So what is it about analog that makes it sound so good?

A

Aloha

New member
Just wondering what your guys thoughts are on the matter? I think we can all agree that it does sound the best, after all we are hanging out here in the analog forum.

I have afew theory's like it's thearetical infinite sample rate. The second order harmonics of tubes when clipping into distorion. It's realistic reproduction of high frequency content, and that certain "AIR" that it preserves in the recordings.

What do you guys think?
 
I think what makes analog sound good is knowing how to use your equipment properly.

Same goes for digital.

It's a tool for an artist to use to their potential and skill as a musician and as an engineer.

You can have the world's highest end equipment and still make rotten recordings if you don't know what your doing.

Spend some time in the clinic and listen to what your fellow bbs'ers are doing with their equipment.

I have heard guys like B. Sabbath and others who perform pieces of art that transcend the medium they record on and make it irrelevant because they know what they're doing.

By the same opposite extreme, you can hear efforts done by many others with perfectly sound equipment turn out horrific crap.

The bottom line for me, that I have painfully come to realize is that owning a certain piece of gear that everyone rants and raves about is no guarantee that you will obtain critical acclaim by owning one yourself.

Don't get me wrong. I love my analog gear but I also know that the more I learn how to use it properly and artistically, the more it seems impressive to the pedestrian user and listener.

I work in analog because it is all I have ever had the privilege of owning and knowing about. After more then 20 years of farting around with it, I am just now starting to use it to its potential.

There's a million turns of the knobs and switches combined with the same number of notes and melodies that make or brake a recording.

Put your efforts and interests into that and the medium becomes irrelevant.

Cheers! :)
 
I think we have mangled this topic to death in earlier posts.

The summary of my opinion is that analog sounds better because it's inaccurate.
 
Aloha said:
Just wondering what your guys thoughts are on the matter? I think we can all agree that it does sound the best, after all we are hanging out here in the analog forum.

I have afew theory's like it's thearetical infinite sample rate. The second order harmonics of tubes when clipping into distorion. It's realistic reproduction of high frequency content, and that certain "AIR" that it preserves in the recordings.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
I think that if you depend on the medium itself to make or break your recordings, then you need to improve your recording skills.
 
it's in the way that you use it

ALL good points on a tired subject. some musicians and engineers have the gift for squeezing fine wine out of an old turnip. others have trouble parking a Volkswagen Beetle in an aircraft hanger. lame analagies (i know;) ) but it's up to the INDIVIDUAL to determine work works well for them and "how to get the most out of it". cheers!!:)
 
It could be that some of it has to do with the different times these two formats developed. Analog tape technology lived most of its life in an era when excellence was the chief consideration. Digital recording was born and raised in the era of cost-cutting and convenience.

The analog/digital story has some things in common with the beta/VHS story. Namely, when the market realizes that consumers don't know any better the bar is lowered. The question is no longer, "How can we make this the best it can be?" but rather, "What will be passable?" I see this in the recording scene in general, and not just analog vs. digital.

Some of use were fortunate enough to have lived in the "Golden Era" for recording and electronic music technology, which occurred mid to late '80s. We actually witnessed manufacturers competing for price and specs. MIDI was born, as were many other exciting innovations -- looking back, it was a fun time to be into music.

But now look at it! We have a lot of do-all wonder boxes that do many things passably instead of one thing well. So many of the old innovators like Ensoniq and Kurzweil (the original) have disappeared. Many that are still with us can't even compete against their own vintage products, spec wise. Fewer things are made in the USA and even German products are made in China -- plastic, buggy, chinsy crap that will never even live long enough to become "vintage." Worst of all, THEY have managed to convince everyone that everything from good sex to good music can be done on the quintessence of wonder boxes, the home PC.

Not likely.

:cool:
 
So, digital sounds like shit because all these professionals and hifi-fanatics that happily pay thousands and thousands of dollars for even simple equipment as long as it sounds good really can't tell the difference between good sound and bad sound?

