Why digital is superior to analog

[XLR]

I think a more interesting paper would be The Influence of Retail Ad Copy on Consumers of Recording Equipment. That's where most consumers' impressions of digital vs analog technology come from IMO.

Nothing against this specific piece of gear, but the ad copy is typical of misleading stuff the manufacturers and retailers spew.
http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.co...k-USB-Computer-Recording-Interface?sku=703606
"the easiest way to record your guitar with professional results."
"Professional 24-bit/48kHz sound"
"Fast Track USB is the easy and professional way to add guitar, vocals, and more to your computer music experience."
All on the same single page description.

 

[Manslick]

I think his major is social engineering and this thread is his petri dish.

 

[dean1964]

Anybody here remember the 80's? Samplers and synthesizers were the future of music. I'm glad that did not pan out either.

Thanks SSG for taking care of this one.

Entire theses can (and probably have been) written about how this is just as much a negative as a positive. Either way, it's a purely subjective point, and not a very strong argument for "superiority."

I'm in the very early stages of writing a book on endless autotune, editing....yada yada. (graduate final project) However, the premise is not about superiority, rather the effect it has on the masses, and responsible engineering.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think his major is social engineering and this thread is his petri dish.

And I am definitely one of the vile-smelling bacteria that thrives in the dish!

Speaking of social engineering, I'm with XLR on the whole 'the effects of the marketing of digital' aspect of it. This explains in large part why we have threads called "Vocal Mastering" and why we are witnessing the death of mixing.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Anybody here remember the 80's? Samplers and synthesizers were the future of music. I'm glad that did not pan out either.

What planet are you on? On planet earth the samplers and synths were the future in the 80's, which makes them the present right now And why such a narrow minded, slightly vailed contempt for those instruments (or any instrument for that matter).

 

[noisewreck]

we are witnessing the death of mixing.

I disagree. It's just that because of technology, there is a lot more bad to mediocre stuff. But bad to mediocre stuff has existed since the time of history. It is TIME that eventually filters out the best from the rest.

Quick, think of 3 composers from the classical era (mid 1700s to early/mid 1800s)...















You probably thought of Carl Stamitz, Pierre-Alexandre Monsigny and Gaetano Pugnani, right? No? Why?

You automatically listed Mozart, Beethoven and perhaps Haydn? Why?

See where I am going with this?

 

[miroslav]

What planet are you on? On planet earth the samplers and synths were the future in the 80's, which makes them the present right now And why such a narrow minded, slightly vailed contempt for those instruments (or any instrument for that matter).

I don't much care that they didn't pan out as an "instrument"...I'm just pissed about the $5k I dropped on my S1000HD, and I had to have the extra RAM, a whopping 8MB!!!
Not to mention the huge library (on floppy disks) to go with it....

Talk about a poor purchase decision...but that's using 20-20 hindsight.
At the time...it was DA SHIT!


I still have it...sitting in the rack. I thought about selling it on eBay a couple of times, but came to the conclusion that shipping cost would be greater than the selling price!!!
So...it sits there….
Every once in awhile I fire it up and use it for a cheesy synth pad or some sound FX noise candy on one of my recordings…JUST to feel like I’m getting something out of my “investment”…but not too often.

When the LCD screen eventually goes completely dark...then I'll pull it.
But they still offer replacements...which also cost more than I would get for the whole thing on eBay!!!

 

[Todzilla]

Digital is more cost-effective. Beyond that, all arguments are subjective.

One thing I really miss from the analog days is the giant speed button on the tape machine (also called "pitch"). It allowed you to manipulate the pitch and speed of all tracks, for mastering and for laying down thicker tracks 'cause you do fun and/or subtle pitch effects for things like chorus vocals.

Yes, I know there are plugs that allow that on a per track basis, but dammit, I miss the big knob.

I guess the main impediment to that is that you pretty much have to commit to a specific sampling rate and not jimmy it up or down.

 

[mshilarious]

I don't much care that they didn't pan out as an "instrument"...I'm just pissed about the $5k I dropped on my S1000HD, and I had to have the extra RAM, a whopping 8MB!!!
Not to mention the huge library (on floppy disks) to go with it....

Why be angered? My 4-track sits on a shelf too, probably worth about 10% of what I paid for it (much less considering inflation). At the time, it was the only way I had to make the music I wanted. I don't regret it.

 

[Manslick]

I have a stereo Sony reel to reel I paid 90 bucks for in 1969. weight: 1 meelion pounds.

It still works and one nice thing about it is I turn it on and its ready, no booting and updating and searching the entire world for some snippet of code.

But the sound of those reels flying – oh man the slow build up to what seems like uncontrollable motion and the slow pan of sound as the reel fills from side to side – oh god I’m gonna spray my pants.

 

[miroslav]

Digital is more cost-effective.

Although...the cost of some digital plugs/apps/upgrades seems to be trying to make up the difference in price from the hardware counterparts!

Yeah, you can often get "bundles", but if you end up using 2 plugs out of a $3k bundle....mmmmmmmmm.....

But I guess they way some people are viewing it (not exactly accurate IMO) is that they can have a "studio" on their computer table in the back of the bedroom for just a fraction of the cost of a full-tilt brick-n-mortar studio, so why "waste" money on all that building material and audio hardware...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I disagree. It's just that because of technology, there is a lot more bad to mediocre stuff.

