The advantages of recording analog

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alfredo_S
  • Start date Start date
A

Alfredo_S

New member
High guys,
I felt I should share this phenomenon with you analog lovers out there.
To find out why digital recordings sound so harsh (to me), and tape doesn't, I did a simple test.

The pictures show a 5 khz pure sine recorded digital @ 44.1, 96k and 192k.

Need I say more :eek:

5khz_sine_44khz.webp
5khz-sine-96khz.webp
5khz_sine_192khz.webp

So... Happy Taping!
Saludos,
Alfredo
(Sharing is caring;)
 
An overly simple test.

Because a line aesthetically looks harsh doesn't mean it sounds harsh. If you run the math, you'll find that the difference between the various data sets is at a frequency that's way up out of human hearing range (and a good 14 decibels below the signal as well) and - at least if you're comparing 96k to 192k - way beyond the capability of your speakers to reproduce anyway.
 
Plus those graphs don't show the reconstruction of the waveform, only the sample capture.

Cheers :)
 
Plus those graphs don't show the reconstruction of the waveform, only the sample capture.

Well, you're making a good point. The video posted by Jimmy says it all. But...
When going digital I nowadays tend to choose 96k, as is does sound silkier in the higher domain comparing to 44.1k.
And that could be due to the fact that filtering (artifacts) take place in the unhearable range (SJ).

But maybe this thread is getting too digital now...

Salud!
Alfredo
 
Well, you're making a good point. The video posted by Jimmy says it all. But...
When going digital I nowadays tend to choose 96k, as is does sound silkier in the higher domain comparing to 44.1k.
And that could be due to the fact that filtering (artifacts) take place in the unhearable range (SJ).

But maybe this thread is getting too digital now...

Salud!
Alfredo

Just to be clear, you are the one that placed the digital post in the analog forum this time... :)
 
So this is how myths and bullshit get started, huh? I just saw it with my own eyes.
 
Why are analog people so scared shitless of digital? Man, it's not 1985 anymore. Modern digital isn't harsh and relentlessly brutal. It doesn't have to be anyway. If you can't get good results using modern digital recording techniques and equipment, then blame yourself. You're doing it wrong.
 
Everytime I come across one of these digital vs analog things, it always perplexes me how one side wants the other to concede to their way of thinking. Who cares, really. If you like recording digitally, if it works for you, do it. If you like working with analog stuff, do it.

I don't understand why some people who record/mix digitally think that digital is "the way" and that people who do stuff analog are just being sentimental or nostalgic or something. I also don't get people who record analog constantly feeling like they have to prove their point that "it's better".

We really, none of us, have to justify why we do things the way we do. And we don't have to push others to work the way we do. Should we all concede and all of us use only one type of guitar for a recording (cause it sounds "the best") through one type of amp (again "the best") into one preamp, using one particular compressor through the same recording/mixing platform and then send all of our mixes to be mastered using the same person with the same equipment? How boring would that be?

I moved from strictly digital stuff to analog because I work at a chemical plant and stare at computer screens 12 hours a day with a mouse in my hand. When I'd get home and head into my little studio I got to where the last thing I wanted to do was look at a computer screen and touch a mouse. Plus, my studio looked like a computer lab and growing up the pictures I saw of studios and what a studio "looked like" looked nothing like mine. So, yea, I said it, for me, there's a bit of nostalgia involved. So what? It's my studio.

Since I've moved into the analog way of doing things I enjoy doing things much better. Is it perfect? No. Is it a pain in the ass sometimes? Yes. Could I get better results if I did stuff digitally? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The point is, its how I like doing things.

If someone wants to work completely ITB, then go for it. I won't try to stop you. I won't try to convince you working in the analog domain is better. Maybe for you, its not.

I also think that sometimes people get exited about a certain thing and it gets taken the wrong way. I know when I first got my humble analog set up, I think I posted on here that I thought my mixes sounded better, they were easier to mix, I used less compression, etc. Now, someone could have taken that as if I were saying "all analog is better, and everyone should do it." When, in fact, all it says is that, for me, it worked better.

Ok, my point is, do what you want, let others do the same. It's not that big a deal, really. In the grand scheme of things anyway.

That's my rant. Just had to get that out.
 
Everytime I come across one of these digital vs analog things, it always perplexes me how one side wants the other to concede to their way of thinking. Who cares, really. If you like recording digitally, if it works for you, do it. If you like working with analog stuff, do it.

I don't understand why some people who record/mix digitally think that digital is "the way" and that people who do stuff analog are just being sentimental or nostalgic or something. I also don't get people who record analog constantly feeling like they have to prove their point that "it's better".

We really, none of us, have to justify why we do things the way we do. And we don't have to push others to work the way we do. Should we all concede and all of us use only one type of guitar for a recording (cause it sounds "the best") through one type of amp (again "the best") into one preamp, using one particular compressor through the same recording/mixing platform and then send all of our mixes to be mastered using the same person with the same equipment? How boring would that be?

