Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Member Polls  Analog and Digital

Analog and Digital I worked with analog in its heyday and I tell you, I miss it.  0%  [ 0 ] I worked with analog in its heyday and after I started with digital, there was no going back.  18%  [ 8 ] Analog provides a more desirable sound, but you can't beat the flexibility of digital.  30%  [ 13 ] Analog provides a more desirable sound, but what digital can't emulate now, it'll emulate soon.  25%  [ 11 ] Well shucks--I just don't hear a difference, especially if I'm not told to listen for it.  2%  [ 1 ] Magnetic tape who? The sound of digital is fine. Give me digital over analog any day.  23%  [ 10 ] Total Votes : 43
Author	Topic
Heavens to Betsy Location: USA Posts: 508	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:47 am
Heavens to Betsy Location: USA Posts: 508	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:33 am  Quote: But : digital is the future. No arguing with that!
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:23 pm  The same principle applies to..... why does someone spend 100's of thousands refurbishing a Tudor home, a classic car, restoring an antique musical instrument.... when they could go buy a "new" replica. Some things, just ain't the same. Analog does sound great (possibly better), and hopefully one day in the near future, digital will be capable of emulating every single nuance. Is that day today? I think not! I'm talking about the sound here, not the ability to edit and manuver it. THE SOUND!! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
zemlin Location: USA Posts: 1156	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:24 pm  None of the above. Never messed with Analog. Digital has made high-quality recording compact and affordable enough that it is something I can do as a hobby - as a creative outlet. I'm sure Analog has its advantages, but I've never been there so I don't miss it. _________________ Karl Zemlin - www.cheap-tracks.com Host of the World Wide Cool Edit Collaboration Procedural Debate
Heavens to Betsy Location: USA Posts: 508	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:38 pm  Quote: I'm sure Analog has its advantages, but I've never been there so I don't miss it. You may be more familiar with analog than you think--any AAA record, tape or AAD compact disc (in a stretch) you have will yield some answers as to the sound of magnetic tape.
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:43 pm  None of the above - quite. I wanted a category that said 'I used analogue tape for years, I think that digital is great, etc, etc, but I still copy stuff back to the PR99 and re-record it sometimes, even now - they both have their place.' No, I'm not being difficult. This is for real. _________________
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:16 pm  "I still copy stuff back to the PR99 and re-record it sometimes" Ditto here! I still sometimes record guitars/bass to a Fostex 8 track 1/4" reel to reel and then drums/Synth's to an Alesis ADAT, fly all of it into CEP and then build mixes. YMMV! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
zemlin Location: USA Posts: 1156	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 7:38 pm  I'm plenty familiar with analog as a listener - I go all the way back to the black plastic circle things. I was think of the question from the standpoint of using the tools to create stuff. _________________ Karl Zemlin - www.cheap-tracks.com Host of the World Wide Cool Edit Collaboration Procedural Debate
Heavens to Betsy Location: USA Posts: 508	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 9:44 pm  To Steve: Yeah, well...:blush: To Zemlin: Yeah, well...
djlyon Location: Romania Posts: 369	Posted - Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:06 pm  I'd like to tell you about my "split" opinion regarding this analog VS digital debate. For me, there's one thing digital source -> digital recording, and analog source -> digital recording is a another one. I can only look, especially at the eurodance songs, that were made back in 1992-1996. I'd go for 99% that they were produced on analogue hardware, and stored on digital support. Boy it sounded great! It was that warmth! But now when I hear all these new songs, produced on digital hardware it just doesn't sound so good as before. The sound is heartly-flat and cold. Maybe not all of you know the eurodance songs back in 1992-1996, like Masterboy, Maxx, Loft, Magic Affair, or 2 Unlimited with my favourites "Mysterious" and "R.U.O.K". But let's compare Madonna's old songs: Take A Bow, Secret, Like A Prayer, Material Girl with the new ones like Music, Ray Of Light or Die Another Day. I guess the difference is obvious to most of us, if not to all. Also, I'm not forgetting that musical genres have changed. From pop, now it's like almost house. Take a piano play and compare it to a digital-piano play. Take a guitar play and compare it to a digital-generated guitar play. Heck, I'm even watching these live shows on TV, but when they play it in re-run, it's just not the same 'atmosphere' there. I also know that there are audiophiles which didn't like the sound of CDs compared to how vynil sounds, but I'd say that there's also a difference between a analogue produced sound and digitally produced sound, no matter how it is stored afterwards. After all, everybody likes what they like, no matter if it's digitally/analogue produced/stored. _________________ Best regards, Dj Lyon
beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591	Posted - Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:10 am  djlyon wrote: But let's compare Madonna's old songs: Take A Bow, Secret, Like A Prayer, Material Girl with the new ones like Music, Ray Of Light or Die Another Day. I guess the difference is obvious to most of us, if not to all. Almost all of Madonna's albums are digitally recorded. "Madonna" and "True Blue" are the only analog recordings I am aware of. Just thought you should know. I never heard of any of those other bands you mentioned.
