The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

The forum for petitions, theoretical discussion, gripes, or other off topic discussion.

Moderator: James Steele

Forum rules
The forum for petitions, theoretical discussion, gripes, or other matters outside deemed outside the scope of helping users make optimal use of MOTU hardware and software. Posts in other forums may be moved here at the moderators discretion. No politics or religion!!
David Polich
Posts: 4839
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by David Polich »

In the latest issue of Sound On Sound, there is an interview with
French engineer Philippe Zdar who recently mixed the Beastie Boys' latest
album Hot Sauce Committee Part 2, in which Zdar proclaims, "finally,
and most importantly, digital doesn't only sound like ••••, it makes everything sound the same".

I thought this pathetic argument was over but apparently not. At any rate
I stopped reading the rest of the interview after that. I just can't give
credibility to these "analog elitists" anymore. Analog does not sound better,
it just sounds different.

Well anyway, to balance things, I read the interview with Trevor Horn (who produced Frankie Goes to Hollywood's "Relax") in the latest Music Tech magazine, where he waxes very enthusiastically about using
digital.
2019 Mac Pro 8-core, 128GB RAM, Mac OS Sonoma, MIDI Express 128, Apogee Duet 3, DP 11.32, , Waves, Slate , Izotope, UAD, Amplitube 5, Tonex, Spectrasonics, Native Instruments, Pianoteq, Soniccouture, Arturia, Amplesound, Acustica, Reason Objekt, Plasmonic, Vital, Cherry Audio, Toontrack, BFD, Yamaha Motif XF6, Yamaha Montage M6, Korg Kronos X61, Alesis Ion,Sequential Prophet 6, Sequential OB-6, Hammond XK5, Yamaha Disklavier MK 3 piano.
http://www.davepolich.com
User avatar
FMiguelez
Posts: 8266
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Body: Narco-México Soul/Heart: NYC

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by FMiguelez »

I haven't read it, but I know what you mean. Most people who talk like that is due to just baseless and completely unfounded snobbery.

Remember, they must justify paying all that money for those analog boxes, so it's pretty natural they "must feel" like that.

Me? I'm perfectly happy with my plug-ins and VIs and I wouldn't waste thousands of dollars for my music to sound what, 0.01% "better"?

Now, if you gave me a REAL orchestra... that's another thing! That I'd kill for!
Mac Mini Server i7 2.66 GHs/16 GB RAM / OSX 10.14 / DP 9.52
Tascam DM-24, MOTU Track 16, all Spectrasonics' stuff,
Vienna Instruments SUPER PACKAGE, Waves Mercury, slaved iMac and Mac Minis running VEP 7, etc.

---------------------------

"In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." ― Richard Feynman
User avatar
Phil O
Posts: 7346
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Scituate, MA

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by Phil O »

Actually, there may be something to it, but the "better" part has more to do with the engineer than the medium. I believe that the reason so many old school engineers like analog better is that they know the medium better. It's like a painter that has worked with oil all his life and now is working in water colors. He/she doesn't know the medium as well and therefore can't realize its full potential. Also, digital hasn't been around as long and people are still learning and developing techniques that make the most of the medium.

Techniques that worked so well in analog sometimes work well in digital and sometimes don't. I think the unwillingness to let go of some old techniques (and learn some new ones) is the reason why many analog engineers aren't producing great digital recordings. Just sayin.

Phil
DP 11.34. 2020 M1 Mac Mini [9,1] (16 Gig RAM), Mac Pro 3GHz 8 core [6,1] (16 Gig RAM), OS 15.3/11.6.2, Lynx Aurora (n) 8tb, MOTU 8pre-es, MOTU M6, MOTU 828, Apogee Rosetta 800, UAD-2 Satellite, a truckload of outboard gear and plug-ins, and a partridge in a pear tree.
David Polich
Posts: 4839
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by David Polich »

Phil O wrote:Actually, there may be something to it, but the "better" part has more to do with the engineer than the medium. I believe that the reason so many old school engineers like analog better is that they know the medium better. It's like a painter that has worked with oil all his life and now is working in water colors. He/she doesn't know the medium as well and therefore can't realize its full potential. Also, digital hasn't been around as long and people are still learning and developing techniques that make the most of the medium.

Techniques that worked so well in analog sometimes work well in digital and sometimes don't. I think the unwillingness to let go of some old techniques (and learn some new ones) is the reason why many analog engineers aren't producing great digital recordings. Just sayin.

