Premier Rock Forum

I'm new here, don't steal my lunch money...

I’m sure this runs the risk of being a tedious subject, as it’s probably been asked countless times. I know very little about recording, engineering, etc. but am interested in the reasons why some artists and engineers seem to prefer using solely analogue equipment, rather than use digital. I think to assume people are ‘scared’ of new technology would be an absurd assumption for most people.

I know there is often an assumption that the digital medium is faultless and infinitely durable – is this even true? I know that digital media such as DATs deteriorate in time, as with analogue tapes. Disks fail, media corrupt. Often, the loss can be sudden and total. So is analogue perhaps more reliable?

Secondly, the sound quality issue. Is the cleanliness of digital recording regarded as characterless, whereas the analogue ‘lets in the weather’ of the recording? Is recording digitally actually superior in terms of sound quality at all?

Or is it a case of the versatility of analogue equipment? Does certain digital equipment have the tendency to be restrictive?

There are probably many more issues than I have thought of – I’d be interested in hearing what they are and what people think of this.


Cheers

John

I'll try to start a ball rolling and we'll see where it takes us. I'm not that much of an expert, but being a musician/amateur engineer, I have been around both mediums and have observed a few things:

I know there is often an assumption that the digital medium is faultless and infinitely durable – is this even true? I know that digital media such as DATs deteriorate in time, as with analogue tapes. So is analogue perhaps more reliable?

DATs are still tapes, so they would deteriorate. However, stored correctly, they last for a while. "Big" tapes (2" masters that are the norm) when stored correctly will probably still be playable 35+ years down the road. The stability of digital media is still being debated, but the question really turns to the hardware. How many digital storage media from 10 years ago can you count on being supported adequately? The visual art scene is having some trouble with this, in terms of work produced many years ago and how to archive it and/or show it.

Is recording digitally actually superior in terms of sound quality at all?

Analog is more truthful, because there is no conversion rate. Digital tends to add a false mid-range that is pleasing to the normal palate, but artificial. You should check out that crappy bootleg someone took off the (digital) soundboard for proof that a digital recording does not necessarily insure a good one.

Does certain digital equipment have the tendency to be restrictive?

Analog will give a little bit if you push it. Levels can be "in the red" and still sound good, perhaps even desirable. Digital distortion is a terrible thing.

All that said, there's something very easy and accessible about editing your music on the computer. Those of us with no skills with a razor blade and grand delusions of complexity sort of see it as a revolution. But it's an ongoing debate...

a few things

1. Our ears and brain are analog.

2. If done right, it would be hard to tell the differance between the two. So much of recording is up to the person running the controls having good ears and knowing what they are doing.

3. Many studios utilize both now, often on the same recordings.

4. So much equipment now from samplers and mixers to keyboards and effects are digital now.

5. Ultimatly quality difference between the two comes down to opinion.

Remember we are only talking about the tools to create/record so choose the tools that will best help you create. I find no fault with anyone that needs to spend $200 + for 12 minutes of 2" tape, calibrates their machine, and mixes to 1/2" tape on a deck made before I was born. If that gets you where you want to be to create, than do it! If you need a 4 track cassette recorder, get one. ProTools, minidisc, wire recorded, whatever. High fidelity means little when you aren't comfortable enough to get to the moment of creation.

There was a pretty well thought out discussion of the longevity of digital recording posted a while back. Good info, not much name calling.

Hang on for a sec, let me see if I can find it.

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... t=radar+24

Note that this doesn't go too much into sound quality or aesthetic considerations (such as creation or presentation of the music).

Actually, that's an interesting point that I just brought up. From a making-music point of view, using either an analog or digital recording process makes a big difference. This is especially if fucking around with the recording is part of the creation process. Tape can do all sorts of stuff when physically manipulated, while digital recording potentially offers you all sorts of control over creative editing.

= Justin

From a making-music point of view, using either an analog or digital recording process makes a big difference. This is especially if fucking around with the recording is part of the creation process. Tape can do all sorts of stuff when physically manipulated, while digital recording potentially offers you all sorts of control over creative editing

This was one of my considerations re the versatility aspect of analogue equipment. With regard to what capnreverb said about keyboards and effects, often people will buy an analogue synth because it is more manipulable than digital. Some pretty cool effects have been achieved (early Sparks springs to mind) in this way which would probably not be achievable on a digital piece of equipment. But I could be wrong.

Thanks for that link to the other post - that certainly gave me a lot of answers!

Just another thought though...

If done right, it would be hard to tell the differance between the two. So much of recording is up to the person running the controls having good ears and knowing what they are doing.

I agree, much of it must be down to the person running the controls, but the implication here is that if you can tell the difference between the two, it is being done wrong. Is it not sometimes the case that an engineer or artist may wish to highlight the traits of the medium or media they are using? Could this not be an advantageous thing?


Just running it up the flagpole.

Is it not sometimes the case that an engineer or artist may wish to highlight the traits of the medium or media they are using? Could this not be an advantageous thing?

That's actually something I've been fascinated with for a long time. The great thing about those analog synths is that when they fuck up, it can give some really amazing results. Another great thing is when you saturate the tape so that all the frequencies "crunch together" (I'm sorry I don't have a more technical way of explaining this). Anyway, this stuff doesn't really happen with digital equipment. When digital fails, it's usually total or unappealing. Maybe that's because the failure hasn't been utilised enough to be commonplace, I don't know. Will we ever really want to hear that pitch-shift error-correction effect from that Cher song over and over? I know I don't.

also this:

The visual representation that comes with digital recording (on a computersystem that is) makes a great difference.
When I started recording, everything was going digital.
My perception of music was thus based on the waveform-editing of music software. When working in the analogue domain, sound is only represented by sound. I think this makes you listen 'more'.
Of course you can turn of your computer-monitor and just listen to digital audio.
'cut and paiste' is also not only a digital thing.( Just think of Miles Davis' seventies recording output, Musique Concréte, etc...)
For sound quality: if i had the choice, i'd pick analog anytime over digital. Yet sometimes this choice isn't relevant or possible (location recording vs studio etc.).
Anyway.... have fun all of you!

c