The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Does analog gear really sound "better", or is it just a learned response?
Old 18th May 2018
  #1
Gear Nut
 

Does analog gear really sound "better", or is it just a learned response?

I've been wondering for awhile why most of us prefer the sound of analog gear generally speaking. Yes, I know digital has come a long way, however much of the progress has been to make it sound more analog!

I've considered whether there is something innate in human biology that makes us prefer analog, or perhaps it's just because that's what we've been used to for so long.

Consider film- it has always played at 24 frames per second. This is apparently because at 24FPS it allowed a minimal amount of film to be used without us perceiving it as stuttering (thanks to persistence of vision). However, some newer films are recorded at 60FPS or with lenses that allow for a greater depth of field. Many people perceive this as less "movie like" or harsh.

I've noticed young people, who've grown up in the world of digital, are way more tolerant of what plenty of musicians would find offensive. I've even seen some younger people prefer digital sounding tracks and describe them as more "clear" or "real" while I would probably label them "harsh" or "sterile".

Do you think as tech changes we will move away to a more digital sound and come to prefer it? Or is there something intrinsically pleasing about the "analog sound" that will always be appealing to people as a whole?
Old 18th May 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 
imloggedin's Avatar
Depends on what analog gear you are talking about. So far EQ's and compressors are definitely better in the analog domain. Anyone who says differently must have bad monitoring. There I said it! Many people will disagree with me, but thats OK cause they are wrong.

Ask yourself what tools the pros use - who have access to every plugin they want. That will inform you way more than a forum.
Old 19th May 2018
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
KingsX's Avatar
 

I don't like the terms people throw around like "sterile" or "warm" or "fat" etc. I'm a huge proponent of both analog and digital, for different reasons. Most of what people consider as warm, is an underlying subtle noise, or perhaps a "rolling off" if you will, of higher end.

I, honestly, think that high resolution digital is better really. BUT, I consider analog to have, an almost "effect" that is hard to replicate in digital. People think digital is sterile, but I think that's because they're used to the "effect" of analog.

Of course, i'm really just speaking from my own experience, so...don't climb on top of me for this, I'm not a scientist.

I have a reel to reel and a (old considering) pro tools Mix system. I intermingle these things together because, A - I love playing with gear and experimenting, and B - it's just MORE tools for me to use.

But, to your question about "learned response"...maybe? There's something called confirmation bias...and it exists for not only political stand points, but opinions in both audio and video. It's funny...when you hear or read about people that just assume a picture is better because it was taken with 35mm. But, in a blind test, could an average person tell?
Old 19th May 2018
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Owen L T's Avatar
There is no biological imperative in preferring the frequency response curve and saturation of magnetic particle tape; rather, it's a combination of (i) each generation tends to prefer the music they grew up on, so changes in technology have accompanied the change in musical taste that takes place, without fail, with each changing of the guard; (ii) yeah, early DA conversion wasn't as good as it is today, but 95% of people listening on their car radio didn't notice, and didn't care. Case in point: Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms", recorded more than 30 years ago, was one of the first major releases that was stamped "DDD" (digitally recorded, mixed, and mastered). Their best selling album by far; the biggest selling CD by a long margin at that time; a certain generation of Brits to this day greatly prefer Making Movies, but it has nothing to do with the medium, and everything to do with the aesthetic.

(Remember also that there were plenty of those who opined that the introduction of sound in movies was a gimmick.)

So, cast one vote for: it's generational, not biological.
Old 19th May 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gears View Post
I've been wondering for awhile why most of us prefer the sound of analog gear generally speaking. Yes, I know digital has come a long way, however much of the progress has been to make it sound more analog!

I've considered whether there is something innate in human biology that makes us prefer analog, or perhaps it's just because that's what we've been used to for so long.

Consider film- it has always played at 24 frames per second. This is apparently because at 24FPS it allowed a minimal amount of film to be used without us perceiving it as stuttering (thanks to persistence of vision). However, some newer films are recorded at 60FPS or with lenses that allow for a greater depth of field. Many people perceive this as less "movie like" or harsh.

I've noticed young people, who've grown up in the world of digital, are way more tolerant of what plenty of musicians would find offensive. I've even seen some younger people prefer digital sounding tracks and describe them as more "clear" or "real" while I would probably label them "harsh" or "sterile".