Phil
+1000. Well said.
2019 Mac Pro 8-core, 128GB RAM, Mac OS Sonoma, MIDI Express 128, Apogee Duet 3, DP 11.32, , Waves, Slate , Izotope, UAD, Amplitube 5, Tonex, Spectrasonics, Native Instruments, Pianoteq, Soniccouture, Arturia, Amplesound, Acustica, Reason Objekt, Plasmonic, Vital, Cherry Audio, Toontrack, BFD, Yamaha Motif XF6, Yamaha Montage M6, Korg Kronos X61, Alesis Ion,Sequential Prophet 6, Sequential OB-6, Hammond XK5, Yamaha Disklavier MK 3 piano.
http://www.davepolich.com
User avatar
Timeline
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Fort Atkinson Hebron, Wisconsin...
Contact:

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by Timeline »

Old analog crap.... LOL

Well I'm an old schooler 42 years and I can put up a two track mix that blows away most of what I hear in digital and prove there was a better sound from those wacky 16 track locked up machines than what we have today. Further, we could VSO multitrack which eludes multitrack digital for some reason any time we wished. This was one of those generic production effects used my Geoff Emerick and Martin during the Beatles era of which we have lost site of I'm afraid. Why not put a knob on DP to do this? They can't?

I'm still mixing to 30ips 1/4" audio for my final mixes from digital for some of what I miss. My ATR 102 keeps my spirits up.

As for the flexibility of editing, everyone knows nothing can touch todays workstations so even a live 16 x 2 locked up must be transferred to properly have the best of both worlds I digress. Many of the major bands are doing it this way by cutting in the studio24track, although I like 16 better for noise and sound, Then transferring.

With the improvements in computers these days I use digital and all my projects sit at SR 88.2 -24bit. Sonically not bad but not as pleasing as the previous well aligned 16 track at 30ips with new tape. It's a human ear thing I think, tape saturation etc. and lets not forget the hassle of keeping it all going. Were all way to lazy to go back and too cheap to by the tape, arn't we?

Maybe there are better sounding IOs out there than my RME Firefaces that do a better job but as I look at the specs for headroom most are limited to +18. An analog machine's HR was always +27. So what's with that considering digital is spewing out at +8? I have to run my RME at -10 to keep things sounding correct, fortunately they have this feature, which brings me to + 28. If you have not tried this I would advise it. I was told by an engineer that to put current followers in todays IOs to increase the headroom would heat the damn things up so much they would be burning themselves out in no time and no MFGer wants that.

You younger guys who didn't grow up with analog just don't know.
2009 Intel 12 core 3.46, 64GB, OSX.10.14.6, Mojave, DP11, MTPAV, Key-station 49,(2) RME FF800,
DA-3000 DSF-5.6mhz, Mackie Control. Hofa DDP Pro, FB@ http://www.facebook.com/garybrandt2
funkyfreddy
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: upstate NY

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by funkyfreddy »

I couldn't care less what some ______ who works with the Beastie Boys says. I'll use my own ears, TYVM...... the same ears that tell me to turn the sound down/off when jive like the BB's crosses my path LOL :twisted: :roll:

More important to me than the digital/analog debate is the actual musical content..... something sorely lacking in most the BB's output IMHO. :shake:
MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2019) 2.3 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9 16 GB RAM OSX 12.7.1 Monterey
UAD Apollo Quad, some Waves, Soundtoys, Digital Performer 11.34, Reason 13, iZotope 11, and lots of real instruments to play.
User avatar
mhschmieder
Posts: 11405
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Annandale VA

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by mhschmieder »

It's funny how much attention is placed on the middle of the recording chain.

For MIDI-based projects, that makes sense, as that's all there is (except for monitoring).

Yet for non-electronic analog projects (i.e. acoustic projects and rock projects involving amps), there is still nothing that matters more than proper playing, tuning, and miking.

Go back to the late 1950's and you'll still find some of the best recorded material ever -- at least in the classical world. For example, the Cleveland Orchestra was renowned for finding the sweet spot for a couple of mics and getting an accurate reading of the orchestra that eluded more prestigious outfits like New York Philharmonic and Philadelphia Orchestra (who were on the same label and thus easier to compare the end result).

