Well after that last thread I started about analog sounding better than digital I have been doing alot of thinking. I think I should re phrase the title. With audio being sutch a subjective subject and everybody's tastes being so different my question to you guys is not why does analog sound better than digital but rather why do you prefer the sound of analog to that of digital?
Mmmm analog...
- Thread starter Aloha
- Start date
B
Beck
Guest
It's more pleasing to my ear. Subjectively speaking, it more truly reproduces the sound I expect for the kind of music I listen to -- vintage progressive rock, Classical, Celtic, and Bluegrass. If you've ever heard the sound of a bagpipe recorded digitally you will understand what I mean. Take an icicle and have a friend jam it into your ear (ok, then just imagine it). That will approximate the pain of a digitally recorded bagpipe.
Granted, the bagpipe is a difficult instrument to capture, but I've personally only heard it sound true recorded and reproduced on analog tape or LP.
So what the hell does a bagpipe have to do with real life, you ask? First of all, for me it's become a test of sorts because state of the art digital technology has trouble capturing it. It's an indicator that something is amiss.
Secondly, if you've ever heard a screaming bagpipe and violin in unison you know that progressive rock has more roots in Scotland than in Motown. From Journey to Van Halen to Boston, the highly compressed electric lead guitar sings with the voice of the ancient Celtic pipes.
Not surprisingly then, I feel digital recording does an inadequate job of capturing the lead guitar as well. I would even go so far as to say that if you haven't heard some vintage rock recorded and reproduced on analog tape, then you haven't really heard it.
I have compared various CDs to open reel, Cassette and even LP. My 25 year-old LPs sound full, warm and rich, with greater spatial accuracy compared to "digitally remastered" CDs of the same albums.
Oh, I have lots of CDs, but I regard them much the same way I do music on the radio or cheap portable boom box. It's ok and will do in a pinch... but if I want to have a quality listening experience I pop a reel of tape onto my Akai GX-77 or throw an LP on my old Techniques turntable. It'll make a believer out of you.
I guess the bottom line is that as both a consumer/listener and a recording musician I hear a more natural sound with analog and a harsh, sometimes painful effect from digital. But that's just my ears talkin'.
Granted, the bagpipe is a difficult instrument to capture, but I've personally only heard it sound true recorded and reproduced on analog tape or LP.
So what the hell does a bagpipe have to do with real life, you ask? First of all, for me it's become a test of sorts because state of the art digital technology has trouble capturing it. It's an indicator that something is amiss.
Secondly, if you've ever heard a screaming bagpipe and violin in unison you know that progressive rock has more roots in Scotland than in Motown. From Journey to Van Halen to Boston, the highly compressed electric lead guitar sings with the voice of the ancient Celtic pipes.
Not surprisingly then, I feel digital recording does an inadequate job of capturing the lead guitar as well. I would even go so far as to say that if you haven't heard some vintage rock recorded and reproduced on analog tape, then you haven't really heard it.
I have compared various CDs to open reel, Cassette and even LP. My 25 year-old LPs sound full, warm and rich, with greater spatial accuracy compared to "digitally remastered" CDs of the same albums.
Oh, I have lots of CDs, but I regard them much the same way I do music on the radio or cheap portable boom box. It's ok and will do in a pinch... but if I want to have a quality listening experience I pop a reel of tape onto my Akai GX-77 or throw an LP on my old Techniques turntable. It'll make a believer out of you.
I guess the bottom line is that as both a consumer/listener and a recording musician I hear a more natural sound with analog and a harsh, sometimes painful effect from digital. But that's just my ears talkin'.
Vintage TX
New member
I agree with Beck
Analog is more rich and sweet as honey.
Analog is more rich and sweet as honey.
Neil Young once said, digital is like a bathtub filled with ice, it's still water, but it feels different.
Have you ever listened to a direct cut vinyl, played on a hi end recordplayer, through a high end amp and hi end speakers?
No? then you don't know how good analog can sound, period.
A DAW, handling 80+tracks, with EQ, reverb, compression, autotune and a couple of other plugs, will degrade the sound quality significantly.
An analog desk will handle 80+ tracks with the speed of light without a single problem.
Have you ever listened to a direct cut vinyl, played on a hi end recordplayer, through a high end amp and hi end speakers?
No? then you don't know how good analog can sound, period.
A DAW, handling 80+tracks, with EQ, reverb, compression, autotune and a couple of other plugs, will degrade the sound quality significantly.
