[Recording] Digital vs. Analog

M

Minstrel

Contributor
Veteran XX
So... There are multiple schools of thought on this subject. As we all know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and everyone elses stinks. I would like toknow what some of the more prolific and professional musicians within our midst think. Mark, Tony, Ani, Alek, and I know there are some more out there who have extensive experience on this subject. Weigh in with your opinions.

I for one think that maybe back in the 90s and maybe even early 00s you could tell the difference, and I have read articles from professional and sought out producers and producers I personally know that swear by analog 2 inch tape. Myself, I think digital has come along so far that you can't tell the difference without some very very advanced metering equipment The human ear just isn't sensitive enough to pick up the very small difference now adays.
 
Minstrel said:
So... There are multiple schools of thought on this subject. As we all know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and everyone elses stinks. I would like toknow what some of the more prolific and professional musicians within our midst think. Mark, Tony, Ani, Alek, and I know there are some more out there who have extensive experience on this subject. Weigh in with your opinions.

I for one think that maybe back in the 90s and maybe even early 00s you could tell the difference, and I have read articles from professional and sought out producers and producers I personally know that swear by analog 2 inch tape. Myself, I think digital has come along so far that you can't tell the difference without some very very advanced metering equipment The human ear just isn't sensitive enough to pick up the very small difference now adays.
Click to expand...

Tape is shit, now.
My 4 track reel to reel sits in the garage while I use my 16 track digi every day.
recorder.jpg
 
A true audiophile can tell the difference, but that's a really small segment of the population. Most people's ears are crap from listening to poor quality mp3s and such for years anyway.

I also don't think it's a VS. thing. One is not better than the other, they are simply different. To me analog gives a more blended or rounded sound. Digital seems to make different tracks "more separate", or crisp. Depends on the end product you're shooting for I guess.
 
Last edited:
I can tell a difference in a heartbeat if I'm A/Bing the same source recorded to both mediums. Transients, especially drums, sound different (a whole lot!) and everything else just has a ton more harmonic distortion on it. The numbers bear this out: Look at the THD of a Studer vs. the THD of a Protools or SSL digital interface. The digital interface basically doesn't have any; the Studer has a significant amount that varies based on gain.

A local studio, Ultrasuede, has a 24-track tape machine. They run all signals into this machine and the signal is recorded directly to tape. The playback head then feeds the digital interfaces - last I checked they were using Metric Halo units. This imparts the "feel" and THD of tape, and gets it into a editable format. Not to say tape's not editable, but there are very few proficient razor jockeys left around :) (In the old days, a proficient tech could use a razor blade and stripe out a particular track from 24-track tape, and splice it into another take of the same song, seamlessly - much like we do today with cut & paste).

The sound of analog is definitely still viable. But it's a dying breed - hence 3M's exit from the tape media market, as well as Ampex - and so no one except the Neil Youngs and Pearl Jams of today's day & age can afford tape. So it's a moot point. Honestly - get a UAD2 card and run the Empirical Fatso plugin - it's close enough for anything we do nowadays.
 
The difference between digital and analog is very easy to hear. However at this point which one sounds better is all a matter of preference.

I have trouble believing that analog equipment (tape machines and outboard gear) will be commonly used in the future. Its just too expensive and no one trying to make money in a struggling industry is going to want to spend 3k on a LA-2A when they can buy the plug in for $300 or steal it for free.
 
With the higher bit depths and samples rates these days it's sometimes hard to distinguish an analog vs digital recording, but like old_skul said, when doing an A/B comparison you can definitely still tell the difference. I like the sounds of both analog and digital recordings, and I think they both have their uses, but obviously digital is far better to work with. So from a studio standpoint, at least for me, I'd rather record in the digital world (ProTools), through an analog console.
 
The cool thing about the "old school" ways, though, is that unless you intend to do serious editing with a razor blade, you had *better* be at 100% when entering the studio. Bands in the old days were WAY better players in terms of their ability to interact musically with others than modern bands are - because they *had* to be. Don't get me wrong, modern bands interact just fine.

A good example of this is my last recording with Chakras - we came in to the studio, and recorded a couple of songs at a time. In each session, only the drums were "keepers", with a couple of exceptions. Everything else was overdubbed. There's a couple of tunes with other bands I've recorded, though, where everything was live - and it was awesome. Sometimes spontaneity is king.
 
Ah, the ole' 2 track reel to reel days. We'd do drums, bass, rhythm on one track. Vocals, backing vocals, lead work on the other. Had to be tight, tight.
 
I went fucking nuts trying to record on my 8 track, seemed like I was bouncing down left and right. I couldn't even imagine only using a 2 track...

I've been spoiled by modern digital laziness.
 
8 tracks is easy.

Kick
Snare
Overhead
Bass
Gtr 1
Gtr 2
Keys (or whatever)
Vox

That said - I did invest in a second bank of 8 last winter, so I can do 16 now. Fuck, I don't have that many mics.
 
old_skul said:
The cool thing about the "old school" ways, though, is that unless you intend to do serious editing with a razor blade, you had *better* be at 100% when entering the studio. Bands in the old days were WAY better players in terms of their ability to interact musically with others than modern bands are - because they *had* to be. Don't get me wrong, modern bands interact just fine.

A good example of this is my last recording with Chakras - we came in to the studio, and recorded a couple of songs at a time. In each session, only the drums were "keepers", with a couple of exceptions. Everything else was overdubbed. There's a couple of tunes with other bands I've recorded, though, where everything was live - and it was awesome. Sometimes spontaneity is king.
Click to expand...
Yes, digital recording has made it easier to correct timing drift or fuckups by allowing us to edit and punch in without taking the whole thing again. Musicians don't necessarily have to be as tight (as long as they have the budget to pay for extra time), but I don't think that's necessarily making musicians "lazier", if that's what you're saying. A professional musician is always aware of their timing, and there have been metronomes forever. Music production has simply progressed with technology. Overdubbing is just how it's done now, because we can do it easily. It's all about layers and sound textures. Back in the analog days, everything was simpler in that regard.
 
Back
Top