Digital vs. Analog (Recording) .. Pros and Cons?

[MistaMarko]

Just curious. I'd really like to know.

 

[artistanbul]

digital is a one link chain. if it's strong it's strong. analogue is a regular chain, and it's as strong as the weakest link.

digital is less prone to interference.

digital is easier to work on.

if at any point of the workflow is digital, there is data loss when converting. even though a very high level of data can be recorded while converting to digital, it is not as perfect.

it's usually going to be enjoyed as a 16bit digital data anyway...

8 bit leeway is usually enough for subtle corrections.

I'd choose digital wherever possible in a workflow.

 

[DocBop]

Digital has greater dynamic range, which most today squash out with over compression. Is less expensive to get started with. Analog can get more noisy and need more knowledge about electronics to patch. If talking analog media like tape then there are issues with generation loss, hiss, and aging tape. But many analog systems have a warmth and suttle pleasing distortion that many want.

 

[BetterBottomEnd]

Would you rather crawl around with a flashlight repatching cables or time reading online forums and clicking away mindlessly at the computer when something goes wrong?

 

[artistanbul]

digital analog modelers are very cool as well. so warmth and distortion... not really. maybe for realtime-live stuff.. but not for recording.

the same debate goes for film photography and digital photography. digital clearly has more resolution and truth than film, and film has slightly more (but pretty much useless) dynamic range. and after all that, film lovers are left with "film grain" and mystique to back their tastes, though that film grain is perfectly (maybe it shouldn't be that perfect..) simulated now in digital platforms.

it's all the same thing. real data > 16 bits. digital wins.

 

[larry]

Digital samples parts of the sound by plotting the waveform at certain regular intervals, then uses math to reconstruct a waveform that more or less matches the original. Distortion gets added in the process. There are heated debates to what extent listeners can hear it. Many blame "digital coldness" on this distortion. Some don't see it as "cold" at all.

Analog tape adds distortion as well, but it is generally perceived as a more pleasing type of distortion that enhances the sound. It has complex non-linear effects on the sound that are not really duplicated by plug-ins. Many people strongly feel tape just sounds better. I am one of them, but digital certainly has its benefits.

As an archival medium, tape wins. CD's and hard drives do not last more than 10 years or so. Tape can last for many many decades of stored properly.

Each format has is strengths and depends on what you are recording. Neither is "bad", just different. I record digitally then mix down to 1/4" tape. I would rather not use digital, but I record live jazz and can't really drag a reel-to-reel machine around to clubs. It's not ideal for me, but it's the best I can do.

 

[harley_ou812]

A good analog recording will always sound better the a good digital recording. As a media we have been going backwards for years. We sacrifice quality for ease of use. If you take a great record player and a great record and listen to it you will be blown away compared to cds.

That being said I would go with a digital recording interface. No one will probably ever hear your music on a record. No one will probably hear it on tape. Some people will hear it on CD which is digital so it will have to go through the D/A converters anyhow so you lose the benefits of analog. And sadly most people will probably hear it on MP3 which again is digital and not only is it digital but generally it is a crappy format as far as quality goes.

 

[scotch]

When it comes to ease of use digital wins hands down. Editing, mixing & even tracking are far more intuitive & easier to perform in the digital realm.

Sound "quality" is hard to discuss. I agree that analog has more potential for better fidelity. I don't think that potential gets realized very often, however, especially by amateurs & enthusiasts. There are so many ways to "screw things up" with analog. Bad tape edits, noise floor issues, inherent tape noise, lack of non-destructive editing, etc.
As far as which sounds better, I personally have had experiences favoring both mediums. I did find it interesting however, on a PBS documentary, that a group of 10 engineer/mix professionals could only tell the difference less than half of the time.
A good point from an above post: the final product is about 90% sure to be heard in digital form from either a cd or mp3-based technology. Digital sample rates are so high these days, and the converters sound good enough that unless you have some sort of "golden ear" - you will be able to enjoy digitally recorded music.

Does a cd copy of Kind of Blue sound as good as a vinyl record? It depends upon what mood I'm in! I do think that analog recording with digital mixdown has some great benefits. But for the average guy doing recordings here on TB, that's probably not a real-world solution.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[scotch]

A good analog recording will always sound better the a good digital recording. As a media we have been going backwards for years. We sacrifice quality for ease of use. If you take a great record player and a great record and listen to it you will be blown away compared to cds.

That being said I would go with a digital recording interface. No one will probably ever hear your music on a record. No one will probably hear it on tape. Some people will hear it on CD which is digital so it will have to go through the D/A converters anyhow so you lose the benefits of analog. And sadly most people will probably hear it on MP3 which again is digital and not only is it digital but generally it is a crappy format as far as quality goes.

I think this post is pretty much spot-on! Broad generalizations such as "A good analog recording will always sound better the a good digital recording..." are usually erroneous, but I tend to agree with this one. Given, achieving a "good" analog recording is a lot more labor-intensive than a "good" digital recording.

There is something sad about sacrificing quality for ease of use. However, if integrity is the touchstone, than I'd prefer to scrap the "recording" all together & have the original live performance at my beck & call!

 

[larry]

Given, achieving a "good" analog recording is a lot more labor-intensive than a "good" digital recording.

As much as I agree with the rest of your post, I gotta say that (in my opinion, and many others that I've heard anyway) that the way tape flatters the music makes it easier to mix. Digital has to be massaged way more to all sit the same way.

