Digital vs. Analog
Home > Home Recording Forum > Gear Gab > Digital vs. Analog
Posted on Apr 26, 2002 02:11 pm
Johnny Hero
Member Since: Apr 26, 2002
It seems to me that everyone here records directly onto their computers. Why is this? I've heard stuff done by people with all this expensive digital gear and most of it doesn't sound much better than my little old 4 track. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the way you do things, I'm just wondering if there's anyone on here who records like I do...
If you want to hear some of my old bands stuff, go to www.panicfish.com and if you want to hear the most recent I have uploaded, go to www.angelfire.com/emo/modestmouse0/index.html
All of this was done on my Tascam 414mkII, and then transfered to Goldwave. I know it isn't the best quality, but I haven't heard anything out of a home studio yet that's sounded much better.
So if anyone can answer my question, whatever it was, it would be much appriciated.
[ Back to Top ]
Apr 26, 2002 02:28 pm Because digital is much easier to work with, and much cheaper for the home studio user, not to mention much clearer results and easier to send it to CD. In a digital studio you buy one reverb effect and you can use it on as many tracks as you want, in an analog studio if you want to add different reverb to different tracks on mixdown you need an effect box for each channel.
Editing in the digital domain is ten times easier (at least) than doing it on analog tape and you have more precise control over more aspects of the sound. And there are plugings that do an absolutely incredible job of saturating the music to give it that analog warmth. With a PC based studio in anyone's basement you can produce totally professional recordings that you couldn't at all tell were "homemade" compared to the pros if you take your time and know what you are doing.
Other than all of that, I dunno why anyone would use a computer :-)
Apr 26, 2002 02:47 pm Well I see your point, however I still prefer the cheap 4-track thing. I never really liked those "perfect" sounding recordings. I find the little imperfections here and there are what make the song itself stand out. Take one of my favorite bands Modest Mouse for example. I'm not sure how they record, but a lot of it sounds pretty lo-fi. And if you listen there are a lot of mistakes left in. I don't think they do any digital editing. Take "Trucker's Atlas" for example. Not the Lonesome Crowded West version... I'm not sure what this one's called, but there are a lot of mistakes. Well as usual I've been rambling. Any idea what I'm trying to say?
Apr 26, 2002 03:00 pm ya I know what you are trying to say, but you have a large misconception about digital recording, just because it is done on a PC doesn't make it perfect, you are still recording the same musician(s) mistakes and all, yes, digital makes it easier to remove those mistakes, but that does not mean you have to, I agree slight tempo changes and different "human factors" of playing ARE what make a recording cynamic and cool, but a computer captures those the same as a tape, it just stores it in a different way.
Just because it is on a PC does not make it perfect, again, it is just a different way of capturing the same sounds.
If you prefer the cheap 4-track thing, that's fine, but it is quite obvious that you have never worked much in a digital enviroment, we deal with the same things that you do, punching out bad notes, over-dubbing solos, re-taking vocal tracks and all that other crap that any analog studio does. Just because the sound is captured onto a hard drvie instead of a tape doesn't make it "magically" flawless.
Apr 26, 2002 03:08 pm My previous band Undergreen recorded with all digital stuff, and the overall product didn't sound any better than what I've done with my 4-track, which was my overall point. I know people that spend a lot of money on digital stuff and in my opinion (and sometimes theirs) the overall product isn't worth what they paid. I really haven't had a WHOLE lot of experience in the digital feild, but from what I've heard so far, I think that a very simialr sound quality can still be achived on an analog machine.
As for the misconceptions you said I had, my last post was rather off track with what I was trying to say (which happens a lot). Also, I'd like to add, I didn't start this thread to cause an arguement or a debate... I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on digital and analog and see if anyone here used analog. Having said that, anyone else have any opinions? And if anyone has listened to the songs from the websites I've listed in previous posts, do you have any sugestions?
Apr 26, 2002 03:20 pm i think hes talking more about audio quality than the ability of it.
like listening to a very digital and well produced album.. for the hell of it.. any limp bizkit disc (as much as i hate them).. their sound is almost too clean.
digital can give you that sound.. its up to the person behind the computer to warm it up and give it some analog feel.
as far as mistakes and the like go.. whatever works for your style of music. some want that flawless recording (they will do many takes achieving it).. some want it to sound a little warmer and human. again, it depends on the band and personal preference.
in the digital world, it is just easier to edit and manipulate. also, the potential for studio grade recordings exists in digital compared to analog equipment (unless actually done in a studio)
maybe i missed the point.. but i think this is what he was referring to.
