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

[harley_ou812]

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.

When you listen to something that has been in a digital format at any stage of its life it now has become an approximate of the sound. when its been analog its entire life you are listening to the actual waves. you can say its bull all you want but i can definatly hear the difference between a record and a CD and with the record it has a warmth and soul that is lost in the zeros and ones that is digital.

That being said as I stated in my earlier post This is almost a moot point as 90% of people will never hear anything in an analog media anymore. So I would say go digital.

 

[projectMalamute]

When you listen to something that has been in a digital format at any stage of its life it now has become an approximate of the sound. when its been analog its entire life you are listening to the actual waves.

This is nonsense.

Changing magnetic flux on plastic tape is no more 'the actual waves' than a digital representation.

Any attempt to freeze time is going to have some distortions, the severity and types of distortions vary depending on what you are using.

 

[MikeBass]

DSD:
Invalid Link Removed
Interesting read.
No multi-track at "consumer" pricing though.

 

[larry]

This is nonsense.

Changing magnetic flux on plastic tape is no more 'the actual waves' than a digital representation.

Any attempt to freeze time is going to have some distortions, the severity and types of distortions vary depending on what you are using.

Absolutely. Both formats add distortion, period. It's just different kinds of distortion.

There are really long threads going on right now in several recording forums about which is "better". Folks tend to exaggerate the flaws of the format they like less which heats up the debate in a non-helpful way.

I have digital recording gear and reel-to-reel gear. I prefer the sound of tape, but it's my subjective opinion.

BTW, if the argument is that it all ends up on CD anyway, keep in mind that tape adds harmonic distortion to the audio. It adds color to the sound (similar to what tubes or transformers do vs solid state) and will affect the final product even when it winds up as an MP3.

 

[kalle74]

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.

You do realize that 0dBFS(digital) and 0dB(analog nominal-level) are completely different subjects altogether, don´t you...

digital has better s/n ratio (due to no magnetic-tape hiss) and has more editing capability.

analog suffers from generation loss, quite poor s/n ratio, and compression ("warmth"). it also sounds quite nice, despite its problems.

 

[larry]

You do realize that 0dBFS(digital) and 0dB(analog nominal-level) are completely different subjects altogether, don´t you...

digital has better s/n ratio (due to no magnetic-tape hiss) and has more editing capability.

analog suffers from generation loss, quite poor s/n ratio, and compression ("warmth"). it also sounds quite nice, despite its problems.

Digital does have better s/n. Tape is still very good. At 30 ips hiss is almost non-existent. At 15 ips it's still very low.

I think the warmth comes from the additional harmonics, not the compression.

As I understand it (possibly I'm wrong), the compression is not linear - it rolls off the highs and lows as it saturates. I believe our ears work the same way as volume increases. Possibly a reason why so many prefer tape - it mimics our own hearing better.

 

[artistanbul]

??

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

I mean after you have your digitally recorded mastered blinged etc. file, you can archive it on tape. DAT/DDS

 

[Nofreshfruit]

One thing I will say in the CD vs. LP format battle, is that people who listen to vinyl generally tend to have stereos with good components, great speakers, etc., whereas CD and MP3 listeners alot of times have terrible playback equipment (Computer speakers, earbuds, etc.) so it will never sound as good. My car has a great stereo, and CDs sound just as good as my vinyl collector friend's big stereo.

Analog tape does tend to compress the sound alot more, but it's not the actual waves. I actually really like the sound that the tape imparts, but the only way to hear the "real thing" is to hear the real thing. There's no sound quality degradation when recording to digital, at least not anymore than when recording to analog. The end result depends on more factors than the medium through which sound is recorded.

Oh yes, and plastic, which is what you make analog recordings with, is about the most soulless material on the planet.

 

[improvpwnd]

You do realize that 0dBFS(digital) and 0dB(analog nominal-level) are completely different subjects altogether, don´t you...

digital has better s/n ratio (due to no magnetic-tape hiss) and has more editing capability.

analog suffers from generation loss, quite poor s/n ratio, and compression ("warmth"). it also sounds quite nice, despite its problems.

Yes, OK, but let's look at it this way...

0 on your VU meter is about -18dbFS. If that VU can go up +24 without clipping, that gives you 6db (24-18=6) more headroom in analog.
Plus, there is no 'bit-depth' in analog--the dynamic range has no lowest possible bit sample--so it will hear quieter sounds. (Lowest 16 bit sample = 0000 0000 0000 0001 = -96db, 24 bit = 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 = -144db)

 

[kalle74]

0 on your VU meter is about -18dbFS. If that VU can go up +24 without clipping, that gives you 6db (24-18=6) more headroom in analog.
Plus, there is no 'bit-depth' in analog--the dynamic range has no lowest possible bit sample--so it will hear quieter sounds. (Lowest 16 bit sample = 0000 0000 0000 0001 = -96db, 24 bit = 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 = -144db)

while it´s true analog has no lowest possible bit sample (as it isn´t based on samples), the quietest sounds are obscured with noise, tape hiss. with the best of noise-reduction systems, analog tape has a s/n ratio of roughly 100dB versus 144dB of digital 24-bit as you stated. so the significance of headroom is greatly inflated...

nothing says your 0dBVU must be at -18dBFS. you can go lower to -24dBFS or -30dBFS if your recordings need that huge overhead in dynamics.

