Analog or digital? Top 10 list for digital

[RainbowStorm]

There are a number of things I think makes the choice easy. Here is my top 10 list of why I choose digital over analog.

10. (least important) Having to deal with old stuff when it stops working, sucks
9. Digital is a lot more simple to handle than analog
8. Digital is a lot more versatile
7. Digital can be made more intelligent
6. The cleaner digital high-end can be negatively compensated by using for instance ribbon microphones
5. Digital is operating with higher quality
4. Digital is more modern, it is becoming more and more popular every day, the fact that everybody are talking the same language is a plus
3. Digital is more scalable and future friendly
2. Digital is cheaper, overall
1. (most important) Digital sounds better than analog (when discussing the quality of the latest digital gear). In a blind test I recently did I selected digital over analog. The analog version sounded old, but not more beautiful. I like a crisp sound, not an old sound.

Digital is actually just a lot more reveiling, that's all. I think the reason why many still find analog superior sounding is that they are used to implement extreme signal processing through a lot of noisy analog stages. In such cases the more prominent digital high-end will be perceived as harsher, especially when using samples + compressing the mix bus + encoding the sound to mp3 format. Then the sound will lose its "old charm", but that charm can be easily recalled by capturing the sound of vintage instruments with ribbon microphones. As soon as you have the phase and latency in check, everything will just sound great. AND it will FEEL modern too! thumbsup

[bcgood]

Man I don't know what to tell you brother. Not all analogue is equal that's for sure, your test may be flawed. I listened to Steely on a high end audiophile vinyl system the other day and thought I went to sonic Nirvana. I've been in the highest end digital studios that you can imagine and that analogue Steely Dan recording I heard had a sound stage, depth and vocal clarity that the digital studios I've been in haven't even come close to. I honestly think that high end analogue is about as high resolution as you can get. I know, I know the test specs and sheets may show you one thing and digital looks great on paper but my ears tell me a different story...

[vernier]

It's like pan-frying or grill ..different ways to cook, thats all.

[A LaMere]

Originally Posted by vernier

It's like pan-frying or grill ..different ways to cook, thats all.

Yep...

and luckily... I generally like eating. (and recording)

[kats]

Digital is actually just a lot more reveiling, that's all. I think the reason why many still find analog superior sounding is that they are used to implement extreme signal processing through a lot of noisy analog stages. In such cases the more prominent digital high-end will be perceived as harsher, especially when using samples + compressing the mix bus + encoding the sound to mp3 format. Then the sound will lose its "old charm", but that charm can be easily recalled by capturing the sound of vintage instruments with ribbon microphones. As soon as you have the phase and latency in check, everything will just sound great. AND it will FEEL modern too!

My favorite line is this one:

"but that charm can be easily recalled by capturing the sound of vintage instruments with ribbon microphones."

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Man I don't know what to tell you brother. Not all analogue is equal that's for sure, your test may be flawed. I listened to Steely on a high end audiophile vinyl system the other day and thought I went to sonic Nirvana. I've been in the highest end digital studios that you can imagine and that analogue Steely Dan recording I heard had a sound stage, depth and vocal clarity that the digital studios I've been in haven't even come close to. I honestly think that high end analogue is about as high resolution as you can get. I know, I know the test specs and sheets may show you one thing and digital looks great on paper but my ears tell me a different story...

yes

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by RainbowStorm

10. (least important) Having to deal with old stuff when it stops working, sucks
9. Digital is a lot more simple to handle than analog
8. Digital is a lot more versatile
7. Digital can be made more intelligent
6. The cleaner digital high-end can be negatively compensated by using for instance ribbon microphones
5. Digital is operating with higher quality
4. Digital is more modern, it is becoming more and more popular every day, the fact that everybody are talking the same language is a plus
3. Digital is more scalable and future friendly
2. Digital is cheaper, overall
1. (most important) Digital sounds better than analog (when discussing the quality of the latest digital gear). In a blind test I recently did I selected digital over analog. The analog version sounded old, but not more beautiful. I like a crisp sound, not an old sound.

Yay,the start yet of another well informed thread






..

[B-Muzik]

the only reason ppl went to digital anyway is cuz its easier...why do u think DJs primarily use vinyl...cuz its sounds better the louder u push it which is opposite to digital...the prollem is analog costs WAY more but it should cuz it sounds better...Its just digital is easier to work with and u can still get a decent sound so ppl use it...but dont fool yourself and think digital sounds better EVER!

[Clueless]

I really, really, really want to buy a digital control surface, so let me make the case for analog. So bad I went to Nashville for a few days to see what people really thought (not just on this list).

1. Every big-time engineer knows what to do, and what to expect, when they sit in front of a big-time analog console, especially an SSL 9000 E/G/J/K. I was just in Nashville this week, and one thing that everybody agreed upon (except George Massenburg, who does NOT) is that analog has the sound that digital cannot match. (The argument on the other side is "different does not mean worse--it's a matter of preference". And, truth be told, I do prefer the cleaner sound of digital, but I'm in the overwhelming minority--see point #2.)

2. In Nashville, 98% of hit records are made with an analog console, whereas 98% of demos are made with digital. If you mix digitally, it will sound like a demo, EVEN IF THE SOUND QUALITY IS MORE MEASURABLY ACCURATE. (Unless the mix credits include George Massenburg.)