While I don't disagree with that, I think there's much more to it than just that. There's an entire generation or more coming up now that has never jockeyed a fader or automated a timeline in their life, but who have no problem pulling out the ol' MBC to work on the 2mix. The majority of newbs believe that the only thing standing between them noodling around in the garage with their friends and fame as a Platinum-selling superband is the right "mastering software" preset.

Who's teaching them this baloney? It sure ain't folks like you and me. It's those clowns that purposely and irresponsibly market their software as "mastering tools". Tell me, George, when's the last time you saw a package of EQs, comps and verbs marketed as "mixing software"?

And don't count on the actual mastering engineers to correct them on anything more than a token level, because this belief just increases their business. And that's just the legit ones, who are rapidly becoming outnumbered by the 'mastering by 'net' shysters out there who lead you to believe that they are all about turning a sow's ear into silk in their bedroom with their copy of ProTools LE and a Limewired copy of a Waves bundle.

EDIT: The last few posts in this thread have let me to an interesting way in which analog is "superior" to digital: Analog gear becomes vintage; digital gear becomes obsolete.

G.

 

[XLR]

Hey jordanstreet - forget the "which is superior" idea. Doesn't matter. Either way the would-be recordist won't be recording anyway. They'll just be sitting around talking about it online.

 

[mshilarious]

While I don't disagree with that, I think there's much more to it than just that. There's an entire generation or more coming up now that has never jockeyed a fader or automated a timeline in their life, but who have no problem pulling out the ol' MBC to work on the 2mix. The majority of newbs believe that the only thing standing between them noodling around in the garage with their friends and fame as a Platinum-selling superband is the right "mastering software" preset.

And on the other side, there is the quest for the right outboard "chain"

Gear is nearly superfluous to the process. The post above about bricks & mortar is correct. Nothing else matters to the degree we pretend it does.

 

[gcapel]

I believe you have to define digital and analog. There is digital media and digital mixing like wise with analog which are two different things. You can use digital media with analog mixing. You could also track to tape then transfer to digital media then mix digital or mix analog.

I totally agree with legion that a hybrid system is the best.

Digital Editing +
Digital Plug-ins +
Digital Automation (per Channel or sub group) +
Analog Out Board Processing (on channel or sub group) +
Analog Summing +
Analog Aux Monitoring During Tracking +

 

[ez_willis]

I don't think I would've picked this topic. I would've went with something like 'Why PC's are Superior to macs for Audio Recording', or 'Why Coke is Superior to Pepsi', or something more simple like that.

 

[noisewreck]

The majority of newbs believe that the only thing standing between them noodling around in the garage with their friends and fame as a Platinum-selling superband is the right "mastering software" preset.

But that's the attitude with newbs in anything, since there have been newbs. They all think something (whatever it is they want to get into) should be easy and everybody wants quick results.

I used to teach piano, and many of my students had the attitude that they should be able to play a Rachmaninoff Concerto after a year of studying the piano, while putting in only maybe 30 minutes a day... if that...

I understand where you are coming from and your frustration. All I am saying is that I don't think it's as apocalyptic as you think it is

And I'll finish this with another Carlin quote:
"Children are just like any other group of people. There are a few winners and a whole buncha' losers"

 

[darrin_h2000]

Digital is more cost-effective. Beyond that, all arguments are subjective.
.

I guess you never edited with tape and a razorblade...lol.

 

[hardwire666]

I think trying to determine/argue why one is better than the other is like arguing why the color blue is better than red. Neither one is just better, and they both have their place. Analogue gives you much more head room. Digital allows for super easy/fast nondestructive arrangement (and that's just a tip of the iceberg). I sort of agree with the pizza ice cream analogy. Only instead of pizza vs Ice cream it's like asking "Why is Vanilla ice cream better than Chocolate?" The answer is it all depends on what you ate before hand, thus rendering the question moot.

Were I to write a paper on this I would compare the differences. Then show where, and why you MIGHT "MIGHT!!!" choose one over the other. As well as the impact they seemed to have had on the industry in general. Then follow up with a theory as to where it may lead to in the future.
But, I would never write a paper on this as it could actually take years to gather ALL of the necessary data. Not to mention you can't just go to the library, and look this stuff up (at least as far as in know). I'd say the most consolidated collection of this information on is on the net. Scattered throughout message boards, and personal websites. I maybe wrong, but I don't think message boards are generally looked at as a solid source of information. Especially for a thesis.

Further more if you chose to say digital is better than analogue because you know more about digital your paper will be very one sided. Now if your major is in philosophy you will be okay, but would be better off writing a paper on "Why heads is better than tails.".

Just my $0.02

 

[dodgeaspen]

I'm personally an analog nut for many reasons, but in today's world their are mostly digital devices like ipods and mp3 players. With this in mind, if I want people to hear my tunes I will need to convert my analog tracks to the digital medium. Just curious though, why is it that so many people who claim the digital revolution is the way to go is always looking for plugins to simulate the analog sound. Some studios spend many $$$ for this. ????? HUMMMMM! Makes me wonder. I agree that digital is in most cases faster to use, but I prefer the feel of the faders and tape in my hand, I guess it gives me some sense of one with the music process.