djlyon Location: Romania Posts: 369	Posted - Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:23 am  Yeah, digitally recorded, but how were the instrumentals produced? Where there live instruments recorded via microphones, or were they digitally synthesized ? I mean, did they really played piano and violins, or did they just hit the keyboard? This is 'split' I am referring to: "DDD (completely digital CD) ADD (analogue recording, digital processing and dubbing) AAD (analogue recording and processing, digital dubbing)" Taken from: http://www.omnidisc.com.sg/technical/howdocdswork.htm Also, thanks for the info _________________ Best regards, Dj Lyon
beetle Location: USA Posts: 2591	Posted - Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:54 am  Aw geeez! They obviously used both! What this means is that they used a digital multitrack and mixed to digital! It doesn't matter if they miked accoustical instruments or plugged something into the board.
RDMSstudio Posts: 95	Posted - Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:29 pm  Well here's my 10c worth...... Given that most of the commercial CD's I've heard in the last couple of years have had the levels cranked so high you can HEAR the distortion I'd say digital is one of the most abused forms of recording ever devised....then again it has brought a few things to the masses... affordability editing power speed and convenience Guess you have to take the good with the bad......
johnhook Location: USA Posts: 10	Posted - Tue Jan 28, 2003 7:35 pm  Analog is "the REAL deal". There's no question that it sounds better. Digital recordings don't reproduce the rich overtones and subtle harmonics characteristic of analog recordings. Digital recordings are crisp and clean to the point of sounding cold and sterile. A major drawback to analog recordings is that they're not archival. Vinyl and tape recordings sound great until the oxide starts to wear off the tape or the vinyl gets scratched, dirty and worn down by the stylus. It seems ridiculous that we still use magnetic tape to store digital information. Speaking of which - has anyone heard about the ELP Laser Turntable? It reads vinyl recordings with a laser so there's no contact or wear. There's no digital conversion involved, so the analog warmth of the recording is preserved. The drawback is its $20,000 pricetag. I'm going to hang on to my SL-1200 for now. Check it out: http://formen.ign.com/news/14778.html
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Tue Jan 28, 2003 7:49 pm  Quote: Digital recordings don't reproduce the rich overtones and subtle harmonics characteristic of analog recordings. I think you mean "produce", and I don't think that analog recordings sound better, so I'd say there's deffinitely "question". Quote: ...oxide starts to wear off the tape... Wasn't this only a problem with tapes after the '60s..? _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:00 pm  Quote: with a laser so there's no contact or wear. There's no digital conversion involved, :shy: Admittingly, I'm not a scientist... but if it's using a laser to read and "magically" convert the signal,... doesn't digital come into play somewhere here?? _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
johnhook Location: USA Posts: 10	Posted - Wed Jan 29, 2003 12:51 am  Quote: I think you mean "produce", and I don't think that analog recordings sound better, so I'd say there's deffinitely "question". Sorry for my slightly inaccurate choice of words. Harmonics are "produced", not reproduced. The higher frequency range of analog tape records inaudible frequencies which upon playback, "produce" harmonics that are not produced during playback of digital recordings due to their limited frequency range. Let me clarify: In my opinion, there's no question that analog recordings sound better. I wasn't trying to turn this into a debate, but since you seem to have an opinion, please share! Quote: I think you mean "produce", and I don't think that analog recordings sound better, so I'd say there's deffinitely "question". I think you mean "definitely"
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Wed Jan 29, 2003 1:19 am  Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you mean "produce", and I don't think that analog recordings sound better, so I'd say there's deffinitely "question". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you mean "definitely" :D JohnHook, I think you should know that Post78 was a 3 time Washington State Spelling Bee Champion. If he misspelled a word, it was just to see if we were on our toes!! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