An analog desk will handle 80+ tracks with the speed of light without a single problem.
totally...
Personally, I can't see how anyone could say digital sounds good. Yes, it sounds clean and accurate, but good? Digital is like a cake without frosting. Cake alone misses the point.
However, good analog is 2 inch tape, really. I'm sure some will disagree, but IMO anything less in tape width per track is a bit lacking......You can get good results with it but throw good digital through a fatso and it's pretty similar....
Personally, I can't see how anyone could say digital sounds good. Yes, it sounds clean and accurate, but good? Digital is like a cake without frosting. Cake alone misses the point.
However, good analog is 2 inch tape, really. I'm sure some will disagree, but IMO anything less in tape width per track is a bit lacking......You can get good results with it but throw good digital through a fatso and it's pretty similar....
I'll disagree with the 2" thing as well; but with a qualifier.
If you want to record more than...say...16 tracks, you need to have a 2" machine for best quality.
But Brown Sugar was done on a 1" 8 track with dumping. Sounds pretty good to me.
I'm working on an old 1/2" 8 track 80-8-and while I have to work very hard on mic placement and submixing as I go, if I were to extrapolate the 8 tracks' individual trackwidth , it'd be a 1-1/2" 24 track. So as long as you work simply, it's still pretty good quality.
My dream machine would be a 2" 16 track Scully in NOS condition-so I'm not really arguing with you...but I'll stack the sonic quality of this 1/2" 8 track 80-8 against any Digi 001-002/Motu/prosumer level digital recording set-up anyday. If you want GOOD digital, you gotta spend a bundle on converters, etc.
Chris
If you want to record more than...say...16 tracks, you need to have a 2" machine for best quality.
But Brown Sugar was done on a 1" 8 track with dumping. Sounds pretty good to me.
I'm working on an old 1/2" 8 track 80-8-and while I have to work very hard on mic placement and submixing as I go, if I were to extrapolate the 8 tracks' individual trackwidth , it'd be a 1-1/2" 24 track. So as long as you work simply, it's still pretty good quality.
My dream machine would be a 2" 16 track Scully in NOS condition-so I'm not really arguing with you...but I'll stack the sonic quality of this 1/2" 8 track 80-8 against any Digi 001-002/Motu/prosumer level digital recording set-up anyday. If you want GOOD digital, you gotta spend a bundle on converters, etc.
Chris
You might think a two inch two track would be 'THE' best sounding machine, but there are limits to track width, I believe it's about phase problems or something.
A two inch 16 is the best sounding machine I've ever heard. I used to have a 2" 16 tr. Telefunken M15A, but I've sold it to David Manley.
A two inch 16 is the best sounding machine I've ever heard. I used to have a 2" 16 tr. Telefunken M15A, but I've sold it to David Manley.
reel buzzer
New member
Here is my poem that helps me remember
analog is to marshmellow
as
digital is to sidewalk
Digital will crash
and then you are ash
Analog will keep
so that you won't weep
Digital will clean
no noise to be mean
Analog will bend
sounds better in the end
analog is to marshmellow
as
digital is to sidewalk
Digital will crash
and then you are ash
Analog will keep
so that you won't weep
Digital will clean
no noise to be mean
Analog will bend
sounds better in the end
But....I'm working with a wealthy guy right now who wants to record some six CD's.
He's not a great singer although he has a very nice voice. His sense of rhythm is.....well......uh.
So he sings to an original CD and we record both the CD and a number of takes of his voice to 2" analog.
Then we comp the best parts out of three of four takes with the automated board and record that to Cubase SX.
Next we record a Karaoke or soundtracks CD with the same song to another (stereo track) and drag it into place.
But the soundtrack runs faster or slower than the original, so we stretch the vocal part until is fits to the music.
Than we cut between the sentences and drag everything to the best possible place.
Next we process autotuning 3, Vintage warmer, a multiband compressor and a nice reverb on the vocal track.
Hit the play button and it sounds like a very decent CD.
How could we possibly do that with analog?
It's still a 'not so good' singer, but at least he is very happy with the result and we gain quite some money.
It has nothing to do with art and I'd rather work with a talented band, but bands seldom have enough $$ to do the job really good.
It's the digital revolution baby!
He's not a great singer although he has a very nice voice. His sense of rhythm is.....well......uh.
