Researchproject from the Netherlands

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmgarfield
  • Start date Start date
M

mmgarfield

New member
in my best English:

A couple of weeks ago I've setted up an inquiry into the never ending story of analog vs. digital. I know now this subject is too big for just one little researchproject, but i can face that. When I summarize all results to a conclusion, there are a lot of points where digital scores better than analog (in a very wide spectrum).
The benefits of analog recording mainly comes down to two matters:

- Nostalgic feelings
- Bandcompression

My only question that's left: can you think of anything else and name it in just a few words (not little matters, but main benefits) ???

I hope to hear from anyone.

Cheers,

Marcel Buunk

The Netherlands
 
Preservation. There is no better proven preservation medium than analog tape. In fact, as far as I know, there is no proven digital preservation format. I have played tapes from the 1950's that sounded as if they were recorded the day before.
 
MadAudio said:
Preservation. There is no better proven preservation medium than analog tape. In fact, as far as I know, there is no proven digital preservation format. I have played tapes from the 1950's that sounded as if they were recorded the day before.
Click to expand...

mmm, what about dust making the tapes wear off?
 
Doesn't tape deteroirate (that's probably spelled wrong)? I know there isn't really a good medium for preservation for very long peroids of time, but aren't they going back and remastering everything, and cleaning up old stuff and putting it on something else because the tape is rotting away?
 
The short answer is - yes and no.

Now for the long answer. Some tape stock from the late '70's and early '80's develops what is known as "sticky-shed syndrome." The tape manufacturers, in an effort to cut costs, changed the formulation of the binder that holds the oxide to the base. What they didn't realize was that this new binder would eventually begin to absorb and retain moisture. So when the great CD revolution came along and the record companies went back to the master tapes and played them, they got a screeching sound and sticky gobs of oxide all over the heads and tape path. Sticky-shed can be cured temporarily by baking the tapes at low temperature in a convection oven. This dries out the moisture enough that the tape can be played again and the audio recovered. But there are lots of plastic-base tapes out there that are older than I am that are in great condition. I used to do preservation work for the National Archives, so I've handled and played these tapes myself. Proper storage is key. Acetate-base tapes can also deteriorate into what is known as "vinegar syndrome." The tape begins to curl, then eventually breaks down, and it smells like vinegar.
The last stuff I did for NARA involved transferring audio from old Magnabelts. The Archive's medium of choice? Ampex (now Quantegy) 478 1/4" analog tape.
 
Last edited:
I heard something on the radio about the National Archives putting all their audio stuff on 78 RPM laquer phonograph records, because it was low-tech and durable enough that someone stumbling across them 50,000 years from now could probably figure out how to play them.

This has nothing to do with digital v analog, though.
 
apl said:
I heard something on the radio about the National Archives putting all their audio stuff on 78 RPM laquer phonograph records, because it was low-tech and durable enough that someone stumbling across them 50,000 years from now could probably figure out how to play them.

This has nothing to do with digital v analog, though.
Click to expand...
I heard that story. It was aired on April 1st.
 
Oh, for cryin' out loud, I was hornswaggled...

Here's a link.

It was very convincing. It sounded really stupid at first, but I kinda understood the reasoning in the story. But then again, since it's a government project the stupidity of it is not enough to tip one off to it being an April 1 prank...
 
apl said:
But then again, since it's a government project the stupidity of it is not enough to tip one off to it being an April 1 prank...
Click to expand...
LOL, well said!!
 
mmgarfield said:
When I summarize all results to a conclusion, there are a lot of points where digital scores better than analog (in a very wide spectrum).
The benefits of analog recording mainly comes down to two matters:

- Nostalgic feelings
- Bandcompression
Click to expand...

No. The benifits of analog come down to one matter: for most styles of music it sounds better.

I am not an analog purist by a long shot (I have been using digital recording for almost 15 years) but to me the argument is this. Digital is getting so good that what you put on to it, comes back sounding very close to what you get back. With Analog, what you put on to it comes back sounding better!

I know that many home recordist do not get a chance to compare the two, but every one should try and get a chance to hear audio before and after it hits 2 inch or half inch. Still to this day it blows my mind how much mixing to 1/2 inch imroves the sound of a mix.

ps mmgarfield, your English is very good.
 
thxs for the replies.

@Ronan:

okay, analog recording sounds better. But what causes that? Or is it a combination of factors (analog pre-amps (tubes), analog effects, bandcompression).....

What are the most important factors for the 'warm' sound of analog; which devices in the chain ?
 
mmgarfield said:
@Ronan:

okay, analog recording sounds better. But what causes that? Or is it a combination of factors (analog pre-amps (tubes), analog effects, bandcompression).....

What are the most important factors for the 'warm' sound of analog; which devices in the chain ?
Click to expand...


My comments were regarding only analog tape. I am pretty good at making records, but I am not an electrical engineer so I can not explain things from that perspective. On the last record I mixed a couple days ago which I mixed to half inch. I played an A-B comparison to my artist (who is not technical in any way) and he was blown away. His voice sounded fuller and more present, the mix sound more cohesive and there was more depth and detail in the mix. The only difference was listening to the mix before and after hitting the tape.

As for the other questions. Do not get confused about tubes in mic pre amps for warm vintage sounds. Some of the most famouse vintage pres were solid state (Neve, Trident, API etc). And about the rest of the chain its really a sum of the parts. Every little bit can start affecting the sound. Many modern digital tools will actually work "against" a traditional vintage sound, more than some older tools will add to it. Also a big part of warm vintage sounds is the recording techniques. People use a lot of different approaches to recording than they did a few decades ago. Some better, some a lot worse.
 
analogue does nice things to hi freq's too, makes them more "musical'

how, why?

probably has to do with sample rate of digital..... that's just a guess. who knows?
of course, what goes on tape is not exactly what comes off of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top