I moved from strictly digital stuff to analog because I work at a chemical plant and stare at computer screens 12 hours a day with a mouse in my hand. When I'd get home and head into my little studio I got to where the last thing I wanted to do was look at a computer screen and touch a mouse. Plus, my studio looked like a computer lab and growing up the pictures I saw of studios and what a studio "looked like" looked nothing like mine. So, yea, I said it, for me, there's a bit of nostalgia involved. So what? It's my studio.

Since I've moved into the analog way of doing things I enjoy doing things much better. Is it perfect? No. Is it a pain in the ass sometimes? Yes. Could I get better results if I did stuff digitally? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The point is, its how I like doing things.

If someone wants to work completely ITB, then go for it. I won't try to stop you. I won't try to convince you working in the analog domain is better. Maybe for you, its not.

I also think that sometimes people get exited about a certain thing and it gets taken the wrong way. I know when I first got my humble analog set up, I think I posted on here that I thought my mixes sounded better, they were easier to mix, I used less compression, etc. Now, someone could have taken that as if I were saying "all analog is better, and everyone should do it." When, in fact, all it says is that, for me, it worked better.

Ok, my point is, do what you want, let others do the same. It's not that big a deal, really. In the grand scheme of things anyway.

That's my rant. Just had to get that out.

+1

This is really it in a nutshell. I don't understand why the debate still exists either.
 
Maybe I'd better started this thread with the question:"Who or what inspired you to go the analog way?"
But sooner or later it could still provoke the analog v.s. digital discussion.
And that's not what we're here for.
Sorry, it was not my intention to start another session of pro and cons, but you may :spank: me now.

Thanks Foamfoot for your insight.
 
Why are analog people so scared shitless of digital? ...

I dont stick with analog because Im scared shitless of anything. I do it because I prefer to work in that realm. And yes, I have a digital rig in addition to the analog one.
 
Why are analog people so scared shitless of digital? Man, it's not 1985 anymore. Modern digital isn't harsh and relentlessly brutal. It doesn't have to be anyway. If you can't get good results using modern digital recording techniques and equipment, then blame yourself. You're doing it wrong.

What are analog people?

People who care about the quality of music recording realize what great impact music has on society... and for selfish reasons we don't want the music scene dominated by the crap there is today.

In fact digital is much worse today than it was even ten years ago. The state of the art is less demanding... people expect less and they get exactly that. The debates about digital vs analog are over long time ago.... the "analog people" like me predicted the demise of the recording industry, which we are experiencing today. Digital won, but music and music lovers lost!

That being said, at least three things about this thread are wrong: 1) The original graphic from the OP, 2) The video by Monty Montgomery, which is so rife with error no one should take it seriously. The video especially is the worst sort that feeds the misinformation highway. 3) that anyone replied to the baiting from a new 1-post member... but now here it is... brought to life and we have to deal with it.
 
Everytime I come across one of these digital vs analog things, it always perplexes me how one side wants the other to concede to their way of thinking. Who cares, really. If you like recording digitally, if it works for you, do it. If you like working with analog stuff, do it.

Well, I think it DOES matter because misinformation is spread. I have no care at all if you prefer analog. I LIKE analog, too. But I hate it when bad information is spread about the other because they have no idea what they're talking about. That's stupid and anyone who thinks otherwise should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

What are analog people?

People who care about the quality of music recording realize what great impact music has on society... and for selfish reasons we don't want the music scene dominated by the crap there is today.

In fact digital is much worse today than it was even ten years ago. The state of the art is less demanding... people expect less and they get exactly that. The debates about digital vs analog are over long time ago.... the "analog people" like me predicted the demise of the recording industry, which we are experiencing today. Digital won, but music and music lovers lost!

That being said, at least three things about this thread are wrong: 1) The original graphic from the OP, 2) The video by Monty Montgomery, which is so rife with error no one should take it seriously. The video especially is the worst sort that feeds the misinformation highway. 3) that anyone replied to the baiting from a new 1-post member... but now here it is... brought to life and we have to deal with it.

Show me your science as to why the video is rife with error. Until then, I'm not going to accept that. That's how science works, buddy.
 
Beck, I don't have any problem with your post, I think I've told you before that I respect almost everything I read from you because, on a technical level, you know a lot and make informed posts. But this part:

3) that anyone replied to the baiting from a new 1-post member... but now here it is... brought to life and we have to deal with it.
...I have to respond by saying that this is how public forums work. Whether someone has one post or 20,000, that doesn't determine whether they should be responded to or not. I don't think it would have been better to just let that post sit with no responses (like that would ever happen) as if nobody had any dispute with it.
 
Back
Top