The Brits in particular were renowned for decades for their recording engineers -- especially the Decca label, and later EMI. There was supposedly some cross-pollination with the Cleveland sessions but I could find no evidence of that (or even the names of the engineers) on-line -- this comes strictly from vague memories while I was at Indiana University School of Music in the late 70's.

So yes, "analog" is "better" than "digital" in the sense that the microphone, the artist, and the engineer are "analog" and still make the biggest difference in the recording. :-)
Mac Studio 2025 14-Core Apple M4 Max (36 GB RAM), OSX 15.4.1, MOTU DP 11.34, SpectraLayers 11
RME Babyface Pro FS, Radial JDV Mk5, Hammond XK-4, Moog Voyager

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35
Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, Johnny Marr Jaguar, 57 LP, Danelectro 12
Eastman T486RB, T64/V, Ibanez PM2, D'angelico Deluxe SS Bari, EXL1
Guild Bari, 1512 12-string, M20, Martin OM28VTS, Larivee 0040MH
User avatar
James Steele
Site Administrator
Posts: 22792
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: San Diego, CA - U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by James Steele »

If "Yesterday" had been recorded with digital, it would still have been a hit.
JamesSteeleProject.com | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Mac Studio M1 Max, 64GB/2TB, macOS Sequoia 15.5 Public Beta 2, DP 11.34, MOTU 828es, MOTU 24Ai, MOTU MIDI Express XT, UAD-2 TB3 Satellite OCTO, Console 1 Mk2, Avid S3, NI Komplete Kontrol S88 Mk2, Red Type B, Millennia HV-3C, Warm Audio WA-2A, AudioScape 76F, Dean guitars, Marshall amps, etc., etc.!
User avatar
Timeline
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Fort Atkinson Hebron, Wisconsin...
Contact:

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by Timeline »

Nobody questions the relevance of the content and yes "Yesterday" would still be important but the points made on sound are more what I'm interested in. At CRC in Chicago they do what I do, mix to ATR and return it in mastering. Somebody cares it seems. I only know this because I'm meeting artists that are using CRC now that I've moved to So. Wisconsin. This company has survived the Napster Debacle and done well.

As for Rappers, they don't care and why should they. Anyone that will simply steal a loop instead of create one is not important to me.

I still think most forms of analog front ends like rare mics and pres as well as analog mix desks are here to stay because digital mix algorithms are soft IMO.
2009 Intel 12 core 3.46, 64GB, OSX.10.14.6, Mojave, DP11, MTPAV, Key-station 49,(2) RME FF800,
DA-3000 DSF-5.6mhz, Mackie Control. Hofa DDP Pro, FB@ http://www.facebook.com/garybrandt2
User avatar
Michael Canavan
Posts: 3855
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: seattle

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by Michael Canavan »

David Polich wrote:Analog does not sound better,
it just sounds different.
+infinity

I frequently layer analog hardware synths and digital soft synths in 90% of my music because it results in a sweet spot to me neither have alone, don't care if purists on either side of the fence think I'm a nutjob, if I like a sound, everyone else can blather all they want. :)
M2 Studio Ultra, RME Babyface FS, Slate Raven Mti2, NI SL88 MKII, Linnstrument, MPC Live II, Launchpad MK3. Hundreds of plug ins.
User avatar
Phil O
Posts: 7346
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Scituate, MA

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by Phil O »

Timeline wrote:You younger guys who didn't grow up with analog just don't know.
I'll be turning 60 in February, son. Respect your elders. :wink:

Phil
DP 11.34. 2020 M1 Mac Mini [9,1] (16 Gig RAM), Mac Pro 3GHz 8 core [6,1] (16 Gig RAM), OS 15.3/11.6.2, Lynx Aurora (n) 8tb, MOTU 8pre-es, MOTU M6, MOTU 828, Apogee Rosetta 800, UAD-2 Satellite, a truckload of outboard gear and plug-ins, and a partridge in a pear tree.
User avatar
mhschmieder
Posts: 11405
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Annandale VA

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by mhschmieder »

Yeah, analog+digital is the best of both worlds, and achieves what you say, which is the avoidance of the typical "stacking" problem that happens when filters or biases (such as tape bias) get compounded between multiple tracks during the mixing stages.
Mac Studio 2025 14-Core Apple M4 Max (36 GB RAM), OSX 15.4.1, MOTU DP 11.34, SpectraLayers 11
RME Babyface Pro FS, Radial JDV Mk5, Hammond XK-4, Moog Voyager