So he sings to an original CD and we record both the CD and a number of takes of his voice to 2" analog.
Then we comp the best parts out of three of four takes with the automated board and record that to Cubase SX.
Next we record a Karaoke or soundtracks CD with the same song to another (stereo track) and drag it into place.
But the soundtrack runs faster or slower than the original, so we stretch the vocal part until is fits to the music.
Than we cut between the sentences and drag everything to the best possible place.
Next we process autotuning 3, Vintage warmer, a multiband compressor and a nice reverb on the vocal track.
Hit the play button and it sounds like a very decent CD.
How could we possibly do that with analog?
It's still a 'not so good' singer, but at least he is very happy with the result and we gain quite some money.
It has nothing to do with art and I'd rather work with a talented band, but bands seldom have enough $$ to do the job really good.
It's the digital revolution baby!
sackbutcharlie
New member
Hi Aloha,
I hope Newbies are allowed to periodically pontificate here.
I am relatively new to digital recording and certainly no sound engineer. But I have worked in the computer industry for some time and I recently read a description of digital recording that makes perfect sense based on my knowledge of computers.
The graphical representation of a sound wave is usually a rounded up and down line with peaks and valleys. An analog (tape) system records that curved wave just as it is (there may be additional noise, but the shape of the wave is represented accurately on the recording medium). A digital system will record points along that wave, very much like plotting points on a graph. It does not record the entire wave, but points at equal intervals along the wave. So it records these points, then when it plays back it reconstructs the wave based on the points. Very much like approximating a curved slope through a series of points on a graph (having a bad Statistics flashback?). The problem is that the original wave may not be perfectly and proportionately curved the same way that the digital program reconstructs them.
So a digital recording can more or less "smooth" over irregularities in the original sound. I have been told by digital fans that they have digital recordings that sound "cleaner than the live performance". This seems theoretically possible. It also explains what many analog fans describe when they say that digital recordings sound sterile or less than warm.
Someone on this BBS made some comments about bagpipes sounding much better when recorded on tape versus computer. I would be very interested in what a bagpipe's sound waves look like (I know they have a very different overtone series from strings or horns).
Does this make sense?
So in the digital vs. analog question, I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve with the recording. I am building my studio with cookie-jar money and I found a tape machine that was really cheap, so that made my decision for me!
Just some thoughts.
I hope Newbies are allowed to periodically pontificate here.
I am relatively new to digital recording and certainly no sound engineer. But I have worked in the computer industry for some time and I recently read a description of digital recording that makes perfect sense based on my knowledge of computers.
The graphical representation of a sound wave is usually a rounded up and down line with peaks and valleys. An analog (tape) system records that curved wave just as it is (there may be additional noise, but the shape of the wave is represented accurately on the recording medium). A digital system will record points along that wave, very much like plotting points on a graph. It does not record the entire wave, but points at equal intervals along the wave. So it records these points, then when it plays back it reconstructs the wave based on the points. Very much like approximating a curved slope through a series of points on a graph (having a bad Statistics flashback?). The problem is that the original wave may not be perfectly and proportionately curved the same way that the digital program reconstructs them.
So a digital recording can more or less "smooth" over irregularities in the original sound. I have been told by digital fans that they have digital recordings that sound "cleaner than the live performance". This seems theoretically possible. It also explains what many analog fans describe when they say that digital recordings sound sterile or less than warm.
Someone on this BBS made some comments about bagpipes sounding much better when recorded on tape versus computer. I would be very interested in what a bagpipe's sound waves look like (I know they have a very different overtone series from strings or horns).
Does this make sense?
So in the digital vs. analog question, I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve with the recording. I am building my studio with cookie-jar money and I found a tape machine that was really cheap, so that made my decision for me!
Just some thoughts.
regebro
Insane Genious!
sackbutcharlie said:
No, that is false. The wave that comes out of the digital system is a more accurate copy of what you put in, that in an analog system.
The peaks and valleys you are talking about are high frequuency sounds. Analog doesn't reproduce them well either.
Analog sound better because it is LESS accurate. It just happens that after more than 60 years of tape recording, the manufacturers know how to make it sound inacurretely good.
sackbutcharlie
New member
Yes, I agree that the graphical representations of the peaks and valleys of a wave account for the amplitude as the horizontal distance between one peak and the next represents the frequency or pitch.
Unfortunately I am not an engineer so I have difficulty describing physical phenomena (that I have a weak grasp on anyway) in a clear manner.