Apr 26, 2002 03:27 pm also.. im a digital fan completely. i dont need perfect takes on my guitar tracks, etc.. but i do like the coldness and crispness of the digital field (im a coldwave/industrial artist).
id go broke paying for all the tape to do the editing and processing that i do. =)
Apr 26, 2002 03:25 pm I am not arguing, I just read some misconceptions and wanted to address them, that's all. In the big picture, no recording , regardless of the medium used, is any better than the person operating the gear, an idiot with digital gear will make a lousy digital recording, an idiot with analog gear will make a lousy analog recording.
I personally have been recording sound in general be it band or whatever, for about 20 years, as the concept of capturing sound began to intrigue me at a very young age, and I have never beed happier with it since I got into a digital based environment, the control I have over the sound is outstanding, which, in my perosnal opinion, beats the hell out of scrambling around a spool of tape to look for the one note that is off and punching it out...blah, blah, the list goes on.
I am not saying I am right, I am not saying people that feel otherwise are wrong, everyone uses what works best for them, for me, digital works best, I would not go back to analog for anything...if you ever want to upgrade to 8 track analog I have a Tascam syncassette I would love to sell, remote control, snakes and everything.
Apr 26, 2002 04:45 pm hey dingo.. i added comments about the tracks over in the other forum on the left.. little more appropriate for feedback type stuff.
MSHARCMember
Since: Apr 05, 2002
Apr 26, 2002 06:20 pm I haven't done as much analog recording as I have digital, but I can say that digital is the way to go, for me that is. I don't care how much you like mistakes, if someone reallyu flubs a solo or a riff, its a flub, not a litle accident. I haven't seen too many people that can play a solo or lots of riffs in a song and do them near perfect the whole recording. I know they exisit, but I have yet to accomplish it. Plus, if you are laying tracks back over one another its so much easier to just make another track rather than bouncing a track down and losing control over a track after that. Just make another track and record. Plus, putting markers and everything into a track view makes it a lot easier to remember when to play a certain part or whatever.
The biggest thing I found though is that tape is limited. Obviously a higher quality analog multi-tracker is probably not, but I have heard analog recordings that just lacked a good low-end puch or whatever and this I believe may have been dur to the limitations of the tape they were using. Either way though, dB is right, its simply another way of storing, the same basic information is there.
Marc (da Sharc)
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Apr 27, 2002 12:18 am You're in Modest Mouse Dingo? Cool beans man, when are ya'll coming to houston next? I missed your last show.
Apr 27, 2002 12:11 pm First of all, I'm not in Modest Mouse, however I am a HUGE fan.
I appriciate everyone taking the time to respond. Thanks for the insight. And dB, how much for the gear?
Apr 27, 2002 12:51 pm $300 asking price, not to many years ago it sold for over $1000, 8 track rackmount unit with wired remote (long wire) that can do darn near anything on the machine, has punching features, records at dual speed and vitual NO bleed-over which you almost never find in any 8-track cassette, I still have the manual and all snakes both in and out. I also have the original packaging for shipping. I cleaned the whole deck before packing it up (last years sometime).
I had a lot of fun on that deck :-) It clean and in mint condition.
stupeMember
Since: Apr 03, 2002
Apr 27, 2002 10:06 pm just putting in my 2 cents. but i think going digital is about OPTIONS. with a little cheappy four track, you can only get so much out of it. with digital, you can run different effects into it and get it to sound many different ways. dingo, i listened to your sound samples. and it sounds like the music you record is fairly simplistic or "lo-fi", so that type of music would sound fine on a analog four track. but once you incorporate midi, and different effects, your options are limited with a four track. also, if you are an audio guru or into mastering, you can hear more differences between sounds. what you would consider "almost the same quality" to another sound, is really not to other people with a "mature" ear.
Apr 28, 2002 10:44 am Hey dB, if you don't mind waiting a month, I'll give you $300 for it... does it use a standard cassette?
stupeMember
Since: Apr 03, 2002
Apr 28, 2002 11:01 am db. does an adat tape. sound warmer because it is a tape? or is it the same as digital recording, because it is a digital tape?