Do you think as tech changes we will move away to a more digital sound and come to prefer it? Or is there something intrinsically pleasing about the "analog sound" that will always be appealing to people as a whole?
There's NO LOOKING BACK. We're in THE DIGITAL WORLD whether we like it or not. The few of us that are still into analog probably like other old things like shifting the car and not cooking by microwave.

Anyway, as for the human biology part, yes I think a 1940's crooner singing into an RCA 44 and recorded completely through tube gear has a pleasent effect. But when it's gone and wiped from history, it'll be as if it never happened.

Old 19th May 2018
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

What "sounds better" is subjective.

I also don't know of any empirical data suggesting people "prefer analog".

Ironic, the example of film:

People (the brain) will accept 24fps with zero dithering as "fluid motion", but for some reason 24 bit depth and 48,000 samples per second (more than twice the frequency any human can hear), a reconstruction filter with a low pass element and dither (noise) to round off those 48k "steps" resulting in an exact replica of the audio signal that went in coming out the other end (verifiable on any oscilloscope, digital or analog) - for some reason, all that engineering isn't "good enough".

Instead, we have to go back and make the case for a process where particles on a piece of plastic are arranged by magnetism to point in a certain direction, then decoded by scraping the plastic (and removing/rearranging those particles with each pass) with a "playback head" resulting in high noise floors, distortion, and overall lower fidelity (and even worse for vinyl) as the bee's knee's.

It's astounding to me, I can only imagine many people of my generation (in our 60's) have so little hearing left, they actually believe there's intrinsically better sound buried within all the noise, wow and flutter.

I bought my first CD player in 1987, and never looked back.

To each his own, however - so whatever floats your boat.
Old 19th May 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gears View Post
I've been wondering for awhile why most of us prefer the sound of analog gear generally speaking. Yes, I know digital has come a long way, however much of the progress has been to make it sound more analog!

I've considered whether there is something innate in human biology that makes us prefer analog, or perhaps it's just because that's what we've been used to for so long.

Consider film- it has always played at 24 frames per second. This is apparently because at 24FPS it allowed a minimal amount of film to be used without us perceiving it as stuttering (thanks to persistence of vision). However, some newer films are recorded at 60FPS or with lenses that allow for a greater depth of field. Many people perceive this as less "movie like" or harsh.

I've noticed young people, who've grown up in the world of digital, are way more tolerant of what plenty of musicians would find offensive. I've even seen some younger people prefer digital sounding tracks and describe them as more "clear" or "real" while I would probably label them "harsh" or "sterile".

Do you think as tech changes we will move away to a more digital sound and come to prefer it? Or is there something intrinsically pleasing about the "analog sound" that will always be appealing to people as a whole?
most digital converters sound harsh because the analog opamps in them suck

Also you can't really use film as an analogy since sight and hearing are not comparable. This is a really complex topic which requires a background in physics, Neurology as well as anatomy. You are going to have a tough time getting some random people on a message board to have any in depth experience with any of these topics, simply because no expert in either field is going to be an audio engineer. Even if someone were an expert, the content to explain it it would fill a book.
Old 19th May 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

I remember back around 2000 having a conversation with an audiophile engineer friend of mine about digital vs analogue. At the time I was setting up my first digital system and was very taken with with wealth of options and effects my new digital program had. It certainly would allow me to do things at home that I could only have done in a dedicated studio before. So I explained my position how this new digital revolution was a real boom for those recording. My friend replied that he couldn't fault the ease and general results that were coming out but as good as it all was we lived in an analogue world. But the odd thing about digital is that when we actually hear what the 1's and 0's have produced it is back in the analogue realm and it is every bit as analogue as the analogue devices that came before it.
Old 19th May 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
"People (the brain) will accept 24fps with zero dithering as "fluid motion", but for some reason 24 bit depth and 48,000 samples per second (more than twice the frequency any human can hear), a reconstruction filter with a low pass element and dither (noise) to round off those 48k "steps" resulting in an exact replica of the audio signal that went in coming out the other end (verifiable on any oscilloscope, digital or analog) - for some reason, all that engineering isn't "good enough"."