What I was referring to (but did not explain very well) was the concept of sampling or converting continuous coordinates to discreet coordinates. Isn't there a discrepancy referred to as sampling error? Logic would suggest that the digital recording is indeed much cleaner in that the wave will be more pure. But the shape may not be accurate. But it also seems that the degree of accuracy in digital can vary depending on the sampling rate as well as the uniformity of what is being recorded.
So it seems logical that an instrument that produces a very consistent tone (synthesized keyboards, digital drum tracks, etc.) will record extremely well on digital. But it also seems logical that the odd overtones produced by harmonies of some acoustic instruments (such as bagpipes, or trombones) would not be sampled quite as accurately.
I just found a couple of websites that explain it in terminology a bit different from the book I read:
http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pubrec.html#principles
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital3.htm
This seems to make sense to me, but I may be having difficulty seeing the forest for all the trees here (it would not be the first time). Is this info inaccurate regarding sampling errors? Or maybe it is accurate but these errors are just so minute that no human can tell the difference anyway?
Thanks for helping me out if I have this whole thing bass-ackwards.
Unfortunately I am not an engineer so I have difficulty describing physical phenomena (that I have a weak grasp on anyway) in a clear manner.
What I was referring to (but did not explain very well) was the concept of sampling or converting continuous coordinates to discreet coordinates. Isn't there a discrepancy referred to as sampling error? Logic would suggest that the digital recording is indeed much cleaner in that the wave will be more pure. But the shape may not be accurate. But it also seems that the degree of accuracy in digital can vary depending on the sampling rate as well as the uniformity of what is being recorded.
So it seems logical that an instrument that produces a very consistent tone (synthesized keyboards, digital drum tracks, etc.) will record extremely well on digital. But it also seems logical that the odd overtones produced by harmonies of some acoustic instruments (such as bagpipes, or trombones) would not be sampled quite as accurately.
I just found a couple of websites that explain it in terminology a bit different from the book I read:
http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pubrec.html#principles
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital3.htm
This seems to make sense to me, but I may be having difficulty seeing the forest for all the trees here (it would not be the first time). Is this info inaccurate regarding sampling errors? Or maybe it is accurate but these errors are just so minute that no human can tell the difference anyway?
Thanks for helping me out if I have this whole thing bass-ackwards.
reel buzzer
New member
OK I thought this was going to be a conversation that would eventually end.
We prefer the sound of analog because it sounds better.
I know that what I'm saying sounds stubborn. Like an old man that doesn't want to learn any new tricks. But it's true.
About 10 years ago I attended a digidesign Session 8 demo and it made a believer out of me. I left that demo thinking, "this is it, I've got to get a digital setup." I was tired of splicing tape and calibrating machines all the time. Well I bought a system and 10 years later it is worth about 2 cents. The computer started crashing recently. This is very frustrating when you are recording. So I started shopping for something new.
Meanwhile during this period that I search for the new recording set up, I was using my Tascam 424 portastudio and it made me think, "wouldn't it be nice to record on a tape machine again because you don't have to worry about the thing crashing, or naming files, or saving, or whatever, just push the buttons." So back to my roots, hunted for an old reel to reel and got lucky. Now I'm in heaven. everything is ready to record, at anytime.
Now I prefer analog for many reasons:
1. When setting the input level for the kick drum, I can turn it up enough to distort the sounds pleasantly. Try that with digital and you get unpleasant pops.
2. The preamp in my Otari makes the guitar sound so awesome. Real thick and sustained. It alters the sound in a way that makes you feel like you are in the radio.
3. Even a shitty radio signal from a headphone outlet of a cheap boombox going through the Otari path sounds like it has been dosed with some mighty hum magic that makes you feel all gooey inside. So the analog machine is changing the sound in a way that is more pleasant to my ears.
The links below, listen to the difference in guitar sound from the digital to the analog.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/1/archiveofcrunchsymphonymusic.htm = recorded digital
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/ragsclothesbottlesmusic.htm = 1st two songs are analog
We prefer the sound of analog because it sounds better.
I know that what I'm saying sounds stubborn. Like an old man that doesn't want to learn any new tricks. But it's true.
About 10 years ago I attended a digidesign Session 8 demo and it made a believer out of me. I left that demo thinking, "this is it, I've got to get a digital setup." I was tired of splicing tape and calibrating machines all the time. Well I bought a system and 10 years later it is worth about 2 cents. The computer started crashing recently. This is very frustrating when you are recording. So I started shopping for something new.