johnhook Location: USA Posts: 10	Posted - Wed Jan 29, 2003 2:34 am  VoodooRadio wrote: Quote: with a laser so there's no contact or wear. There's no digital conversion involved, :shy: Admittingly, I'm not a scientist... but if it's using a laser to read and "magically" convert the signal,... doesn't digital come into play somewhere here?? The Laser Turntable uses five laser beams, two to read the audio signals from the right and left channels, two to keep the beams in their respective channels, and one to control the distance from the record. These five laser beams allow the Laser Turntable to reproduce the warm analog sounds the way they were originally recorded, all without contacting the record. Because of the laser technogy, you can program the LP as you would a CD -- skipping tracks, shuffling the play order, etc. Despite it's CD-like design, the device is 100% analog. Based on the information I've read, it bounces a separate laser off the left and right walls of the record's grove. The grove patterns are reflected onto ptical pickups that directly output analog signals. It may use similar technology to laser tape measures, taking a continuous micron-accurate measurement of the distance between the laser and the groove wall, outputting this as a DC signal - but I'm just guessing. At $20,000 I don't think this guy would be making false claims about the product. He's been developing the product since 1988. It's a pretty amazing product with an interesting story. http://www.elpj.com/frameset.html
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:18 am  Quote: I think you mean "definitely" Oops... Will jest marc that won of ass a tipo. _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Wed Jan 29, 2003 12:21 pm  johnhook wrote: At $20,000 I don't think this guy would be making false claims about the product. As I restore material, the ELP looked superficially attractive (although damn expensive) to me so, some time ago, I seriously considered the purchase of one of these machines (BTW they're a little cheaper now, but still not enough to encourage most of us here) but there are a couple of major drawbacks of which one has to be aware. Firstly - and to my mind, most importantly - the records need to be in pristine condition, otherwise you will hear all sorts of pops and clicks. Did you know that part of the ELP package is a vacuum record cleaner! The fact they feel the need to supply one with the player demonstrates just how important cleanliness is. Damaged records are just that - they're damaged and the ELP does not magically clean them up, just plays all the damage with absolute clarity. A tangential scratch will cause the laser to 'skip', exactly as a stylus would. Secondly, the ELP has a real problem with coloured vinyl, picture discs, etc. Basically, it won't play them. I had a series of email exchanges with the president of the company and his advice was I should not purchase an ELP for the sort of work I had in mind for it. At least it was a honest response. One of the funniest things I recall about the website was one of the 'satisfied users' testimonials. He claimed that he was extremely happy with the results he was hearing - after first vacuum cleaning the record, playing it on the ELP and then processing the signal with CEDAR hardware to remove any clicks etc. Maybe that's still there, I haven't visited the site recently. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:29 am  Quote: Firstly - and to my mind, most importantly - the records need to be in pristine condition :shy: Quote: - after first vacuum cleaning the record, playing it on the ELP and then processing the signal with CEDAR hardware to remove any clicks etc. :shy: Admittingly, I'm not a Vinyl restorer... but it seems to me that if a person were to only work with "pristine" vinyl, using a vacuum system and using CEDAR hardware, that they might not have the need for the "laser" system at all..... _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:08 pm  VoodooRadio wrote: ... but it seems to me that if a person were to only work with "pristine" vinyl, using a vacuum system and using CEDAR hardware, that they might not have the need for the "laser" system at all..... Quite so - a subtlety which was obviously totally lost to the poor slob who bought the thing _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
motorhead6 Posts: 193	Posted - Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:10 pm  Analog provides a more desirable sound, but you can't beat the flexibility of digital. Also an analog studio, with a rackmountable module for each effect is several orders of magnitude more expensive than a digital setup with software effects. That would be the whole truth.
