford the tape and the machine to record on. But even still using 1/4 " analog tape and even cassette tape can still sound fantastic, even though it has a little more tape hiss.
Yes analog tape has its flaws and a bit of distortion, but I believe (and it can be measured) it still captures more of the original analog audio signal and has far less loss from sampling errors than digital does. You may feel differently about this and that is completely fine. But as for me I can hear it.
However when it comes to passing the original analog signal into say a good analog mixer, the difference between the analog mixer and the digital one becomes monumental. There is no comparison in my opinion, because there are so many internal math errors going on when processing the digital audio signal that it does change the audio qiuality. Especially when adding internal digital effects, and even when just panning the signal and or changing fader levels on a digital mixer, you can hear that something is not right with the mix.
Today we have 64 bit and higher internal software processing going on inside the computer to lessen the digital math processing errors, but even then I can still hear the differences between a good analog mix(outside the box) and a digital mix.(inside the box.) The analog mix sounds better to me everytime.
What this is worth to you is probably not much, because you may never use analog tape or use analog mixers and processers to hear any of the differences. Especially when analog recording gear will some day get less (affordable, portable and available) relevant for the sake of digital being immensely more popular due to it being able to capture music almost as well, and much more easily edit and transfer audio much more quickly. Digital appears to win everytime in this regard. And so say good bye to old analog gear......
However you will never ever get rid of analog completely, unless the real World turns into a fully digital World, like the movie "The Matrix" ?
Analog will always have its place, and so digital too, I will leave it at that.
Last edited:
Farview
Well-known member
Like I said, almost anyone can hear the difference, but you seem to be confusing 'sounds nicer' with 'more accurate'. In a matter of speaking, the sampling resolution isn't any better than digital because the actual audio signal is used to modulate a ultrasonic bias signal in order to store something on the tape that is anywhere near linear.
Digital has all the sampling resolution it needs to reproduce anything in the audio spectrum and beyond. Depending on the sample rate you choose, you can easily capture frequencies that you could not on tape. That's if you are talking about frequency 'resolution'. If you are talking about dynamic resolution, obviously 16 bit audio has a much better signal to noise ratio than digital.
All of this stuff is measurable.
Again, are you arguing that it sounds fantastic, or it's more accurate?
And digital doesn't suffer from distortion from tape saturation, tape bump, hysteresis, etc...
I spend years working in analog studios with 2 inch tape. Frankly, it drove me nuts that what I recorded isn't what came back off the tape. The time I wasted making slave reels so that I didn't wear out the master tape doing endless overdubs still annoys me almost 20 years later. Of course, if I didn't do that, the rhythm section would keep getting duller and duller sounding as we kept overdubbing vocals and solos.
I was so happy when I got to work with a digital machine and I didn't have to add a crapload of high end on the way to tape when I knew I wanted something to be bright. If you didn't record it really bright, you were stuck adding the high end in the mix and basically turning up the hiss with it.
The only thing that analog has going for it is its ability to smooth things out and make them sound pleasant. That's not a bad thing, it just shouldn't be confused with accuracy.