Meanwhile during this period that I search for the new recording set up, I was using my Tascam 424 portastudio and it made me think, "wouldn't it be nice to record on a tape machine again because you don't have to worry about the thing crashing, or naming files, or saving, or whatever, just push the buttons." So back to my roots, hunted for an old reel to reel and got lucky. Now I'm in heaven. everything is ready to record, at anytime.
Now I prefer analog for many reasons:
1. When setting the input level for the kick drum, I can turn it up enough to distort the sounds pleasantly. Try that with digital and you get unpleasant pops.
2. The preamp in my Otari makes the guitar sound so awesome. Real thick and sustained. It alters the sound in a way that makes you feel like you are in the radio.
3. Even a shitty radio signal from a headphone outlet of a cheap boombox going through the Otari path sounds like it has been dosed with some mighty hum magic that makes you feel all gooey inside. So the analog machine is changing the sound in a way that is more pleasant to my ears.
The links below, listen to the difference in guitar sound from the digital to the analog.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/1/archiveofcrunchsymphonymusic.htm = recorded digital
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/ragsclothesbottlesmusic.htm = 1st two songs are analog
I'm fairly new to engineering, but have recorded several albums as a performer in the last decade+.
My first 'album' was a cassette only release (circa '92) that was recorded on a Tascam 388 1/4" 8 track and mixed to DAT.
The next was 24 track, 2" tape in a 'real' studio.
The next several were Sony Dash digital tape, mixed to 1/2" analog.
One scrapped Pro Tools experiment ( my first experience getting my hands dirty).
Now I'm on ancient, crusty old mid-level/home studio/project level equipment with cobbled together this-n-that with serious ghosts in the machine (What the hell! Why didn't that guitar track? Hmmn. Crank the knobs back and forth and now it works-shrug)
and I say: Analog sounds better. It sounds like rock and roll. It sounds like all of the records I grew up loving and wanting to emulate. Minimal micing and analog tape compression make my drummer sound like Charlie Watts. And it's CHEAP, if you can deal with the ghosts in the machine. Which, for that sound, I can.
Just my opinion.
Chris
My first 'album' was a cassette only release (circa '92) that was recorded on a Tascam 388 1/4" 8 track and mixed to DAT.
The next was 24 track, 2" tape in a 'real' studio.
The next several were Sony Dash digital tape, mixed to 1/2" analog.
One scrapped Pro Tools experiment ( my first experience getting my hands dirty).
Now I'm on ancient, crusty old mid-level/home studio/project level equipment with cobbled together this-n-that with serious ghosts in the machine (What the hell! Why didn't that guitar track? Hmmn. Crank the knobs back and forth and now it works-shrug)
and I say: Analog sounds better. It sounds like rock and roll. It sounds like all of the records I grew up loving and wanting to emulate. Minimal micing and analog tape compression make my drummer sound like Charlie Watts. And it's CHEAP, if you can deal with the ghosts in the machine. Which, for that sound, I can.
Just my opinion.
Chris
regebro said:
Are you absolutely sure?
An average person can hear the difference between a sinus wave and a square wave at 15 khz, which means the individual 'hears' the 30 khz harmonic which has it's influence to the sound.
A CD (16 bits 44.1 khz saple rate) will not show you the difference between a sinus and square wave of 15 k.
My Otari 2" machine records a 35 khz sinus without any problem.
A Dutch pro audio magazine recently tested digital and analog recording gear and they recorded a 15 khz square wave to an Ampex ATR 102 analog machine and to a DAW.
When they put the recorded signal through a scope, the recorded signal on the analog machine looked almost exactly to the original, with only very minor differences. The signal which was recorded to the DAW didn't look like a square wave anymore, but something between a square and a sinus.
A square wave goes from positive to negative immediately, a sinus goes very gently from positive via zero to negative.
It seems to me in this test that the analog tape machine (an ATR 102 is a hi end tube machine) was more accurate than the DAW.
In my view an analog tapemachine doesn't only sound better, but a hi end machine also is more accurate to the original signal.
An analog hi end console will not hesitale to sum a couple of hundred signals to the stereo master without any problem.
A DAW has great problems to mix many signals and even when you move that virtual fader, you can hear the sound degrade.
But it's the digital revolution baby!