The eye is much easier to fool than the ear. Harmonics man. There are no harmonics with light. One can go in a create a digital picture of anything pixel by pixel and fool the human eye. Not true with a human ear. We can still tell a real orchestra from one made of synths. If we care or not is another matter. The best delivery methods is yet another matter too.

Good movies use very good camera lens, and orchestra's are recorded with really good mic's. Quality results are created with quality capture. How things are delivered is another matter once compiled (visual or sound). Mixing is where the bar is moving. Yes new unique tools are available in the digital world and should be taken advantage of. But the basics like compression and EQ still sound better in the analog word to me.
Old 19th May 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
The eye is much easier to fool than the ear. Harmonics man. There are no harmonics with light. One can go in a create a digital picture of anything pixel by pixel and fool the human eye. Not true with a human ear. We can still tell a real orchestra from one made of synths. If we care or not is another matter. The best delivery methods is yet another matter too..
producing a digitally generated orchestra would need to be done in real-time and consumer based computers are not fast enough (yet), just like You can't raytrace a convincing image in real-time either, never-mind a sequence of them for realtime video. You could model a convincing digitally generated orchestra but no one is going to want to wait for it to process. It would take days much like it takes for a convincing ray-traced image/animations.
Old 19th May 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post

The eye is much easier to fool than the ear. Harmonics man. There are no harmonics with light. One can go in a create a digital picture of anything pixel by pixel and fool the human eye. Not true with a human ear. We can still tell a real orchestra from one made of synths. If we care or not is another matter. The best delivery methods is yet another matter too.
That's a false analogy, we're not comparing sampled instruments against real ones, we're comparing an orchestral performance recorded to analog tape vs to a digital format. Would you be able to tell the difference? With regards to the raw sound, or "file", that's debatable, but what isn't debatable is the digital file can be made to sound like the analog file (by adding harmonics), but the inverse isn't true - the analog can never be made to attain the fidelity of the digital capture.

In the film world, HD (high definition) capture can be made to look like film ( we call it 'film look'), but the inverse is a capture to film can never look as clean as a digital capture.

That's not subjective, that's objective fact.

Fooling the eyes vs fooling the ears? I think we fool the ears plenty; there's thread elsewhere running concurrently with this one which shows a test where some people hear the word "Laurel" as "Yanny", and IMO, no one should ever have to hear Yanni.

In summation: objectively speaking, digital has the highest fidelity (and I'd argue, no identifiable sound), but subjectively, you might like the (lower fidelity) sound of analog better.
Old 19th May 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
But the odd thing about digital is that when we actually hear what the 1's and 0's have produced it is back in the analogue realm and it is every bit as analogue as the analogue devices that came before it.
Exactly - on an oscilloscope, a sine wave going in >sampled> reconstructed, is a sine wave coming out.

In short, it sounds like whatever you've recorded.
Old 19th May 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
It can be a bit Apples to Oranges. Do digital emulations of analog gear sound as good? Not to me. That they sound different at all tells me there is something imperfect in the process. But there is some processing that is done better by digital and is quite, advantageously transparent (within a digital environment). What seems clear is that both technologies dont excel at the same things.

What that means is there are two seperate issues at play:
1. Does the absence of digital conversion or processing equal a more pleasing sound l?
2. Does the presence of analog distortion equal a more pleasing sound?


To the first point, my external point of reference has been DSD and very high sample rate PCM (384 and 192khz). Both of these are digital, but sound closer to what I like about analog. It sounds more natural to me, but is because some flaw or coloration that emulates analog is being added? Compared to a live source, these formats sound more transparent, rather than less, and dont add noticable harmonic distortion, compression, frequency rolled, or tape artifacts.

That leads me to believe that what sounds more natural and realistic, actually is, and often "cold" or "clinical" sound is also a distortion of reality. Things sound unnatural or unrealistic, because they are, not because we crave distortion.

So in really loose terms, the answer to the first question seems to be yes: the absence of digital conversion or processing artifacts tends to equal a more pleasing sound.

To the second question: You can make a case that stuff like tape compression, harmonic distortion, roll off, etc. are things we are habituated to. On the other hand, harmonic distortion enhances detail, compression and rolloff reduce sharp peaks and sibilance. We might just like them because they are easy on the ears. I would lean towards the later, the type of inefficient transmission of some analog equipment makes audio easier to listen to.