3. For tracking I heard from one 8-time grammy winner explain "you don't want to be building the console when you're trying to get the band set up". He claims that the consistency of an analog board is critical to an engineer's ability to read, respond, and react to whatever's happening when the mics or the wires aren't right. Digital boards (like D-control or C300) are so flexible that one really can create completely custom work surfaces that work for one engineer, but completely disorient others, and can even disorient the one when switching from project to project.

4. Compression and EQ of a live signal sounds different than the same compression and EQ of a digital return. (There's a thread on this that was started today or yesterday.) Since digital is supposed to be the same, and since it doesn't sound the same when you re-process it, there clearly is some sonic difference (perhaps due also to gain staging?) and thus an influence/interference as to how people use the EQ and compression tools when tracking (true analog) vs. mixing (digital).

5. For mixing, there seems to be some benefit to having a signal that does through D/A, into the console, through the channel strips, possibly sent through tweaky outboard gear, and then summed to an analog bus before returning to the A/D conversion, rather than a signal that stays in the box and is only monitored, perhaps because doing the D/A at different points in the digital mixing path provides such different references that it's impossible to turn the correct knob in the correct direction. In other words, when you switch from sum to solo on an analog board, you really hear exactly what's going into the mix bus, but when you switch from sum to solo on a digital mix, you switch from putting a D/A on the mix bus to putting it on the solo'd signal, and perhaps that's providing the "wrong" information.

6. Big analog consoles are lovely (if hot to the touch). Dedicated circuits on every chanel invite one to do what the music requires, and the tons of metal give the client confidence that you have the serious tools to do serious business. The AWS 900 is not a big analog console. The Duality barely is. The 9000 definitely is. After visiting numerous studios with big analog consoles, the (silver) ICONs look feminine.

7. Analog consoles force one to commit to choices, which makes for decisive mixes. A mix that could be anything may become nothing with too many options left open for too long.

8. Modern consoles like the SSL Duality have greatly reduced power requirements, to the point where most of the power is feeding preamps that really cannot be eliminated from the digital tracking scenario.

9. Analog consoles have tons of IO. If you want to integrate with existing outboard gear, the analog console provides the ins and outs for just about everything without extra conversions or the expense of extra converters. A console like the 48 channel Duality has 48 channel inputs, 48 monitor inputs, 48 channel returns, 48 key inputs, and that's on top of aux returns, mix returns, etc. It also has 48 channel sends, 48 channel outs, 24 aux busses, and that's before all the monitoring, main mix busses, etc. To configure a digital system that has all these IO points is huge.

10. I can't think of a 10th right now. If I do, I'll edit the message.

[a1studmuffin]

All I have to say on the matter - the entire world doesn't migrate to a new technology because it's inferior, do they? :D

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by a1studmuffin

All I have to say on the matter - the entire world doesn't migrate to a new technology because it's inferior, do they? :D

The entire world?according to who?
Migrate?more like force fed.
Just like CD technology in the eighties.
Digital is perceived as more practical .easier to market and shove down peoples throats..doesn't mean it sounds better.
when was the last time you tracked to a great 2 inch machine and mixed to tape?
how many kids walk into guitar center and have a real analog reference to compare to?
Not many I bet.
Most guys think they know the sound of a Neve Eq because they heard/bought the bad emulation someone marketed as being the same as the real deal

[A LaMere]

Originally Posted by a1studmuffin

All I have to say on the matter - the entire world doesn't migrate to a new technology because it's inferior, do they? :D

hahah... Well. Actually,... yes... they obviously will imo.

It's pretty much happened with every 13-19 yr old kid that I know... Many of them own 2 or 3 actual cd's from bands but have ipods full of mp3's/hundreds of records... most of the time... you can't even purchase an mp3 above 128 kbps.

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by RoundBadge

Yay,the start yet of another well informed thread






..

That's what I thought too.

I just can't understand the drive to make blanket statements like the OP's top ten list- I can take issue with every point. I was going to concede that digital is cheaper, but if it takes me longer to get the same results with digital then that to me would make it more expensive than analog in the long run since deadlines are always looming over everything.

If he had written the same list about "analog" instead of "digital" (as someone might make the exact same arguments for analog's superiority) I would also think that he was just as wrong.

Digital can be clean, or it can be dirty. Digital can be cheap, or it can be expensive. The same goes for analog. It can be clean, or dirty, cheap or expensive; more, or less versatile- it all depends.

So here's my list:

10. It depends
9. It depends
8. It depends
7, 6, 5... etc.

As it is I wouldn't want to work without either digital or analog, so my choice is both... or if I'm freelancing, whatever the studio has for me to work with.

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by robot gigante

10. It depends
9. It depends
8. It depends
7, 6, 5... etc.

As it is I wouldn't want to work without either digital or analog, so my choice is both... or if I'm freelancing, whatever the studio has for me to work with.

thumbsup

..

[Slipperman]

Who has TIME for this nonsense?

No really...

The number of persons attempting to make the "illusion precede the reality" on these AE boards appears to be growing exponentially.

Used to be a little discouraging. Now it's actually getting hysterically funny.

Matters not.

Every joker on these board will be dead and gone before we know what hit us.

I don't care if yer 20 or 70. I assure you... It'll come sooner than you think.

In the meantime:

Have fun. Make music.

Try to make something great with whatchagot.

Just a suggestion.


Best regards,

SM.

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by slipperman

Every joker on these board will be dead and gone before we know what hit us.

I don't care if yer 20 or 70. I assure you... It'll come sooner than you think.

Yippee!!