there's one clear primary benefit to PC-based recording. price, in some contexts. if you wanna be able to sonic-architect your nuts off, laying down 20 tracks of overdubs (without destructively mixing tracks together), like a kid in his basement might wanna do, digital is way cheaper. a $500 PC will allow such an abomination to occur. i've done it. to get into an analog recording setup that provides more than 16 discreet tracks, well that seems intrinsically pricey to me. the other thing that makes analog undeniably more expensive is the cost of tape. blank DVDs or blank CDRs don't even come close to what it costs for tape.

for some applications, digital is cheaper; for others, it probably isn't so much cheaper as to be worth passing up the chance to be analog. digital can sound nice if done well. obviously so can analog. a bad engineer = a bad engineer. a bad room = a bad room. bad mic selection/implementation etc etc. in an ideal situation, the money to stay all analog exists. in the real world, it often doesn't.

my final thought: there is absolutely no reason why a studio like Electrical should in any way go digital. that's the title of this thread, right, about the process at Electrical? all analog seems wholly appropriate, doesn't it? maybe the digital vs analog discussion can go back to bed for a little while? it looks sleepy...

ebeam wrote:However, I strongly disagree with those who trash the *sound* of digital audio and think that the above argument supports them in making those claims.

Compare "Music for Egon Schiele" to "Selenography." Compare "Ocean Beach" to "Old Ramon." I love arguing this because I enjoy one type of recording more than the other, just as a listener.

ebeam wrote:Usually, this is from some kid who uses a portastudio because someone told him the Beatles recorded on a 4 track .

Nope. I record on a four-track because someone told me Sebadoh did.


-Noah

Noah wrote: Compare "Music for Egon Schiele" to "Selenography." Compare "Ocean Beach" to "Old Ramon."

...and I like apples better than oranges.

None of Selenography was done with computer, if that's what you were implying with the Egon/Selenography comparison.

best,
Bob

sorry i've been acting like an idiot.



-noah

Bob Weston wrote:None of Selenography was done with computer, if that's what you were implying with the Egon/Selenography comparison.

best,
Bob

I thought and thought about how I could have mistaken this recording for a digital one, and I came up with a good reason:

The last time I heard this album, and in fact the only times I've ever heard it, was on my on-the-way-out Thorens TD190 with a need-to-be-replaced stylus, through two speakers that didn't have foam surrounds. The system was incapable of reproducing any records with detail. So, I could tell the drums were done on tape, but everything else sounded screechy and unrealistic. When I looked at the cover, I saw "Recorded on analog and digital formats," and I said "yeah, that must be why it is so harsh." I just assumed that's what happened. Now that I have listened to the first side of the first record on my new turntable, through healthier speakers, I realize that I was incorrect. It might have been the excessive detail of the dense instrumentation that caused it to sound harsher and more unfinished than "Egon Schiele" on the inferior stereo. I used it as an example because I assumed this harshness to be the result of digital recording. I now realize that this was not the case. This is not the only record I have misjudged for this reason.


-Noah

excuses, excuses

I go away for almost-a two weeks and this fahgina analogio-digitale bullsheet, she is still going on? Noncredibilissimo!

analoglyd wrote:Imagine this: Take a 2" inch tape and run it for 1 second, this is equal to 30" of analog tape - right (at least if you record at 30ips. Now make 44100 holes in this piece of tape (with a thin needle or something). I bet you there will still be tape left. This shows the transmissionloss in digital recording.

What is this with the crazy hole-making? This is of the argumento nonscrutabili! It no makes the sense at all!

analoglyd wrote:I prefer analogue sound over digital.

Finally, you say something not of the crazy-talking! Salut! But then to do so in the prolongamente de argumento analogio-digitale! Disgraziado! Please to letta the argumento sleep a finale, signor! Please!

analoglyd wrote:Grow up will U!

And this, the closing, she is so funny on so many levels. Salut again, Signor analoglyd!

i am simultaneously very proud and very ashamed that i started this thread, which has gone on much, much longer than it should have; and has borne a degree of repetition i have not seen since the presidential debates.

i did get the answer i was looking for, by the way. Steve, and the rest of the staff at EA, i thank you for your dedication to and passion regarding your craft. My apologies for contributing in any way to this ridiculous defense of your facility. i hope to be able to repay you someday, when i have [punches "session estimate calculator"] $1105. Keep up the good work (like you'd ever stop... ha).

and to reiterate: analog does sound better, and anyone who disagrees is lying to themselves and everybody else.