In either case, the answer to the second question tends to be yes as well, although it is also a matter of taste. However, when people talk about "analog" sound they aren't usually talking about class AB clipping and nonlinear distortion that cheap analog systems have.
Old 19th May 2018
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gears View Post
I've been wondering for awhile why most of us prefer the sound of analog gear generally speaking. Yes, I know digital has come a long way, however much of the progress has been to make it sound more analog!

I've considered whether there is something innate in human biology that makes us prefer analog, or perhaps it's just because that's what we've been used to for so long.

Consider film- it has always played at 24 frames per second. This is apparently because at 24FPS it allowed a minimal amount of film to be used without us perceiving it as stuttering (thanks to persistence of vision). However, some newer films are recorded at 60FPS or with lenses that allow for a greater depth of field. Many people perceive this as less "movie like" or harsh.

I've noticed young people, who've grown up in the world of digital, are way more tolerant of what plenty of musicians would find offensive. I've even seen some younger people prefer digital sounding tracks and describe them as more "clear" or "real" while I would probably label them "harsh" or "sterile".

Do you think as tech changes we will move away to a more digital sound and come to prefer it? Or is there something intrinsically pleasing about the "analog sound" that will always be appealing to people as a whole?
A tool is a tool is a tool. Can you believe that when SSL first came out everyone hated them and said they sounded "sterile" and the EQs sounded "crunchy" compared to other consoles of the time?!?! But, the automation systems on them were great and function outweighed fidelity...

Just because something is analog does not make it good. just because something is digital does not make it bad.

Case in point... albums from the mid 80's onward have been using DIGITAL reverb with GREAT success. The sought after Lexicon 480L, 300L, etc are all "digital" reverbs as were a lot of the delays. The Eventide H910 Harmonizer and subsequent H3000, H4500, etc are all "digital" delays. The Synclavier, which was used on most hits in the 80's and early 90's, was a "digital" synthesizer.

Does that mean all those albums that used 480Ls and H3000s and Synclaviers are crap because the gear they used was "digital"? Nope.

I also remember a lot of crappy analog gear too. Anyone remember Teac and Realistic from the 80's and 90's? Anyone remember the Tascam Porta Studios? They were "analog" but they sounded like crap. But how could they sound like crap if they were analog?!?!?! Analog is supposed to sound great, right?!?!

It doesn't matter. There is really only two types of gear... good gear and bad gear. It comes in all shapes, sizes, flavors and varieties.

It's not that a piece of gear is analog that makes it sound good... it's that it is good and/or is well designed that makes it sound good.

changes in the tools also create changes in the music, ultimately creating new genres of music. Do you think something like Tropical House or Dubstep would have been possible to do back in 1969 with "analog" synthesizers like Moog or Arp?

At the end of the day, everything is just a tool to help you (or your client) create what you hear in your head and turn it into a reality for others to hear. Analog vs Digital is really a moot point and seems to be spurred on by two factors... first and foremost by marketing efforts by the manufacturers making the gear... and second by people using the gear outside of its normal operating range either knowingly or unknowingly.

Anyone remember the when "distorted" guitar first started to become a thing? People were pushing the volume of the guitar amp past it's normal operating range and the output started to distort. At the time most people who had been listening to a lot of guitar heavy jazz (like Les Paul's or Wes Montgomery) hated the sound and thought it sounded terrible. But... younger people liked it and started experimenting with it more... and more... and more... and then whole new genres of music were born out of it. Can you imagine what Dimebag or Mustaine or Eddie Van Halen would have sounded like if all they had were Gibson ES-175s or L5s and a Fender Champ?

Anyway... I say embrace the change, embrace the new innovations in gear and see where it takes you musically. While it will definitely sound different... "good" vs "bad" is in the ears of the listener and is very subjective.
Old 19th May 2018
  #15
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
I'm not aware of any "digital" piece of audio gear that is purely digital. Everything thing has an analog front end and analog back end. And the better the analog components and circuit design, the better the sound.