Craig Jackman Location: Canada Posts: 909	Posted - Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:27 pm  When the planets aligned, and everything was perfect and new, analog was good. Fresh unused tape, new head blocks, de-gaussed tape paths with perfect tension and alignment ... things would sound good. But wear in inevitible on analog recorders. As are dirty heads, tape dropouts and creases, motor and capstan speeds, incomplete erasing and crosstalk ... the list goes on. Digital is much more consistent, and with hard disk recording, there is no wear and few moving parts. It's almost impossible to go out of alignment unless you do something to screw it up. Cost no object - digital. Cost an object - digital. Everytime, everyday. _________________ Craig Jackman Production Supervisor CHEZ/CKBY/CIOX/CJET/CIWW Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
jshaw Location: USA Posts: 14	Posted - Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:06 pm  I worked with analog in radio for about 20 years. It was great, but took a lot of space and equipment. I can do more with a simple desktop and CEP 2.1 in a 8'x10' room than I could with two huge rooms of analog equipment. It was fun in the analog days though. I really miss calling in the station engineer just to have the problem clear itself the minute he came into the room. _________________ Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:40 pm  jshaw wrote: I really miss calling in the station engineer just to have the problem clear itself the minute he came into the room. Oh, I don't know - I've seen a few computers which exhibit the same annoying trick ! _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:56 pm  I always say that's the worst kind of problem..... the one that fixes itself! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
ROBSCIX Posts: 254	Posted - Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:03 pm  ah the ease of digital with the sound of analog?, best of both worlds. I agree tape sat does sound good on some material, but you can't beat the clarity of digital, oh yeah and that nasty habit of analog tape losing its magnetic properties over time...Then again I never did any recording in the analog world, I am a child of digital recording.....and I am hooked. digital junkie..
AMSG Location: Sweden Posts: 594	Posted - Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:12 am  Analog has a more desirable sound, but you can't edit like you do digitally. That's what I voted for. But many people seem to think that ALL analog stuff is good nowadays. Everybody seems to want some analog gear. BUT...many seem to forget that there also was bad and good analog equipment before. So they think that just because they buy some analog things that it will sound great. Well, the cheaper gear will just make everything sound unclear and noisy instead of giving you the 'warmth' you want. And there are transistorbased (is it called transistor in english?) products who can give you that colored, warm sound which alot of people are looking for (thinking of Neve now).
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:44 pm  Before reading this forum here's my take on the sound of digital vs tape: As far as I know almost all the engineers and producers that swear by tape are running 24 inch with specific tape formula at 30 ips with specific DBX noise reduction [even these machines need hiss reduction]. There is some variation between engineers as to the tape formulation etc. but they are mostly commenting on this high-speed, wide tape, DBX standard. :shy: The same principal applies to smaller format tape recorders to some extent but there is more butchery of the signal, usually more noticable than the desired compression you're after. X( My vote - Whatever desirable qualities tape provides can eventually be bottled, but in the meantime, with the advent of 24/32-bit recording, capture it digital and then if nesessary run the tracks through a real good 2 inch, 24 trk tape machine and back to digital. Your local commercial studio might even provide this service. 8) As to the extended frequency response of tape improving the sound: Digital at 96kHz. just raised the high frequency bar beyond tape. So all the harmonics on tape are there on digital and then some. That does leave the harmonic distortion from tape, but digital may be able to improve on tape harmonic distortion, and go beyond once it is better understood.
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:35 pm  In regard to frequency response, you may be correct. However, running tape offered the option of slamming the tape hard and getting a saturation that you can not achieve with digital. Sure, there are digital simulators, but I've yet to find one that holds a candle to the real McCoy. FWIW, the ability to edit digitally puts the ball squarely in the digital court, at least for me. I have a pile of old analog gear that still gets pressed into service when I record. So I guess I'm "getting my cake and eating it too"! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:48 pm  Good point! I guess the holy grail of plug-ins is a convincing digital equivalent to "slamming tape hard". I have tried one plug-in with different tape machines, tape formulations and tape speed emulated, but i didn't hear any clearly 'positive' effect from it. [@ 16 bit 44.1kHz.] But maybe, just maybe... with the extra frequencies at 96kHz. a good tape saturation emulator might finally work...
	Topic

Page: