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

[Centeno]

Well one thing's for sure, the siso concept (shit in = shit out) applies to analog and digital. In building my recording setup I began by spending some dough on a reel-to-reel and a mixer instead of completing a DAW I had started previously -- now I'm having second thoughts. A lousy front end will give you many sleepless nights (regardless of the recording medium), so investing on quality mics and preamps prior to focusing on digital vs. analog might be the way to go. I'm starting to think I would be getting more pleasing recordings right now if I had purchased a real preamp (Great River, Manley, etc) and continued with the DAW (Sonar and Delta66), instead of going with the 1/2 inch 8-track.

Now, I prefer analog because when I hear professional recordings (2 inch tape probably) the sound of a snare drum is realistic in a way that digital can't duplicate. Can a digital recording of snare drum (and other acoustic istruments) sound decent? Sure, specially if you have good preamps and mics, but not as realistic and 3-dimensional (warm, whatever) as analog.

The question for me, after 3 years into this musician/recordist stage of my life, is how to get good sounding music recorded at home without spending 10K on studio equipment. Hence on a limited budget (which most of us here in Homerecording.com face), the issue of analog vs. digital is likely a moot point. The bigger issue at our price (and expertise) level is probably the front end (preamp/mic), and even before that, quality instruments and musical talent. You just can't expect your bedroom recording of a $150 Ibanez to sound like Santana, on digital or analog...

Paz....

 

[Stevebol]

When CD's first came out I remember thinking,"Where did all these flies come from?"But seriously,they both have good and bad points.

 

[Beck]

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...

MY GOD MAN! DO I HAVE TO SPELL EVERY THING OUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH AND BE ROBBED OF THE JOY I GET FROM SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY IN PARABLES AND ANALOGIES? OK, OK!

I'm talking about engineering vs. marketing; quality vs. bottom line -- the age old battle.

Has the well of souls really dried up? No, don't answer that!

That's it, I'm changin' my member name to omega man. Shit, where's the tylenol???

 

[Beck]

...the issue of analog vs. digital is likely a moot point. The bigger issue at our price (and expertise) level is probably the front end (preamp/mic), and even before that, quality instruments and musical talent. You just can't expect your bedroom recording of a $150 Ibanez to sound like Santana, on digital or analog...

Paz....

Very good points in your post. However, one should see to selecting the right equipment regardless of the recording format. Digital vs. analog is never a moot point, but discussing the issue is impossible without an, "everything else being equal" perspective. Meaning, assume you have the equipment you want. Now, what will be the best canvas to capture the magic?

 

[Han]

This has been discussed for so long and so many times now.
I can make a band sound like they want both analog and digital.

I still prefer a two inch machine, but you have to realize that a tape costs some $190. A set of heads for a Studer costs some $10.000 and a pinch roller $850. A capstan motor goes for $2500.

So if you want an analog studio, you need some money and if you have a commercial studio and you have to compete with the Nuendo guys, you have a problem.

Last week I was working with a well known Dutch piano player, he's member of the jury in the Eurovision song contest, anyway, he played a CD of Diana Krall on a beautiful sounding stereo set and it really sounded good.

Then he played a vinyl with kind of the same music from 1957 and that sounded a hundred times better, I was shocked.

What have we done the last 25 years? Much of our fine music was recorded to 16/44.1 and we are stock with that 'quality'.

The old masters of recording skill are dead now and very few of the younger engineers are able to achieve the quality of the old Frank Sinatra recordings (Bill Putnam Sr). The best sounding 6th symphony (Beethoven) I own is a mono vinyl from 1956, by the Amsterdam Concertbuilding Orchestra.

Just some thoughts of an old tape slut.

BTW, the 'Hell Freezes Over' DVD by 'The Eagles', is used many times for demonstrating surround sets in the shops and if you look carefully you can see two 24 track analog machines running sync for recording this great sounding concert.

Peace, Han

 

[acorec]

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.

I read a thread that took place at PSW. There was a fight about Analog vs Digital. The engineer who started the thread took a song and recorded it in Analog only, Digital only.

Two songs recorded as much the same as possible.

The pros (they are top level engineers at PSW) were asked to guess which is the digital recording.


Most got it wrong. The two guys who were so sure that they got it right were indeed wrong. Both apoligized to the thread starter.

It all boils down to how good of an engineer YOU are. Period.


Top level equipment is important, but it was the pro rooms, outboard equipment and pro experience that really makes a difference in sound.

 

[reel buzzer]

Yes I read that thread here:

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=9125&postdays=0&postorder=&start=0

Not a very compelling argument though. Perhaps if we heard the songs before it was crunched into an mp3.