If it weren't for analog we would hear nothing.
Old 19th May 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
A tool is a tool is a tool. Can you believe that when SSL first came out everyone hated them and said they sounded "sterile" and the EQs sounded "crunchy" compared to other consoles of the time?!?!
I can believe it, SSL are pretty cheap sounding consoles. The new ones are much worse than the old E series desks too. When you consider even the average home studio guy is tracking with API and Neve pres now, even the novice can listen to albums tracked on SSL and realize something is missing and lacking girth. The eq and line amps are counter to what most people are tracking with. With the power of the DAW it's mind boggling that any studio bother to maintain those clunky consoles. They do look cool as hell with the control room lights dimmed and the lava lamp off in the distance.
Old 19th May 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post

If it weren't for analog we would hear nothing.
We need to connect the box directly to our brains and bypass the archaic and lofi ears for the ultimate in clarity and pure sound!
Old 19th May 2018
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
there's thread elsewhere running concurrently with this one which shows a test where some people hear the word "Laurel" as "Yanny"
I heard donut.
Old 19th May 2018
  #19
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gears View Post
I've been wondering for awhile why most of us prefer the sound of analog gear
'most of us'? And how do you know that? From reading Gearslutz?
Go hang out with some classical musicians or jazzers. The biggest problem with your question - and no doubt the next 100 pages of raging bulls#!t this thread will generate - is the implicit and unwarranted assumption that "everybody" prefers analog, just because you and your friends do.

The weak qualifier "generally speaking" does not let you off the hook. You are still making a 'general' assumption that is narrow and parochial. After all, the audio boards host threads of people running their audio through cassette decks to get that "tape mojo" It is not the whole world. Your sample size is too small. Unless you can prove your contention (and I would say that would require you to survey isolated natives deep in the rainforests, as well as city-dwelling internet-using rockers) The only meaningful question you can ask is: why do YOU prefer it?

Quote:
I've considered whether there is something innate in human biology that makes us prefer analog,
Yet isn't it odd that the people who play classical music - the people who spend all day listening to music that comes off of real unamplified acoustic instruments in a real space overwhelmingly prefer digital?? Are these people deaf? Are they inferior musicians? Are they idiots ? Perhaps the people who spend all day listening to music that comes out of a speaker - like electric guitars - seem to prefer analog. But are they the only musicians whose "human biology" counts?

My classical clients get pissed off if I even add a little compression. They want to hear every last dB of dynamic range. Imagine gain riding a classical song (which, because of the hiss, is what people often did before digital). Then again, imagine making a rock record with zero compression, zero saturation. It's style, fashion, taste.

Innate? How can that be? Unless the same DNA that makes them like classical music warps their hearing as well? Freaks of nature. The poor dears. Is there an innate preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate? I think there is, because I sure prefer vanilla.


Quote:
I've noticed young people, who've grown up in the world of digital, are way more tolerant of what plenty of musicians would find offensive.
There you go again! What musicians? All musicians? Certainly not classical musicians. Not most jazz players that I have worked with. And I have worked with a lot. Not even plenty of folk, ethnic, bluegrass and rock players in the modern era. I have also met a lot of people who don't give a rat's ass one way or the other.

"Tolerant" is a pretty loaded word as well. . One might tolerate an abusive relationship, or his neighbor's drum practicing or a powerful antibiotic. The choice of that word presumes that there is something inherently "wrong" with music that sounds clear! I guess these 21st-century mutant children have evolved an "immunity" to it.

Quote:
I've even seen some younger people prefer digital sounding tracks and describe them as more "clear" or "real" while I would probably label them "harsh" or "sterile".
Even prefer it? Must be brain damage from too much cell phone radiation.
Old 19th May 2018
  #20
Gear Addict
 
Wolf LeProducer's Avatar
 

If I've said it before, I've said it a thousand times. Analog really sounds better. RIP Analog. Nobody gives a damn.


I love, love, love, love, love my Marshall Tube Amp. haven't turned it on in years!!!!!!!!!!!! But I am happy I have it. it is the most gigantic paper-weight you ever did see.


You know what the worst paper weight in the world is? Guitar Rig. It is the world's most crappy paper-weight. But it gets a lot more use than my analog amp.