Apr 28, 2002 01:19 pm ADAT is still a digital tape, so it's just digital data like everything else digital as far as I know, also, ADAT is a dying breed, if you are not using it right now, I definately wouldn't consider getting into it now, other than it is getting really cheap now :-)
One band I was in recorded on an ADAT, I found it to be a total pain in the butt, youhave all the hastle factor of recording analog (messing with tape punching and junk, but none of the advantages of digital, such as the cool editing and stuff...what a hastle...
And Dingo, that's a deal, I just sent you an email, I just checked last night to make sure I have all the parts and such, so it is all together and ready to go whenever you are. It's a great little unit, I just don't have the need for it any more...and yes, it odes use standard cassettes, I always used the TDK Pro series, they rock and I got great sound out of it.
Apr 28, 2002 02:19 pm Hey dB, do you happen to have a pic of it or know of a link where I can see a pic and possibly read some info?
Apr 28, 2002 04:32 pm Here is one I found on the net:
www.phys.tue.nl/people/et...lti/tascam.html
It has some pretty useful information, the model I have doesn't have the type S dolby, I personally never thought much of type S...and they don't say much about the remote, which arms and records tracks as well as many other things.
Also, this deck can, if your mixer can, record all 8 tracks at the same time, hugely cool!
Apr 28, 2002 05:46 pm 8 tracks simultanious... well that was going to be my next question... I'll definatly buy it. $300, right?
Apr 28, 2002 05:49 pm you got it...how about spliting the shipping? is that cool with you, then I will just ship it COD for 300$ plus half the shipping charges (probably another 10 or 15 bucks considering the size and wieght).
Of course I won't ship it until I get the OK from you that you gots da money.
Apr 28, 2002 07:05 pm Splitting the shipping is cool with me. Give me about 3 weeks and I'll have the money. One question though... do the seperate tracks have EQ controls?
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 28, 2002 08:33 pm Hey Dingo, nice purchase. You will like it and I will tell ya that dB take's good care of his gear.
Now somewhere down the road when you find the tape is not enough, you can alway's combine the two medium's (digital and analog). I did it for a long time. Locking tape to digital gear, including midi sequancer's and the like. And as far as the digital domain goes, I was a die hard analog guy untill I spent a few week's editing and playing with a PC. I am gald and forever gratefull I made the switch. But I do miss the warm fuzzy's of tape. Although now I can produce virtually the same sound's on the PC with various plug's.
Apr 28, 2002 10:04 pm No, there is no EQ, this is just a very sophisticed recording deck, EQ would be in the mixer that you would have to pair with this deck. This is a rack mount unit with all the bells and whistles, but like any pro or semi-pro recording deck, the mixer is not part of the deck.
Apr 29, 2002 08:36 am So I link my mixer to the deck and use the EQ controls on it? I'm a little confused as to how that works...
Apr 29, 2002 08:49 am I believe right now you unit is a combo deal, deck and mixer in one. This is not the norm, usually the mixer runs out into the recorder and puts the sound onto the tape, all multitrack tape decks have ins and outs for each track, so each track can then send the signal to the mixer to play it back as well, so while you are recording on a couple tracks, the deck is playing back the other tracks to monitor.
Basically, the cool situation for this type of setup is this (though this is not necessary) A large mixer (16 channels is great) with eight of the channels running to the recording deck and the outs from the recording deck running back into the other eight. OR you can run inserts on eight channels that run the signal out to the mixer and back into the mixer in one jack. There are a number of configuration options, it all comes down to what works best for you and your band. I will tell ya though, that this type of setup is best, as the combo setups are usually quite limited in regards to their mixers and signal routing options, a friend of mine has a combo 8-track thing and it is a total hastle becasue of those limitations, you buy a standalone mixer (which you don't need right away, any will work) you can get the coolest one or the simplest one you want, or use your existing one...it's much easier to get to work for your specific needs.
Apr 29, 2002 02:57 pm That will work great for me. I have an 8 chanel mixer right now...
Depending on my next paycheck, I might just have you ship it on Monday. I'm not sure yet though. I'll let you know friday night.
Apr 29, 2002 03:22 pm That would be cool, Monday is my birthday, so a $300 present for myself would be cool :-)
Apr 29, 2002 08:41 pm Well let's just plan on that unless you hear otherwise from me...