 

[larry]

I mean after you have your digitally recorded mastered blinged etc. file, you can archive it on tape. DAT/DDS

Digital tape is not suitable for long-term archiving.

http://www.minidisc.org/dat_archiving.html
For preservation, said Gibson, the Library of Congress -- the largest information collector in the world -- depends on half track, quarter-inch analog audio tape for backing up its over three million sound recordings. "Further, we are very leery of any compression schemes for the long term storage of preservation masters because of fear compression means loss of information regardless of how good the algorithm is," he said.

 

[Inflin]

From a production angle, analog is the sound of the past. A very pleasing sound, but an old and outdated sound. I prefer the crisp clean sounds of digital over fat gloopy analog.

And thats not even taking into account the world of pain that is tape editing, or some kooky valve gear exploding half way through a $2000 guitar take.

 

[KrispyJones]

you can here our anlog recording (was also masterd analog)
Link Removed

 

[badstonebass]

I find the problem lies in the experience of the RECORDER and the RECORDEE.

Digital mediums have allowed less experienced...well pretty much everyone to do their own recordings.....by-passing the use of experieinced production and engineering teams.

Many FAMOUS bands use digital inorder to be in complete "control".

Digital has allowed many less talented people who would never have been allowed to blow money in an analog studio become instant producers.

However not EVERYBODY has the talent to be a record producer.

I myself have found that it took many trials and errors to get a nice, warm, digital recording. It can be done.

Their are MANY ANALOG recordings that are revered YET they pretty much SUCK.....the SONGS are what make a recording great.

Use Digital or Analog....as long as the songs are good....the recording will be.

My personal experience is that operating and working in DIGITAL is 100 times easier for the person trying to make a recording with little experience OR little funds.

With my 16 track digital recorder and a few MEDIOCRE mics I have been able to make recordings that sound SUPERIOR to recordings of my favorite bands....however my SONGS don't stack up.

Digital is great for the fact it has taken the POWER away from "record companies". Now the PUBLIC can really decide who has the good music.

 

[larry]

From a production angle, analog is the sound of the past.

By that logic, you probably use ALL digital-electronics gear then, right? After all, tube and transformer technology is about as old as magentic tape.

Does Avalon know about that?

 

[Inflin]

By that logic, you probably use ALL digital-electronics gear then, right? After all, tube and transformer technology is about as old as magentic tape.

Does Avalon know about that?

Perhaps I came off a little TOO dismissive of analog, what I mean is, it's a certain, distinctive sound, that I feel isn't right for a band with a modern sound, especialy when we're talking electronica and the like; And most of this thread was talking about analog processes like recording to tape, and being "analog purists"
I make no bones about admitting I'll stay in the digital domain as much as possible, with digital desks and recording to hard drive or DAT.
And as much as I enjoy the tube sound, I just don't think it gives what I'm looking for in a lot of the music I work with, and would prefer to use a high quality solid state signal path 90% of the time. I'm sure Avalon knows that why I use U5's in every session but rarley warm up a tube channel strip.

I was pretty much talking about tape and tubes, not oscillators and op-amps

 

[kalle74]

back to original thread, pros and cons (only a few):

ANALOG:

pros:

-nice "character" imparted to recorded signals
-difficulty of edits (the players have to have their s**t together)
-long lasting archives
-tape compression and saturation
-real knobs vs. mousework

cons:

-generation loss
-difficulty of edits (if the players don´t have their s**t together)
-degrading (low quality, or old) tape
-tape hiss

DIGITAL:

pros:

-no generation loss
-easy edits (if need be, hopefully not)
-plugins (many instances, one price)
-cheap storage
-no tapehead lining and cleaning the heads
-no downtime rewinding
-no real track limit

cons:

-somewhat soul-less sound, being very sterile
-no saturation or compression (simulatons available, though)
-editing (turn s**t into gold)
-autotune (actually singers who don´t bother rehearsing or training themselves)
-no real track limit

 

[seamonkey]

The amazing thing about digital is cost is so really low.
Compared to owning high end analogue anybody with a decent computer can do really amazing digital recording and processing. With an even higher end computer you can do tracking live effects as well.

Archiving is actually cheap if you use a RAID 5 array.

Nobody seems to be praising the glory of gramophones. Technology moves on.

 

[larry]

DIGITAL:

pros:

-no generation loss

To my knowledge, there may be some equivelent of generational loss in digital. Summing, dithering, or processing of almost any kind adds artifacts which are not part of the original signal. Mixing "out of the box" into outboard compressors, etc. adds another trip through the converters where you can add distortion.

 

[larry]

The amazing thing about digital is cost is so really low.
Compared to owning high end analogue anybody with a decent computer can do really amazing digital recording and processing. With an even higher end computer you can do tracking live effects as well.

Archiving is actually cheap if you use a RAID 5 array.

Nobody seems to be praising the glory of gramophones. Technology moves on.

No one is going to argue that a gramaphone sounds better than what we have today.

Digital is cheap and easy. That does not make it sound better. That is subjective, sure, but there's an awful lot of people with that opinion.