Now if you are talking about maintaining equipment...you might have a point. Though for those who hear the difference and prefer tape - it's not a big deal.

 

[rrr_o_bbb]

A good analog recording will always sound better the a good digital recording. As a media we have been going backwards for years.

I disagree completely. There are major differences from D/A converters used, recording bit depth, mastering and dithering software, etc. With the right tools, superior quality recordings can be achieved at a fraction of the price of top analog components.

 

[scotch]

As much as I agree with the rest of your post, I gotta say that (in my opinion, and many others that I've heard anyway) that the way tape flatters the music makes it easier to mix. Digital has to be massaged way more to all sit the same way.

Now if you are talking about maintaining equipment...you might have a point. Though for those who hear the difference and prefer tape - it's not a big deal.

I'm talking about the process as a whole. Analog equipment requires a lot more maintenance to perform at it's best. Then factor in the roll-up & rollback time that tape recording involves. (it gets to be a chore when editing or communicating production ideas) If you need lots of cuts & pastes, your day just got really long! Not a big deal tracking, but editing is a lot bigger chore.

I do agree that certain sounds are a lot more natural & easy to work with when recorded to tape. Bass especially! And, if you have the time, it is worth the extra work. I just completed a 5 song "ep" project where we recorded all the basic tracks to tape. It really made for a pleasant overall "band" sound. After the basic tracks were done, it was all dumped into protools for additional tracking & editing.

I have worked on projects that have been mixed by "name" engineers. Tom Lord-Alge, Bob Clearmountain, etc. I know that these guys will often bounce individual digital tracks to tape for mixing. So, yeah, there's something about analog that just "sounds right". But, I'd still argue that there is a lot more labor involved!

 

[MikeBass]

For me, it doesn't mean squat.
Sounds slightly different, but not enough to matter to me.
I'm not going to record any records that are 1) gonna get any air play & 2) win any Grammy's.
(When I'm hired for a session, I don't care either, thats not why I'm there anyway)

Marcus Miller recorded & mixed his disc "Silver Rain" (which won a Grammy BTW) using Logic.
Sounds stinkin' great. Clapton sounds good on it too.

Good enough for him, way too good for me!

When you're driving down the road with music playing, it doesn't mean a damn thing to which media it was recorded on in once you factor in all the pot holes, the engine noise, the semi you just passed, the Harley two cars in front of you and you have your window cracked so the smoke from your cigarette doesn't fill your car.
Man, analog suddenly doesn't mean a damn thing..........
Sitting in your living room, unless it's treated, I'm not sure you could tell a huge difference that most say there is.
And if you're sitting around listening to recording all day......man, get a girl friend!!!
Or a dog.

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of us here will never have a chance to record in a studio with engineers who really know what the hell they are doing, nice mic's/mic pre's, analog board and mixed and mastered well, to really be able to discern how it was originally laid down from the beginning.
Let alone actually have the ears to tell as well.

An expertly recorded, mixed and mastered digital recording will sound as good to that same above mentioned 99%.

All IMO/IME as usual.

 

[Nofreshfruit]

The argument that analog is somehow higher sound quality or is "warm" or whatever is ********, it all depends on the QUALITY of the equipment, the engineer, the room, and most importantly the player. Nothing (not even Autotune) will make you a good musician, other than becoming a good musician. That being said, the only advantage analog has over digital is the fact that digital mediums gradually decay, whereas analog tape basically will last forever if kept in the right conditions, but you could always mix everything down onto analog tape if you have a tape machine; for safe keeping.

 

[Ten Four One]

As an archival medium, tape wins. CD's and hard drives do not last more than 10 years or so. Tape can last for many many decades of stored properly.

When the Voyager space probe was launched in the 1970's, it was launched with a gold record with sounds chosen by some of the greatest thinkers of the day - a real cacophony of stuff like whale songs and famous speeches that would make no real sense to an an alien, but I digress.

Voyager came with instructions on how to create a record player using basic parts & I believe some sort of atomic frequency to explain how many revolutions it should make in what time period. Any alien technolog advanced enough to know the frequency of whatever isotope they were talking about should be able to easily recreate a record player.

Try that with a CD or DVD.

 

[artistanbul]

yeah. so if you're planning on sending your records to space, do choose analog. you may still record digital and then convert though

archiving medium is not related to recording process. tapes are used as backups for digital files as well.

 

[improvpwnd]

Digital has greater dynamic range, which most today squash out with over compression.

How do you figure? Digital can go up to 0db.. nowadays tape can go +24db before saturation. if 3db = x2, then analog has 8 times as much headroom! And that is one of analog's pro's and is especially helpful for recordings drums, not to mention analog's ability to record a wider frequency range. That said, mixing, editing, and tracking are all easier in the digital domain.

 

[JimmyM]

Which sounds better? Who cares? Great albums have been recorded on analog, great albums have been recorded on digital. What sells albums? The songs. Never heard anyone complain about an album because of the recording format, only the songs. Just do the best you can with what you've got.

 

[larry]

archiving medium is not related to recording process.

??

If something is not being played, it's being archived.

 

[larry]

The argument that analog is somehow higher sound quality or is "warm" or whatever is ********, it all depends on the QUALITY of the equipment, the engineer, the room, and most importantly the player.

A lot depends on the room, engineer, etc, but all things being equal, they do sound different.