Old 19th May 2018
  #21
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

I'd really love to argue this as well! So 42.
Old 19th May 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

HD Vinyl will surely put this argument to bed once and for all?
Old 19th May 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 
mikeyman's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=Wolf LeProducer;13325330]If I've said it before, I've said it a thousand times. Analog really sounds better. RIP Analog. Nobody gives a damn.


I love, love, love, love, love my Marshall Tube Amp. haven't turned it on in years!!!!!!!!!!!! But I am happy I have it. it is the most gigantic paper-weight you ever did see.


You know what the worst paper weight in the world is? Guitar Rig. It is the world's most crappy paper-weight. But it gets a lot more use than my analog amp.

why don't you mic that amp up and blend the signal with your stuff ITB..i heard of some top guys doing it
Old 19th May 2018
  #24
Gear Addict
 
Sudad G's Avatar
After many years in music production I can't say anymore wether analog is better than digital. In my opinion it really depends what you want to do.
Our DAWs are 100% digital and I don't want to return to analog tape machines again for a whole production. Digital technologies offered us the sampling technology, HD recording, great reverbs and unlimited signal routing possibilities. Think on Lexicons 224 or 480 or the newer Bricasti M7. How would you create this sound with analog compounds?
On the other hand I remarked that a synth bass from a real moog synth has a wider frequency range than any plugin or digital synth. You can play this synth in very low octave ranges and you still hear the tone you play.
So the combination of both technologies is the key and the best solution for me. I would use both in my productions.
Old 19th May 2018
  #25
Lives for gear
 
mikeyman's Avatar
 

i have been checking out some video;s online and some real top guys in big studios are using plugins in certain spots so i think a blend of analog outboard gear and plugins is a good thing
Old 19th May 2018
  #26
Plugins can come close but theres a difference, sound wise analog is better. I always track through outboard compression now because of this. I think you can pull off mixing 100% digital though. To me, an ideal modern scenario is: track through your mics, outboard preamps, outboard comps, maybe outboard eq (if necessary) into you computer via a high quality a/d converter. Now your music is digital with all the analog flavor you need. Then you can mix 100% digital (and it will still sound great), or go hybrid using analog / digital to finish the mix.
Old 19th May 2018
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
I thought it was a given that it was the characteristics of an analogue signal path that we liked, ie harmonic distortion of preamps and consoles plus the top end roll off and low freq bump of tape.
That sound is pleasing, which is why UAD and others go to great lengths to recreate it.
But it's an aesthetic, not an indicator of fidelity or general quality.

Seems the preference for analogue as a quality statement in general is mainly amongst the die-hards/sentimentals and the slightly misguided hipster types.
That is a generalisation in itself, so apologies in advance

I've been practising mixing a track and had a C1 SSL 4000E strip on every channel, but for a couple of tracks just turning it off gave me that bit extra clarity I wanted for those sounds.
Digital gives us a pristine canvas that we can sculpt into an analogue or digital aesthetic, or a combination of the two.
If I'm striving for a rich analogue sound though, and I've got a UAD Massive Passive and a 33609 on the mixbus, why wouldn't I want the hardware on there instead?
The software is just trying to mimic the unit that already does it perfectly.
But do I need all my processing to be analogue? No.
Do I want to be always having to mix into a recording medium that will saturate and compress?
No.
Old 19th May 2018
  #28
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gears View Post
Do you think as tech changes we will move away to a more digital sound and come to prefer it? Or is there something intrinsically pleasing about the "analog sound" that will always be appealing to people as a whole?
"people", generally speaking, as in 'normal' people who don't frequent GS or aren't part of the audiophile lunatic fringe, etc, couldn't give a flying F about such things.

Really, they couldn't care less...people have other worries and concerns than insipid analog/digital diatribes or concerns.

That said, just use what you want to use (which at the moment for most is a combination of the two), and leave it at that. Use your ears, noggin and heart, and the rest will follow.

In the end it's the dish that matters, not what cutlery or cookware is used.
Old 19th May 2018
  #29
Gear Maniac
 

To me, it's not analog vs digital, it's pleasant vs un-pleasant. I've heard plenty of un-pleasant all analog recordings (as you all have), and plenty of pleasant (mostly) digital recordings.

So the real question is: what is good sound?
Old 19th May 2018
  #30
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangolin View Post
So the real question is: what is good sound?
When this guy says so:
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump