Mar 02, 2004 05:53 pm Digital for it's convenience and low cost vs analog.
Dan
If you had to choose.
Posted on Mar 02, 2004 03:53 pm
Gregor
Member Since: Jan 08, 2004
If you had to choose just one....yes just one form of recording, which would it be analog or digital?
Mine would be digital for cost effectiveness, ease of use and sound quality.
[ Back to Top ]
Mar 02, 2004 05:53 pm Digital for it's convenience and low cost vs analog.
Dan
Mar 04, 2004 02:37 pm I'd have to say analog, simply because of the smooth sound you get when recording with the 2", as compared to digital.
Mar 04, 2004 06:08 pm Digital - no doubt.
If you want it to sound "warm" just stick the premaster on 2" tape and off you go.
Mar 04, 2004 09:37 pm DIGITAL without a doubt
Mar 04, 2004 09:54 pm i concur
it's cheaper
easier
scalable
convenient
it's got everything but natural warmth, and you can just buy something to fake that with later :)
Mar 04, 2004 10:18 pm Digital
Cost effective
indellable
no sound added by the media
more descreate control over processing
Mar 05, 2004 04:34 am The funniest part is that most people really don't consider is that the alledged "natural warmth" of analog is really just a mild case of distortion...
Mar 05, 2004 09:12 am Amen dB! It has always been a convoluted comparison. Anolog being the incumbant is considered to be the standard that digital is compared to. Ok fine...digital does not sound like analog..and that means?
Mar 05, 2004 10:14 am Yup,is funny that people tend to call distortion "warm" and a true representation of sound "harsh"
I'll stay in the digital domain forever
Mar 05, 2004 12:04 pm Our ears have grown accustomed to analog over the years. I mean has anyone here calibrated an analog 24 track? It's a nightmare!And de-magnetizing the heads were nerve wrecking! at least it was for me. That's what lead me to digital and have never looked back.
Most analog multi track machines boost the lows and highs and with digital it's flat, you get out what you put in and so our ears hearing less emphasis on the lows/highs tend to call it brittle as if you take the lows and highs and make them flat (when we are used to them boosted all the time)the mid range seems boosted and our ears here that mid range freq as louder when it really is not.
Mar 05, 2004 12:17 pm I wonder if anyone thinks that might be the reason why nobody tends to rave about the pres on the Behringer mx602a mixer - do you suppose it's because they don't color the sound at all, or is it more likely that they do color the sound, and just give it the "cold" and brittle sound in a way that's completely different?
Mar 05, 2004 01:21 pm The MX pres do color the sound a little. The Pre's in the UB series mixers are significantly cleaner than MX's pre's, it is audibly better...tho the MX's are still decent for the price range the mixers play in.
I had a UB and an MX mixer at the same time for a short period of time (until Jamie bought my MX) and I tried them side by side and could hear the difference.
Mar 07, 2004 06:28 am Quote:
I wonder if anyone thinks that might be the reason why nobody tends to rave about the pres on the Behringer mx602a mixer - do you suppose it's because they don't color the sound at all, or is it more likely that they do color the sound, and just give it the "cold" and brittle sound in a way that's completely different?
i like a little colouration sometimes it adds something to the lofi nonsense i do sometimes. i love my 602!
Mar 07, 2004 11:01 am I think any pre-amp is going to color the sound in some way. I think the important thing is that it is quiet, covers the frequency range well and doesn't add any distortion to the signal. It's much like chosing a mic, or instrument go with the one that gives you the sound you like.
Dan
Mar 07, 2004 02:54 pm I'm with OldDog!
I can color the sonic image of most anything in software. I can't clean it up. I did one recording once with a pair of NT1 microphones. The customer complained about the unnatural crispness of the horn secton. I got the response curve of the microphone and ran the file through "reverse eq" (flattened the response) and walla! Happy customer! Now maybe in another ten years I will use nothing but "blue" mics as my ear develops or maybe I will be primarally def from recording too many rock groups, but at present give me a mic that is clean and I am a happy camper!
Mar 07, 2004 03:38 pm I like using both.... but if push came to shove it wouldn't even be a contest. ANALOG!
Mar 07, 2004 04:07 pm Hehehehe... somehow I just knew you were going to chime in on that thread dB.
Mar 07, 2004 08:02 pm It would be nice if I had more room, I would love to have the best of both, but space being a limit as well as time being the biggest factor digital is still the faster and smaller of the two.
Nice going dB. Im glad were all acting like adults here. :-P
Mar 08, 2004 02:24 pm Yeah Noize, I understand where you guys are coming from with the cost, space and mantaining analog equipement.
It's great where we are recording our cd. The only extra cost we have is the tape. They burnt up a motor on the Otari analog reel. So, we cancelled our time until they got it fixed. I just love the sound of tape. There is one song we have that I was thinking about doing in digital. I could have heard that song with more of an edge, colder, and somewhat harsher. But, we recorded it in analog and it sounds great, so that thought has passed. We did do some of our backup harmonies right to digital. On one song our singer did his parts to tape and me and the guitarist sang to a hard drive. The contrast, and the way they blended sounded really sweet.
Mar 08, 2004 10:39 pm Indeed Karetaker. I know several bands and artists that record to tape and then transfer to digital to work. That is one to have the best of both worlds. I think even Larry Crane does a lot of work that way.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.