A better lab test is to let the listener know which is analog and see if the listener can hear the difference. Case in point the link below, the first 2 songs "Arriving" and "Hearstings" are recorded to 1/2 inch otari 8 track analog tape machine. The rest of the songs are recorded to hard disk via Digidesign 882 i/o. Everything else stayed the same (outboard gear, mixer, room, instruments, line levels and cables).

To me the analog sounds better for that type of music. Digital might sound better for classical or chamber music, I don't know. But man I am glad that I went to analog because teh sound is richer.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/ragsclothesbottlesmusic.htm

Also my band recorded an analog album and an ADAT album. The analog sounded better but we got more production time out of the ADAT. So I guess it depends on what you need or have.

 

[Han]

But analog and especially hi end analog is so damn expensive.

Classical music is 99.9% recorded to digital because the average classical CD has between 600 and 900 edits, try that with two inch tape.

I guess most of you guys haven't had the opportunity to AB the sound of a well aligned two inch tape machine and a DAW.

I have recorded a band a while ago on both 2" at 30ips and a Tascam MX2424, which the band had brought with them.

The 2" had a much nicer hi end, more 'silky' than the MX2424 and it had more 'punch', much more width and deepness in the stereo image.

Kind of funny was that the band prefered the DAW over the tape machine, the argument was that they liked the 'in your face sound' of the DAW more.

The MX2424 is a nice machine though.

Think about this also: if you record to a DAW, the mic is analog, the pre is analog, then comes the AD convertor which translates the analog signal (current) to data.
The DA convertor translates it back to an analog signal, which is amplified by an analog amplifier and analog speakers make the air move.

So the only digital components are the AD and the DA, which are 'the weakest links'. The computer is just a very fast calculator.

An analog tape machine records 24 tracks without any latency and an analog board doesn't give a shit about summing 92 tracks and works with the speed of light.

In our studio I can record 48 tracks simultaniously if needed and make a punch in between two tom strokes of those 48 tracks without any problem.

 

[monty]

You have to admit…there is one advantage to digital. You can play it over and over and over and over, and it never shows any sign of wear.

 

[regebro]

A better lab test is to let the listener know which is analog and see if the listener can hear the difference.

No, that is a horribly bad test. It only tests which if two pieces of equipment sound different. It does not say anything about which sounds better.

Tests should be done completely in the blind. The listener should not know what is playing, which is what or when each is playing. Neither should the person recording the guesses/opinions.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

You have to admit…there is one advantage to digital. You can play it over and over and over and over, and it never shows any sign of wear.

I have some DAT tapes that would betray that digital promise.

 

[reel buzzer]

regebro:

Yeah I guess you're right that is a bad test. So the question is which sounds better. Well since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder then I guess we will never get the definitive answer on this.

I know what my opinion is, but I'm sure others have a different opinion.

Digital sound recording is OK, usually a perfect representation.
Campare it to stepping on a scale and then measuring your boot size with a tape measure and taking a photograph of the tread on the bottom of the boot with a powerful digital camera, say 10 megapixels.
You're going to know exactly how much you weigh, your foot size, and the pattern of the tread when finished.
OK dead accurate to a point.

Analog sound recording is superior.
Compare it walking in the snow.
In other words there is a point of contact in that first step in the snow, your boot touches the snow then as you put your weight on that leg the boot sinks in.
So when you are running on three inches of snow that is not too powdery but soft enough to leave foot prints, every step you take there is a surface contact, a drop though and a stop when the snow is compressed.
You are going to know your foot size and approximate weight when finished, but also you will have a record of all the little intricacies that is in the tread of the boot by observing the real life 3-D imprint it left in the snow, from which you could make a mold and have a representation of the boot based on mechanical analysis, which can be observed under microscope.
But if you were to observe the photograph of the tread in the digital analogy, you are limited to pixel resolution, which doesn't come close to the magnification of a microscope.

 

[regebro]

So you subscribe to the theory that analog sound better because it records details digital doesn't get.

As you see above, I don't beleive in that gospel, mainly because all we know about this tells us that it's wrong.

A high-end 24/96 system will not only be more accurate but also gets more of the intricate details.

The problem is quite simply that we don't WANT those details. Recording technology is now so good that making the most accurate recording possible is no longer a goal. Accuracy has stopped being a measure of "goodness".

 

[Han]

You have to admit…there is one advantage to digital. You can play it over and over and over and over, and it never shows any sign of wear.

An analog tape can be played a thousand times without any loss of sound quality, as long as you keep the machine in good condition and DEMAGNETIZE the heads and other metal parts in the tape path.

A tape can be played a hundred years from now, It may have to be baked, but after baking it will sound as good as new.