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35
Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, Johnny Marr Jaguar, 57 LP, Danelectro 12
Eastman T486RB, T64/V, Ibanez PM2, D'angelico Deluxe SS Bari, EXL1
Guild Bari, 1512 12-string, M20, Martin OM28VTS, Larivee 0040MH
User avatar
AnthonyS
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:21 am
Primary DAW OS: Unspecified

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by AnthonyS »

Analog was great. Just ask the chiropractors. Remember how heavy those boxes of 2" reels were? :P :P
MacBook Pro 15" 2G QuadCore i7,8G RAM, 20"Intel iMac 2.4Ghz , 4G RAM.OSX 10.8.3 on both, DP 7.24, MOTU 828MK3, AudioBox 1818, KRK Rokit 6G2, Omnisphere 1.5, Komplete 8, Amplitube 2&3, SampleTank, Sonik Synth2, SampleMoog, SampleTron, Ivory 2, Philharmonik, EWQL MOR, SC, SOG, SD2, Reason 6, Waves, McDSP, Slate Digital VCC, FGX, Sound Toys.
User avatar
twistedtom
Posts: 4415
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Between Portland and Mt. Hood Oregon.

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by twistedtom »

Digital reproduces what is recorded without distortion, if you like the sound of tape saturation distortion you can get a plug-in to make it. You can even add some hiss if you like.
Mac Pro 2.8G 8 core,16G ram, 500GB SSD, 2x2TB HD.s 3TB HD, Extn Backup HDs,Nvd 8800 & ATI 5770 video cards,DP8 on OS 10.6.8 and OS 10.8; MOTU 424PCIe, MOTU 2408; Micro express. Video editing deck on firewire, a bunch of plug-ins and VI's.Including; MX3 and M5-3. FCP, Adobe Production Bundle CS6. PCM88mx, some vintage synths linked by MIDI. Mackie 16-4 is my main mixers
, kelsey and Yamaha mixers, Rack of gear. Guitars, piano, PA and more stuff.
User avatar
Guitar Gaz
Posts: 1385
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:36 am
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: LONDON

Re: The old "analog is better than digital" crap again

Post by Guitar Gaz »

I am pretty much from the analog era - I worked at IBC in London in the early 70's as an engineer - it was 16 track tape etc. Tape compresses the sound in a pleasing way. But in the studio we would have loved to have had digital - no setting up of tape machines every session ("have you checked the azimuth?"), no machines breaking down, no breaking tape, nor dodgy nervous edits as you cut the tape with shaking hands and tried to stick it to the other bit which didn't quite match, no degredation in tape sound or oxide peeling off old tape masters, no tape hiss or Dolby messing with the sound.

If you listen to vinyl records from that era what you get is a pleasing dynamic without ear shattering screechy mids and top. Digital tends to be associated with massive compression, and massive amounts of EQ. But it doesn't have to be. That is not the fault of digital, that is the era of mp3 and radio broadcast and the musical styles of today. Analog sounds nice to many people - but you can get digital sounding nice too. Neither are more genuine than the other - having worked in studios I tend to treat audio buffs and hi-fi freaks with puzzlement - the sound on tape or digital isn't identical to what you hear with your ears in the studio, its coloured by all the parts of the chain.

Analog has a pleasing sound but you can get this with digital too. Its just most don't look to do that - with an analog project you are already mentally setting up a different soundmap in your head by using this medium (which let's be honest is at best fiddly). Digital has different qualities - and I think people use too much compression, too much EQ and side chains and multiband EQ etc. etc. for my taste - but that's not because it's digital. Its a mindset. Digital is great to use and can sound great. Its how you use it - and it may be true that many engineers don't have the training we used to have to know what a really good sound is. But its all about taste rather than fact.
Gary Shepherd
____________
Mac Mini M4 10 Core, 32 GB Ram, Sequoia 15.4, Studio Display,, Sequoia 15.4, 64 bit, Digital Performer 11.3, Studio One 7 Pro, Reason 11, Melodyne 5 Editor, Korg Legacy Wavestation and M1, Arturia minimoog V, Helix Native 3.72, Bias FX 2 Elite, Superior Drummer 3, EZkeys, EZbass, Nektar Panorama T4, Motu M4, Faderport 2018, Gibson Les Paul Standard, James Tyler Variax JTV-59 and other gear.
Post Reply