That doesn't compute.
 
At the upper end of the scales, neither analog nor digital sound "like shit"..... at the bottom end of the scales, both sound like ca-ca......

So is this argument about the middle of scale??? Seems kinda silly......

Like I said earlier, if it comes down to the medium changing your sound outside of your control, you're not doing something right anyways!
 
regebro said:
So, digital sounds like shit because all these professionals and hifi-fanatics that happily pay thousands and thousands of dollars for even simple equipment as long as it sounds good really can't tell the difference between good sound and bad sound?

That doesn't compute.
Click to expand...

Recording professionals at all levels are divided on the digital vs. analog thing as well. There's a long list of pros that have had to go back and purchase vintage analog gear because they dumped theirs prematurely during the digital frenzy of the '90s.

As for consumers, digital is for the masses. The golden-eared audiophile subculture is renowned for their fondness for analog tape, not DAT, CD or any other digital animal that has come along.

:cool:
 
Beck said:
As for consumers, digital is for the masses. The golden-eared audiophile subculture is renowned for their fondness for analog tape, not DAT, CD or any other digital animal that has come along.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me that you can't get good results with high-end digital?

Once again, I'd say this reflects on recording skills and not the medium........

And I wouldn't put much stock in a subculture that endorses green-marker voodoo and avoiding cable vibration as worthwhile tweaks.
 
Hmmm, touchy subject or what. Well sorry if this post has been done before, I have only been hanging out here since the summer. I guess where I was going with this post was for a discussion between people that share the common idea that analog recording is something special, that digital just dosn't come close to. Not to debate over what format sounds or is better. I'd like to know what other people that feel the same way think about the magic of analog tape. Why does analog tape and vinyl records sound so desirable to the ear?
 
The Ghost of FM said:


I have heard guys like B. Sabbath and others who perform pieces of art that transcend the medium they record on and make it irrelevant because they know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

The simple answer to the question!

Its the music.

If the music doesn't transcend the medium then you have to ask yourself why does it matter?

SoMm
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Are you telling me that you can't get good results with high-end digital?

Once again, I'd say this reflects on recording skills and not the medium........
Click to expand...

No... I'm saying YOU can't. That's my point.

"Good results?" Define good. Most analog fans have something in common - they hear unpleasant side effects when sound is recorded with ones and zeros. Those results are in and of themselves BAD. It's not recording technique it's the equipment. So how can one get GOOD results with a recording technology that adds this "unpleasantness" to everything it touches?

Once again, you cannot prove something is not there because you can't hear it any more than a blind man can prove something is not there because he can't see it.

Digital was introduced as an unfinished product, and there has been little improvement since. It's only a whisper of what they promise us it may become. Well that's just wonderful, but while I'm waiting I'm going to use something that has already arrived -- analog tape.

But anyway, my rant was on a grand scale about the state of technology in general. Our society lives on a continuum between fine wine and cheap wine. It always has. It is more useful in this particular discussion to know something about history even more than music or recording.

My original thoughts in this thread simply pointed to the obvious. Analog technology developed in a time when people were willing to pay the extra for the better wine. Today? People want to get drunk as quickly and as cheaply as possible, and they get what they pay for.

look anywhere at any product or service of any kind -- it doesn't have to have anything to do with recording.


:cool:
 
Beck said:
My original thoughts in this thread simply pointed to the obvious. Analog technology developed in a time when people were willing to pay the extra for the better wine. Today? People want to get drunk as quickly and as cheaply as possible, and they get what they pay for.
Click to expand...
Mm. Yes. Of course. DUring the 50's and 60's everybody had top of the line audiophile systems at home. Yup. Nobody listened to Seargent Pepper on portalble mono record players. Nope.

And today, the top line studios who during the 70's could pay 100.000 dollars for a small desk is today boozing up all that money. Yessereee...

You have one point: And that is that digital was an "unfinished product". Well, so was analog, and analog electronics have had some 70 years to get good. Digital has has 20.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top