In 2104 there will no DAT, CDR or whatever (ADAT?) be in working order, a DAT tape can't be baked and whether CD and CDR can be played or not is very doubtful.

A vinyl record otoh, will be playable for ever.

The original multitrack tapes from Beatles, Stones, Led Zep, Pink Floyd and many others can be remixed now to DSD and guess what? These are the best sounding SACD's available.

Everything that was recorded to the early digital multitrack systems, will sound 'not so good' forever, dispite of the perfect sounding digital systems that will come in the near future.

I could write a book about this.

 

[acorec]

An analog tape can be played a thousand times without any loss of sound quality, as long as you keep the machine in good condition and DEMAGNETIZE the heads and other metal parts in the tape path.

A tape can be played a hundred years from now, It may have to be baked, but after baking it will sound as good as new.

In 2104 there will no DAT, CDR or whatever (ADAT?) be in working order, a DAT tape can't be baked and whether CD and CDR can be played or not is very doubtful.

A vinyl record otoh, will be playable for ever.

The original multitrack tapes from Beatles, Stones, Led Zep, Pink Floyd and many others can be remixed now to DSD and guess what? These are the best sounding SACD's available.

Everything that was recorded to the early digital multitrack systems, will sound 'not so good' forever, dispite of the perfect sounding digital systems that will come in the near future.

I could write a book about this.

The simple fact is that you cannot buy a vinyl record anymore, they don't make analog decks anymore, CD is giving way to DVD and probably a hundred other formats that are digital. You hear a CD now, that is the bottom line. This BS about Analog vs Digital means nothing unless you drag around your analog multi-track to everyone who argues about this and let them listen. The output is CD. 16 bit/44.1Khz. That is it. When digital matures, your analog decks will be reduced to $2 on Ebay (or, because of the sheer weight, you might be paying the junkman to haul it away).

Analog had 50 years. Digital has only had about 10 years (I am talking about digital multi-track here). 20 years for CD.

So, analog is destined for the museum, because you can change heads, but you cannot roll back the hours on the other 1000 mechanical/electrical mechanisms in a analog multi-tracker.


Sooner or later, people here will have no choice but to go digital and this forum will be re-named "Museum relics Only"

 

[reel buzzer]

Yes the inaccuracy is in the aproximate weight and size of the boot measured from the snow sample, and the fact that the preservation of the footprint is depending upon the snow not melting a little or a slight twist in pressure during the run.

I'm not saying that analog is more accurate or that it records more detail.

What I am saying is that more stuff happens there in the analog world which alters the sond and maybe that is why it sounds better.

I could read a book about this. Han, let me know if you write one.

 

[Han]

Adorec, you are missing a couple of important points. Vinyl is alive and kickin'. We have a pressing plant in Haarlem that has to work 24 hours a day.

Analog multitracks are still in production.

An Ampex ATR102 1/2" two track is very expensive these days and so are the hi end multitracks. A studer A820 is still pretty popular among many studio guys and expensive.

Digital is not here because it sounds better,but because it's much more convenient and cheaper, everybody should know that.

There was a time that a vintage Neumann wasn't worth much money, that has changed as you know.
There was a time that tubes were 'out', but that has changed also.

I am not going to defend analog or going to start another digital/analog debate here.

Digital still has a long way to go and it will sound better than hi end analog some day, but IMHO it will take at least another ten years.

You did quote my post, but didn't respond to it as a whole, what about the loss of an important piece of our art? Your hard disk will not work within ten years from now, so you will only have your master on CD. No possibility to remix. And the question is whether that CD master will play or not.

Miles Davis' 'Kind of Blue' was recorded in 1959 and was recently remixed to SACD and it sounds wonderful.

My two inch tape will work like a charm within 10, 20 or even 50 years and there will be a 2" machine somewhere in working order.

 

[Aloha]

Studer still makes a 2 inch multi track and Otari still makes stereo decks to mix down to. Analog will be around for a long time. Han, I am looking forward to that book...

 

[acorec]

Studer still makes a 2 inch multi track and Otari still makes stereo decks to mix down to. Analog will be around for a long time. Han, I am looking forward to that book...

Studer is dropping the Analog Multi-track line. They will be gone within 2 years. They are putting all their efforts in the RADAR line.

 

[Han]

they don't make analog decks anymore,

Studer is dropping the Analog Multi-track line. They will be gone within 2 years. They are putting all their efforts in the RADAR line.

What will it be bro, yes or no?

I wonder, many of you guys have a strong opinion about analog gear, but is it based upon experience? I mean, have you ever worked with a Studer A820 multitrack and a big board?

I'm curious.